"There are two interpretations of Dean's transformation"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Hello! Opposition Researchers! Here's a paragraph from a David Broder column dated June 30, 2002:

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement. And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism." (Emphasis added.)

The "he" in question was Gov. Howard Dean, who is now on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination by virtue of his angry opposition to the war in Iraq. But Dean wasn't showing much of that anger at the end of June, 2002. In fact, Broder's piece chides Dean for failing to pay sufficient heed to the anti-war sentiments then cropping up on the Democratic left. (At the time, Dean's big anti-Bush issues were health insurance and tax cuts).

There are two interpretations of Dean's transformation from a candidate who said Bush was doing "a good job on the war on terrorism" to the Howard Dean most voters think they know today. One, presented forcefully in Monday's Robert Kagan WaPo op-ed, is that Dean sincerely supported the overall war on terror but thought the Iraq invasion was a misstep, the "wrong war at the wrong time." In June 30, 2002, after all, the military strike against Hussein was more than half a year away.

But there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean shifted to a strong anti-war position not because of Bush's Iraq actions, but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go. In June 30, 2002, after all, it wasn't very hard to see the Iraq conflict looming on the horizon. President Bush had already included Iraq in his "axis of evil." Vice-President Cheney had toured the Middle East to drum up support for an effort to topple Saddam.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291/

Dean, cynically adopt a stance merely to win votes? Could that be possible?

[Northwind]

1. Of course!

Just like Kerry et al with the IWR vote. Cynically adopting a stance on order to get votes is what politicians DO.

Dean's plan is working, and that's what counts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. The bigger the lie, the better?

As long as it actually deceives people, of course.

[Northwind]

21. Can one classify the "size" of a lie?

And even if you could, who cares?

All that counts is how effective it is. Kerry's endless parade of lies aren't working for him. He should try something new.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Ask Goebbels.

[helleborient]

24. Ask John Kerry...

The lie that voting for IWR was not political expediency...is the biggest one in this campaign, in my opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Ask Howard Dean

The lie that his is a principled opposition to Bush's war is the biggest one in this campaign, in my opinion.


While you are at it, why don't you ask him what was so admirable about Bush's handling 'War on Terror' in June, 2002?
Why did Dean think "he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."?
What was good about it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. June, 2002.

Pre-Iraq war. Pre- return of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pre- removal of forces from Afghanistan, in order to ship them to Iraq. At that point in time, Chimp had seemed to secure cooperation from a lot of countries regarding fighting terrorism through banking and military means. This was barely 9 months after 9-11.

The initiative was lost in the build-up to Iraq, as well as the invasion. Something you should know a lot about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. Yep. June 2002 is when Dean fully supported Bush.

Why? Bush had totally screwed up every step of the way. Just what was it that Dean thought was so good about Bush's conduct of the war?

I know your impulse is going to be to ignore that question so:

Just what was it that Dean thought was so good about Bush's conduct of the war?



And, do you agree with him? Did you agree with Bush in June 2002? I didn't.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. Fully supported Bush on Afghanistan.

Please forgive my error of omission.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. Let's make a deal.

I'll agree that Dean "fully supported" Bush on Afghanistan.

You agree that Kerry "fully supported" Bush on Iraq.

Deal?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. Let's make a deal.

If you can find a statement where Kerry said he thought Bush did a good job on Iraq,

like this statement from Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

if you can show were Kerry made such a statement, then I'll go along with your deal.




Or are you saying Dean wasn't talking about Afghanistan? What then?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

110. Here's one for starters:

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

And Mr. Secretary(Colin Powell), I join my colleagues in thanking you for your presentation yesterday(bogus UN "evidence" presentation), for its quality and its content. I think that we are all gratified that the administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world.


I don't want to go into the -- I think the case you made yesterday speaks for itself. For those who look for a smoking gun, there is really a kind of smoking gun -- I mean, it doesn't have to be the gun itself that is smoking. It can be evidence which makes clear the effort to move the gun around before it's actually smoking, and I think you made a very powerful case with respect to that, and that is important.

The smoking gun line is my all-time Kerry favorite. Lol.

http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/wwwhwashnews130.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. Exactly you can't find such a quote because it doesn't exist.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. What in God's name are you talking about?

He says that Powell made the case for war with his UN show-and-tell.(I can say with a certainty that most here at DU thought CP's case was a fraud. Didn't you?)

He say's that CP has shown "a kind of smoking gun." :wtf:

He's saying that the Bush administration had made it's case for war with the Powelll presentation. This is essentially saying that Bush is/was right to go to war. Iow, "Bush had it right on Iraq. Powell has proven it, when he was at the UN."


How can you possibly read those statements any other way?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

126. "What in God's name are you talking about?"

The quotes you provided mean what they say, not the meaning you give them.

Keep spinning; it's one way to keep the thread bumped. :)


These quotes also mean what they say. No complicated 'explanation' is necessary. Anyone can just read and understand for themselves what is being said:

Dean, June 30, 2002

"I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28

Kerry, June 23, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Osama bin Laden: Do you believe the war in Afghanistan has been a military success?

SEN. KERRY: Only partly, Tim. I think that our troops did a superb job on the ground. I think those guys who went in in the dead of night, joined up with Hamid Karzai and with the warlords in the north, did a superb job of soldiering. They showed initiative, courage and they really helped to topple the Taliban and move the process forward. But the Taliban are not the target. They were a collateral target. The target is and always has been al-Qaeda.

And al-Qaeda, a thousand strong, was gathered in one single mountain area, Tora Bora, and we turned to Afghans, who a week earlier had been fighting for the other side, and said, "Hey, you guys go up there in the mountains and go after the world's number-one terrorist and criminal who just killed 3,000-plus Americans." I think that was an enormous mistake. I think the Tora Bora operation was a failed military operation, which resulted then in Anaconda, which also did not do the job. And the fact is that the prime target, al-Qaeda, has dispersed and in many ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the mountains of Tora Bora.

MR. RUSSERT: A spokesman for al-Qaeda said today that 98 percent of the leadership is intact, escaped Tora Bora, that Osama bin Laden is alive and we will hear from him soon.

SEN. KERRY: Well, we're certainly going to hear from him in the sense that al-Qaeda has the ability to strike and we know that. Those warnings have been properly given to everybody. We have a tough job--Tim, what I think all of us need to focus on is the fact that the rhetoric of this war is overblown in some ways and not focused properly in others. This is not a war as we have known it. This is not a war in which there's a front line or the troops are going out every day on control. This is fundamentally an intelligence operation and the law enforcement operation and a diplomatic operation. On all three fronts, we have not been doing adequately in my judgment and the reorganization of homeland security leaves the CIA and the FBI, the law enforcement and intelligence component, outside.
http://tinyurl.com/vpiy

Dean, MTP July 21, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I've seen others criticize the president. I think it?s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don't choose to engage in doing that.
http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/2002_07.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

130. Tell me what you think they mean.

What's the unspun version?






(If you think having a thread at the top of a DU sub-category(or even GD, for that matter) has any effect on the race, you're sadly mistaken. Donate $25 to DU and I'll kick it every day for month.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

134. The unspun version is to just read it. lol

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

137. You're absolutely right.

For those who look for a smoking gun, there is really a kind of smoking gun -- I mean, it doesn't have to be the gun itself that is smoking. It can be evidence which makes clear the effort to move the gun around before it's actually smoking, and I think you made a very powerful case with respect to that, and that is important.-John Forbes Kerry


LMFAO. And you want this guy to be President.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. Font war!

Because the bigger the font, the more convincing the message? lol

Dean on Bush: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

LMFAO. And you want this guy to be President.

[Northwind]

29. No thanks

My candidate does not need to consult Nazis.

I can understand how your Bush-enabling corrupt Washington insider would need that advice though.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. You asked about: 'the "size" of a lie',

so it sounds like you might be missing a little historical perspective.

[Andromeda]

85. I don't think much of your sources...

David Broder? Really, now---couldn't you do better than that? And Mickey Kaus of Slate?

Why didn't you just go to the Drudge Report or FreeRepublic?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. Dean said it didn't he?

Sorry if it upsets you.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. I was responding to

this from Northwind:

"Cynically adopting a stance on order to get votes is what politicians DO. Dean's plan is working, and that's what counts."

[blm]

3. Dean, July 2002:

Russert plays clips of Gore and Kerry criticizing Bush on military strategy:


 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[drfemoe]

9. too bad the c-i-c

didn't decide to finish that job .. it remains .. unfinished ..

[blm]

13. too bad Dems like Dean wouldn't back up Gore and Kerry who knew

what they were talking about. Dean chose to back up Bush.

[blm]

12. Why Dean changed his tactic of appeasing Bush on foreign policy:

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

>>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.

>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.
>>>>>>>

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.

>>>>>>>

No doubt the party''s consultants are advising Mr. Edwards, and other Democratic contenders, that such subjects bring only pain and no gain. Every poll indicates that defense and foreign policy are advantageous to Republicans. Every expert knows voters tune out topics like foreign aid and international treaties.

There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.

[blm]

4. Dean, March, 2002:

March 2002
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/2794665.htm

>>>>>
Dean, a medical doctor, describes himself as "a bit unusual" for a Democrat. For one thing, "I'm very conservative about money," he said. Also, he pointed out, he has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

"I have trouble with the liberal wing of my own party," Dean said.

Other things working in his favor, he added, are: "I'm not from Washington. I'm very direct with people. I say what I think. People always know where I stand. ‘.‘.‘. I think people are ready for that."

[Andromeda]

89. This is exactly why I like Dean,

he's open, honest and doesn't bullshit people just to get support. You either take him the way he is or not at all.

He's got my attention and the attention of all the America. He's #1 in most polls but I'm sure you've noticed.

And Kerry, well he's polling somewhere in single digits in most polls. I'm sure you've noticed that too.

This could change but I'm enjoying it for now. I really don't think Kerry is going to catch up but I could be wrong about that too.

I'm ABB and will support any candidate who wins the nomination. Are you prepared to do that? Are you willing to put your personal feelings aside and support the Democratic nominee?

Or is all this Dean bashing too much fun for you. You're not winning many converts with all your negative posts about Dean because I think most people are too smart to buy into your cheap attacks.

[blm]

92. I only post Dean's own words and actions. I agree they are cheap

because Dean will say or do anything.

Truth hurts. There are those wise-asses in the Dean campaign who choose to spread the lie that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider" to supporters who are new to politics while knowing that NO lawmaker has exposed more government corruption than Kerry. NONE. Not all of the candidates put together has fought corruption more.

Yet, that pleases you? That's satisfying? That makes you proud? That helps you sleep at night?

[Andromeda]

94. I don't see your attacks as truth.

and I have no control over what some Dean supporters say about Kerry so you are out of line to assume that it somehow pleases me when Kerry is called a corrupt Washington insider. That is your erroneous assumption as I have never said as such so I have no reason to lose any sleep over it.

Kerry has done some good things but his popularity has slipped. Call it providence or whatever you want to but Dean happens to be on top right now and that pleases me and I won't apologize for it.

[blm]

100. Dean's own words are usually not the truth of his record.

I noticed it a long time ago.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. And when do most voters start paying attention?

The last couple weeks.

[LuminousX]

5. Dean supported Afghanistan

I've not seen one quote where Dean supported action against Iraq that didn't have several conditionals attached such as providing clear proof of WMDs

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Yes, he supported Bush's handling of Afghanistan 100%

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. As of June, 2002.

18 months have gone by. The Taliban is returning. We only control Kabul. OBL is still unnaccounted for. Things are different now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. All those things were obvious in June02.I didn't think Bush did a good job

at that point. Why did Dean?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

128. They were?

The reports of the Taliban returning to Iraq were just this last August-September, 2003!
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/6680227.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/30908iU.S.-Afghanistan.html
http://www.optimalprime.org/archives/001339.html


The US (and the Karzai regime) have controlled only Kabul for the last year.


None of these things were obvious in June 2002. You don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Provide me a link to the Taliban returning, US forces being shipped from Afghanistan to SA or Kuwait, and the US having only control of Kabul before June 2002. No smack talk. Just links.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

133. Maybe they weren't obvious to Dean. They were to Kerry. And to me.

Anybody who thought we 'won' in Afghanistan just wasn't paying attention; and I don't care how many people thought that, they were wrong.

Your attempt at distraction is laughable. Whatever point it is that you believe I need to 'prove' by providing 'links from before June 2002' -- is not a point I am trying to make. The point I have made is clearly demonstrated here:


Dean, June 30, 2002

"I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28

Kerry, June 23, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Osama bin Laden: Do you believe the war in Afghanistan has been a military success?

SEN. KERRY: Only partly, Tim. I think that our troops did a superb job on the ground. I think those guys who went in in the dead of night, joined up with Hamid Karzai and with the warlords in the north, did a superb job of soldiering. They showed initiative, courage and they really helped to topple the Taliban and move the process forward. But the Taliban are not the target. They were a collateral target. The target is and always has been al-Qaeda.

And al-Qaeda, a thousand strong, was gathered in one single mountain area, Tora Bora, and we turned to Afghans, who a week earlier had been fighting for the other side, and said, "Hey, you guys go up there in the mountains and go after the world's number-one terrorist and criminal who just killed 3,000-plus Americans." I think that was an enormous mistake. I think the Tora Bora operation was a failed military operation, which resulted then in Anaconda, which also did not do the job. And the fact is that the prime target, al-Qaeda, has dispersed and in many ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the mountains of Tora Bora.

MR. RUSSERT: A spokesman for al-Qaeda said today that 98 percent of the leadership is intact, escaped Tora Bora, that Osama bin Laden is alive and we will hear from him soon.

SEN. KERRY: Well, we're certainly going to hear from him in the sense that al-Qaeda has the ability to strike and we know that. Those warnings have been properly given to everybody. We have a tough job--Tim, what I think all of us need to focus on is the fact that the rhetoric of this war is overblown in some ways and not focused properly in others. This is not a war as we have known it. This is not a war in which there's a front line or the troops are going out every day on control. This is fundamentally an intelligence operation and the law enforcement operation and a diplomatic operation. On all three fronts, we have not been doing adequately in my judgment and the reorganization of homeland security leaves the CIA and the FBI, the law enforcement and intelligence component, outside.
http://tinyurl.com/vpiy

Dean, MTP July 21, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I've seen others criticize the president. I think it?s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don't choose to engage in doing that.
http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/2002_07.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

139. Nothing about Kabul? The Taliban? Troops sent to Iraq?

You and Kerry are geniuses. I bet you spotted that we hadn't accounted for OBL right away. Everyone else missed that fact. Good catch!


Odd you didn't add this part:

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that when you do an analysis of the president's military war in Afghanistan and say it was a failed military exercise, that you will be accused of being disloyal and not supportive of the war on terrorism and sending the wrong signals to our enemies?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I didn't say it was a failed military exercise. I said there was a failed component of it. I said part of it was enormously successful. The initial part of toppling the Taliban was a huge success and great credit due to the courage and capacity of those individual soldiers, those 12-person teams and the CIA and Special Forces on the ground. They did a superb job and I admire them enormously. Our troops were not allowed to do what they're capable of doing at Tora Bora.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

140. Kerry was right.

The initial toppling of the Taliban was success. Do you disagree?

Kerry praised the troops for doing a good job, and blasted Bush for a failure of leadership.

Dean praised Bush for doing a good job.

Keep spinning.

[Andromeda]

95. And that's bad because....?

n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Because Bush didn't do "a good job on the war on terrorism."

Or do you think he did?

[redqueen]

32. I thought it was conclusively proven

that his only problem was the timing. Didn't he say if the inspectors hadn't found anything within 60 to 90 days, that the US should 'go it alone'?

[blm]

82. Yes. That's what makes Dean such a hypocrite when he criticizes others.

And his supporters refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Dean, March 2003

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush

I guess Dean thought it was too dangerous politically to speak out against Bush. At least until he saw that Kerry was not backing down.

Kerry: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States"
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

[drfemoe]

11. Kerry offends liberal backers

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak16.html

Sen. John Kerry, the earlier liberal favorite, did not please his former liberal backers Tuesday night when he drove onto the set of Jay Leno's NBC show dressed as a biker, on a Harley-Davidson.

[blm]

14. According to Novak, who shows no proof.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Yeah, that's on-topic lol

Besides, Bob Novak really knows what he's talking about! :puke:

[drfemoe]

7. Well

this looks like more Dean flame-bait, but if recent history repeats, it will stand, un-locked.

but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go.

And shame shame on Dean if he wants to listen to voters!!

bad bad bad Dean.

[no name no slogan]

19. But it's okay

And shame shame on Dean if he wants to listen to voters!!

But it's okay to expediently do a 180° change in your position, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF EXPLANATION, if you think it will somehow get you more votes.

Oh, I see now. America DOESN'T want a leader who will stick by her/his convictions then, regardless of what the latest "poll" says.

Great, just what this party needs: another Clintonite apologist who runs for the yellow stripe in the middle of the road once he's duped his followers into believing he's "different" from other politicians.

Oh look here he comes now...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. great post

"another Clintonite apologist who runs for the yellow stripe in the middle of the road..." and that sure isn't Kerry. (or Kucinich)

[no name no slogan]

28. Thanks!

I actually nicked that line from Jim Hightower. As somebody who campaigned aggressively for Dukakis in 1988 (primary and general election) and Wellstone in 1990 (primary and general election), I've learned my lesson by betting on the "moderate", and also for standing up for the right candidate, no matter what the odds.

Democrats don't win elections by pandering to the lowest common denominator, and changing our positions whenever the latest poll shows them "unpopular". We win by standing up to our true Democratic convictions and defending them, even if the road ahead looks dangerous.

I just hope that whoever we end up nominating can remember this in November 2004.

:toast:

[blm]

8. Jan.2003...changing from global free trader....

as per Matthew Yglesias who was hired to work for Dean back then:


So I'm back from a week at Howard Dean's office and let me tell you, it is cold in Vermont. Big time. It makes Boston look like Maui. On a more serious note, however, I became quite dissilusioned when it became clear that Dean has decided to abandon his history of support for free trade and become a protectionist. I spent a lot of time transcribing Dean's off-the-kuff remarks so they could be worked-up into a written address and while it looked at first like he was just trying to fudge (trade hurts you in the primary) it became clear that over the past few weeks he's been moving toward a full-scale flip-flop complete with a ginned-up non-protectionist rationalization for protectionism.

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/001873.html

[AP]

16. Don't worry, Matt. You're just helping him get elected. All signs indicate

he'll switch back to being a Libertarian if he gets elected.

[chopper]

10. yeah, right

notice Dean's comment: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

note the past tense - 'done'. meaning, in the past, not 'bush will continue to do a good job 9 months from now even if he invades iraq'.

"But there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean shifted to a strong anti-war position not because of Bush's Iraq actions, but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go."

yeah, that must be it - obviously, the more complicated reason with a total lack of any support at all, that must be the truth. he couldn't possibly have been talking about the pre-Iraq WoT, when he was interviewed in 6/2002.

hell, last June i was worried about the war in Iraq, but at that time i really didn't think it was going to happen. i figured bush would cool his heels once a total lack of WMD evidence became apparent. yeah, i was wrong, but my lack of debate on the subject of a possible pre-emptive strike didn't mean i supported it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Why did Dean back Bush in June, 2002?

That's long after Bush failed to achieve the mission in Afghanistan. Just what exactly about Bush's failed 'War on Terror' was it that Dean found so admirable>

What was Kerry saying about the same time?

For many Democrats, the war on terrorism has made that kind of frontal assault on Bush foreign policy seem risky, if not politically suicidal. But not for Mr. Kerry. A decorated Vietnam veteran and potential presidential candidate, he has lustily attacked the administration on policies like trans-Atlantic relations, Pentagon spending, Middle East negotiations and even Mr. Bush's greatest triumph, Afghanistan.

"I think there were serious errors," Mr. Kerry said in an interview, referring to the American ground campaign in Afghanistan that he contends probably allowed Osama bin Laden to slip into Pakistan. He made the point again on Monday as he joined other potential presidential candidates in speaking to centrist Democrats in New York.

"In some ways, Al Qaeda is more dangerous today because we didn't take advantage of initiative, which is critical in war," he added.

Mr. Kerry says he has felt compelled to criticize the administration in large part because of his Vietnam experience, first as a gunboat commander and then as an antiwar organizer. "I learned what happens when people in public office fail to ask questions," he said.

<snip>

Few Democrats have answered that call, led by senators positioning themselves to run for president in 2004. Mr. Lieberman says the administration has not done enough to support Iraqi opposition groups. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina has criticized the administration for not helping expand an international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.

But Mr. Kerry has been the harshest critic. In an interview addressing a range of issues, he called the Bush Mideast policies "confused," saying Mr. Bush could not expect to achieve peace without maintaining at least low-level contacts with Yasir Arafat. On Iraq, he said Mr. Bush had allowed "his rhetoric to get way ahead of his thinking," talking tough without preparing the country for a potentially bloody conflict. In 1991, Mr. Kerry joined most other Democrats in voting against letting Mr. Bush's father use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

He has been most scathing, however, on Afghanistan, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to rely on Afghan troops instead of American soldiers in the battle of Tora Bora in March probably allowed Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants to escape.

Asked who should be held accountable for the Tora Bora strategy, Mr. Kerry points to the president. "If you are the skipper of the ship, and the ship runs aground while you are asleep in your stateroom, you are relieved of duty, no excuse," he said.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

[sandnsea]

20. That is true

Kerry was absolutely livid about this. There was talk of investigations and all sorts of things at the time. Then a quick shift to a public debate about the Iraq war, which hadn't been too public before that. That's actually kind of interesting.

[blm]

23. Dean's reaction to that was to back up Bush.

What an unethical pr!ck Dean is.

[killbotfactory]

27. This was before Bush invaded Iraq and abandoned afghanistan

Just FYI.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. It was after Bush failed in Afghanistan and Dean lacked the courage

to criticize him.

Just FYI.

[killbotfactory]

31. Since Dean isn't an expert in military strategy

Why would he?

[blm]

33. Because Kerry and Gore were, but Dean wouldn't back them up.

Even after they pointed out those failures for the few months leading up to Dean's backing of Bush. Shows how LITTLE Dean can be trusted on military strategy.

But, Dean was also planning on his run to capture the center at that point, so let's just chalk it up to politics as usual.

[killbotfactory]

37. Politics as usual.

Dean didn't criticize Bush on something he's wasn't an expert on. Burn the witch.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Why are you so proud of Dean's ignorance?

:shrug:


Look, I agree that Dean knows nothing about military matters, foreign policy, diplomacy, war, etc.... I just am not used to his supporters highlighting that fact... puzzling...

[killbotfactory]

44. Proud?

Why are you harping on a non-issue?

A lot can go wrong in a war, personally I think it's a bit frivilous to blame the president for every battlfeild mistake when there are so many unpredictable factors involved. Maybe Dean does too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. You keep repeating "Dean isn't an expert in military strategy"

as if that is supposed to be a positive thing.

As for calling Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terror', invading Afghanistan without achieving our stated goal, and failing to capture Osama a 'non-issue' --- I'm speechless.

[killbotfactory]

49. He's not a battlefield commander

So, yeah, he's probably going to respect their judgement instead of criticizing them.

Bashing Dean for not criticizing Bush on the way Tora Bora went down is the non issue, not our failure to capture OBL.

Or do you maintain that in war every variable is predictable and there is no excuse for failure in any military action we engage in?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. I guess if he becomes President, he'll blame his underlings

for his shortcomings?

I'm maintaining that Bush is an imcompetent President who squandered the opportunity to strike a devestating blow against Al-Qaida at Tora Bora. And I'm further maintaining that after that, Dean was praising Bush and saying "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism". http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291/

And further, I'm pointing out what Kerry was saying about Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terrorism' in the same timeframe:

But Mr. Kerry has been the harshest critic. In an interview addressing a range of issues, he called the Bush Mideast policies "confused," saying Mr. Bush could not expect to achieve peace without maintaining at least low-level contacts with Yasir Arafat. On Iraq, he said Mr. Bush had allowed "his rhetoric to get way ahead of his thinking," talking tough without preparing the country for a potentially bloody conflict. In 1991, Mr. Kerry joined most other Democrats in voting against letting Mr. Bush's father use force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

He has been most scathing, however, on Afghanistan, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to rely on Afghan troops instead of American soldiers in the battle of Tora Bora in March probably allowed Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants to escape.

Asked who should be held accountable for the Tora Bora strategy, Mr. Kerry points to the president. "If you are the skipper of the ship, and the ship runs aground while you are asleep in your stateroom, you are relieved of duty, no excuse," he said.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

Defend Bush if you want. I think he 's indefensible.

[killbotfactory]

63. John Kerry will disband the pentagon, run the military by himself

No advisors needed for John Kerry: SUPER PRESIDENT!

The only part of what you quoted that has anything to do with what Dean was talking about was the part about Tora Bora.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Your comment is so juvenile that I'm unable to respond to it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. Which once again brings us back to:

If Kerry is such a genius at FP....why'd he support Chimp and the IWR?
Being such a genius he must have foreseen the pitfalls in Iraq. He also must have seen that Iraq had zero to do with the war on terror. You can't claim Kerry is a master at FP on the one hand and ignore how badly he's foreseen the consequences of his vote on the other.

I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "mutually exclusive."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'sleight of hand'

but misdirection won't change the simple fact that while Dean was cowardly praising Bush's conduct of the war in Afghanistan, Kerry was speaking up against it.


Let me ask you a simple question. Do you agree with Dean that Bush did "a good job on the war on terrorism" in Afghanistan?

[killbotfactory]

76. Will Kerry have advisors and rely on them for advice?

He seems to bash Dean for doing so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Do you agree with Dean that Bush did a good job in Afghanistan?

[killbotfactory]

81. Not anymore

Bush took the focus off the war on terrorism and abandoned Afghanistan by pursuing this stupid war on Iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. So, Bush had you fooled in June 2002, just like Dean?

[killbotfactory]

84. Yeah I guess so

I thought he was serious about getting Al-Qaeda, and not just holding back resources to fight some bullshit war in Iraq.

[blm]

160. He knew Kerry and Gore were, but chose politics over the right thing

to do and say for the country, which was BACK UP GORE AND KERRY.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Gee, we wouldn't want to have a President who understood war, diplomacy

and foreign policy, would we? That would be a real disaster.


Here is another President who doesn't know military matters:

[killbotfactory]

35. That has what to do with the battle of Tora Bora?

Dean is not an expert in battlefeild tactics, and probably wasn't paying much attention to how it went down.

That has nothing to do with diplomacy and foreign policy.

[redqueen]

38. Wasn't paying attention?

Help me out here... he was already campaigning to become the Democratic nominee for over three months at this time, and he just 'wasn't paying attention'?

[killbotfactory]

39. I don't know, just throwing out possibilities

Maybe he just thought it was unfair to criticize the president over a failed battle since there are so many judgement calls and unpredictable results?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. Yep. Dean was playing it safe. Why stick his neck out?

He didn't know what he was talking about anyway. 'Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.'

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. What does war, diplomacy and foreign policy have to do with

how Bush conducted foreign policy, diplomacy and war, specifically the war in Afghanistan that culminated at Tora Bora?

Gee, I guess I don't see any connection either... :eyes:

[killbotfactory]

45. So every failed battle should be laid at the feet of the president?

The issue with Tora Bora is the overreliance of afghanistan soldiers who are thought to have allowed Bin Laden to escape. That doesn't seem to have much to do with diplomacy or our overall foreign policy, but a decision by our commanders on how to wage war in a very unstable region.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Your defense of Bush is sickening.

[killbotfactory]

48. So should we blame Clinton for failing to hit OBL with cruise missles?

Or Somalia?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. If that is your conclusion, your reasoning is false.

Dean said "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism." in June, 2002.

I think he was wrong. John Kerry thinks he was wrong.


I guess you think he was right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if that opinion is that Bush has done a good job. I personally have never felt that way. Not now, not a year ago, and not a year before that.

But if you want to keep on defending Bush, do so.

[killbotfactory]

59. I thought Bush was on the right track hunting down Al-Qaeda

I thought he botched a couple battles in Afghanistan, but overall there wasn't much for me to complain about. It's when Bush basically abandoned the focus on Al-Qaeda and turned it towards Iraq with very weak and unproven links between them that he started pissing me off.

I though Kerry only criticized the way Tora Bora went down back in 2002. Do you have quotes where Kerry calls bush's war on terrorism a failure in the summer of 2002?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Your defense of Bush is sorely misguided.

It is certainly your right to agree with Dean's praise of George Bush. I just don't agree, that's all.

George Bush wasn't really interested in getting Osama because Osama didn't have any oil. Bush couldn't care less how many Americans are killed by Al-Qaida, all he wanted to do was line the pockets of his fat-cat big oil friends. So he didn't want to have any casualties that would make it harder to sell his invasion of Iraq. And I don't think that deserves praise.

[killbotfactory]

62. What defense?

I just don't think he did a horrible job in fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban until he did the bait and switch with Iraq and pretty much abandoned Afghanistan.

I think relying on foriegn troops to fight at Tora Bora was probably a mistake, but it's hard for me to know without being able to see into alternate futures and pasts. He might of escaped just as easily with all american troops. He has been preparing for a war with us for something like 10 years.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. While you defend Bush, you say 'What defense?'

lol

[killbotfactory]

75. I'm just not sure he should take the blame for Tora Bora

If that disgusts you, fine, be disgusted.

[Pez]

102. if you don't blame the president for the disaster that was tora bora...

...then you can't blame kerry for iraq. kerry detailed what actions could be taken to improve our odds in afghanistan; dean, out of ignorance or not wishing to diss the pres, agreed with BUSH INC, who botched the mission.

[blm]

123. here's a Kerry quote about the buck stopping with Bush.

Asked who should be held accountable for the Tora Bora strategy, Mr. Kerry points to the president. "If you are the skipper of the ship, and the ship runs aground while you are asleep in your stateroom, you are relieved of duty, no excuse," he said.

[redqueen]

36. Does one need to be an expert...

to understand that a world leader who labels countries as part of some 'axis of evil' without any evidence of forethought is doing a TERRIBLE job of handling a 'war on terra'?

[dsc]

52. Unlike anyone in this thread

I, gasp, tracked down Broder's original piece. What an amazing idea that apparently occured to no one including Mr. Kaus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28¬Found=true

Incidently, this is the whole exchange as recorded by Broder.

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement.

And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

"Are you sure?" responded Vi Neil, a veteran Democratic worker and the wife of Dave Neil, the head of the United Auto Workers in Iowa. "A lot of us think we are wasting a lot of money on trying to find the guy with the beard . We have to find a new way to fight terrorism."

Taken aback, Dean said, "I don't agree with that," adding that he believed that the United States had to strike back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and arguing that it is not the war, but the Bush tax cut, that has pushed the budget back into deficit.

end of quote

It bears noting that not one single, solitary, syllable is mentioned about Iraq. Not in this exchange and not in the column. Unlike Mr. Kaus I provided the whole column so ,please, go look if you think I am lying. It is clear from the context that this was about Osama and only Osama. Mr Kaus lied to your face while decrying Dean as a cynical liar. He should be ashamed of himself. Mr. Kaus, who has Lexis Nexis surely had an easier time finding this than I did. Yet he didn't link the article. Now we know why. Mr. Kaus took a statement out of context and literally made up a new context to put it into. He thought he would get away with it due to us being lazy. For shame.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Dean supported Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terror'

and then later shifted his viewpoint. Right. That's what the facts seem to indicate.

On the other hand, maybe Dean still believes Bush has "done a good job on the war on terrorism" in Afghanistan. Maybe he still supports Bush as strongly as he did then. With Dean it's sometimes hard to tell what he really believes.

I, for one, think Bush is a total failure. I didn't think he did a good job this past June, or the June before that, or the June before that.

Kerry, also, didn't agree with Dean that Bush had "done a good job on the war on terrorism":

For many Democrats, the war on terrorism has made that kind of frontal assault on Bush foreign policy seem risky, if not politically suicidal. But not for Mr. Kerry. A decorated Vietnam veteran and potential presidential candidate, he has lustily attacked the administration on policies like trans-Atlantic relations, Pentagon spending, Middle East negotiations and even Mr. Bush's greatest triumph, Afghanistan.

"I think there were serious errors," Mr. Kerry said in an interview, referring to the American ground campaign in Afghanistan that he contends probably allowed Osama bin Laden to slip into Pakistan. He made the point again on Monday as he joined other potential presidential candidates in speaking to centrist Democrats in New York.

"In some ways, Al Qaeda is more dangerous today because we didn't take advantage of initiative, which is critical in war," he added.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

So who was right? Dean, who supported Bush, or Kerry, who criticized him?

[dsc]

54. just like Kaus

you are pretending a statement about targeting Osama is instead about targeting Saddam. Just like him you are playing us. I won't be played.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

I'm not pretending anything. I didn't even mention Saddam or Iraq so your 'comeback' just makes no sense at all. I will attempt to restate in a way that you can respond to. I am not restating the argument made in Slate.




Dean supported Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terror' (Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism." http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291)

and then later shifted his viewpoint when the target shifted to Iraq.

Right. That's what the facts seem to indicate.


That was your point, right? I am agreeing with you.



On the other hand, maybe Dean still believes Bush has "done a good job on the war on terrorism" in Afghanistan. Maybe he still supports Bush as strongly as he did then. With Dean it's sometimes hard to tell what he really believes.

I, for one, think Bush is a total failure. I didn't think he did a good job this past June, or the June before that, or the June before that.

Kerry, also, didn't agree with Dean that Bush had "done a good job on the war on terrorism":

For many Democrats, the war on terrorism has made that kind of frontal assault on Bush foreign policy seem risky, if not politically suicidal. But not for Mr. Kerry. A decorated Vietnam veteran and potential presidential candidate, he has lustily attacked the administration on policies like trans-Atlantic relations, Pentagon spending, Middle East negotiations and even Mr. Bush's greatest triumph, Afghanistan.

"I think there were serious errors," Mr. Kerry said in an interview, referring to the American ground campaign in Afghanistan that he contends probably allowed Osama bin Laden to slip into Pakistan. He made the point again on Monday as he joined other potential presidential candidates in speaking to centrist Democrats in New York.

"In some ways, Al Qaeda is more dangerous today because we didn't take advantage of initiative, which is critical in war," he added.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

So who was right? Dean, who supported Bush, or Kerry, who criticized him?

[clarknyc]

61. Iraq is a war of choice, not part of the war on terror

"Dean supported Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terror' (Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism." http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291)

and then later shifted his viewpoint when the target shifted to Iraq."

The war on terror shifting to Iraq is pure GOP spin. Only they refer to it as "the Battle of Iraq in the War on Terror", my paraphrase.

Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror no matter how much the neocons want to believe otherwise. Where is the evidence? The Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11 to reshape the Middle East and protect our access to oil, IMO. Remember PNAC? This administration merely used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out a pre-existing desire to oust Hussein. But you probably know that...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Well actually the whole idea of a 'War on Terrorism'

is misguided. That's how they turn it into a neverending war. A war against Al-Qaida -- that makes sense. They are the ones who attacked us. Not going after Al-Qaida was what John Kerry was criticizing Bush for at the same time Dean was praising him.

[clarknyc]

67. Good

"A war against Al-Qaida -- that makes sense. They are the ones who attacked us."

Then you agree with Governor Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. Dean said Bush had done a good job and no I don't agree with him.

Bush sucks. He hasn't done a good job at anything.



I could quote anything you say, and then add "A-HA! Then you agree with Bush!" -- but it would be meaningless unless you actually did agree with Bush. lol

[clarknyc]

72. Right

"I could quote anything you say, and then add "A-HA! Then you agree with Bush!" -- but it would be meaningless unless you actually did agree with Bush. lol'

Thanks for getting my point. Maybe you should go back and read some of your own posts. And I agree, this is meaningless. Have fun!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Your point was wrong.

Unless I misunderstand it. What was your point?

[clarknyc]

93. I was being facetious.

My point was that you're doing exactly what you claimed I was doing. Go back and read your posts. It is meaningless...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

157. You might want to rethink that career in stand-up comedy.

As well as the career as a logician.

[clarknyc]

158. Not trying to be funny.

Just making a point. Which you willfully missed. Again.

Whatever.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

159. You were "being facetious" but "Not trying to be funny" ?

OK. Now, I am laughing.

[dajabr]

55. Dean was right...

But it's not really worth the energy to explain to you why...

Note: Anyone who REALLY wants to discuss this topic in good faith, let me know, and we can take it to another thread.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Dean was right to support Bush? Bush has bungled every step of the way.

Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."


I just think he was absolutely wrong to stand up for Bush. Bush didn't do a good job on the war on terrorism at any point in his Presidency. I don't care if you are talking September 2001, December 2001, June 2002, March 2003, right up to the present day, Bush has bungled it every step of the way.

[redqueen]

58. Well said. n/t

[dajabr]

96. I agree that Bush has bungled every step of the way...

But Dean was right...

Sorry if my answer does not fit the false premise of your initial post. :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. Dean felt otherwise.

Just what is the supposedly false premise you are talking about?

Dean: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

You: "I agree that Bush has bungled every step of the way...
But Dean was right..."


Could you explain how you reconcile those two things please? Thank you.

[dajabr]

99. No

Either you "get it," or you don't. It would be a waste of my time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

106. No.

I 'get it' all right. :P

[Pez]

104. what was dean right about?

"bush has done a good job on the war on terror"?

afghanistan was a total failure; we didn't do anything except rearrange the rubble from the last few decades of war there. we were supposed to get bin laden; kerry defined what he thought we should do to be successful, but BUSH INC effed it up. and dean said BUSH INC did "a good job".

what, exactly, was dean right about?

[dajabr]

107. He was right in the sense that there was a widespread notion...

That the war on terror (i.e. the war in Afghanistan) was going well in the summer of 2002.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?"


7/02 83% approval 15 disapproval 2 no opinion

5/02 79% approval 19% disapproval 3% no opinion

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

Obviously, since it has become clear that Afghanistan is a disaster, Dean has said as much. But, back in June '02, the effort was posting more PERCIEVED successes than fuck-ups.

Dean knows the score...

DEAN: What Bush is doing in Afghanistan is a huge problem, and bodes very ill for what is going to happen in Iraq. The President has taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did. However, there's no follow-up. The best defense policy we could have in this country is not just to have a strong military, but it is to build middle-class nations with strong democratic ideals, where women fully participate in the government. Those countries don't go to war with each other, and they don't harbor groups like al Qaeda.

We're not doing that in Afghanistan. We're making deals with corrupt and crooked and undemocratic warlords in order to pacify Afghanistan. That is exactly the mistake the United States always makes. The notion of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a huge mistake, and this administration is doing that. If they do that in Iraq, we're going to end up with an enormous problem, as we may well have in Afghanistan if the President doesn't add more peacekeeping people. The irony of this is that all the nations the President insulted before going to war in Iraq are the people we need now. We need more troops, which means we need NATO and the United Nations to get involved in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with being nice to the French and the Germans. It has to do with protecting our soldiers who are going to be seen more and more every day as an occupiers and less as liberators

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

edit to add:

Me: Yet you have praised him for his handling of terrorism.

Dean: Early on, but there have been some things, a couple of things recently that I think are huge problems. The first is that in Afghanistan the Americans are not policing the periphery - - we're allowing the war lords to do it. That's an enormous mistake. It's going to undo all the good things that happened in Afghanistan ultimately because if Afghanistan isn't a democratic nation Al Qaeda will move back in.

Secondly, I thought the President's handling of the Scud missiles in allowing them to go to Yemen was shocking and you know the notion that it's okay to let Scuds go into the most volatile region on earth is foolish.

Did we learn nothing from Afghanistan? That your friends may be your enemies three or four years later? I was shocked especially since it was an un-flagged and unmarked ship and I know the President cried “International law, international law,” well tell me what's so legal about having 150,000 troops surrounding Iraq unilaterally?

So, I think letting the Scuds into Yemen was a huge mistake. And I also think that the fact that President has no oil policy is going to get him in a lot of trouble because if he is unable to go to the Saudis and cut off the Saudis' support for terror . . . and that's going to be an issue in the campaign.

The Saudis are funding Hammas and the Saudis are funding madrassas which are essentially teaching, laying the groundwork for the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists by teaching small children to hate Americans, Christians, and Jews.

And I think what the President hasn't been clear about is that everybody who teaches hate is an enemy including the Saudis if they continue to do that and the President has to be able to say to them, “You've got to stop,” and he can't do it because he has no oil policy and we're so dependent on Saudi oil - - particularly with what's going on Venezuela - - they're desperate to get oil, I think.

http://www.rogersimon.com/archive/000285.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. That widespread notion was wrong. Bush totally fucked up in Afghanistan

and hasn't made one single right move in the 'war on terror'.


This truly has become Bizarro world where I am having to convince people on DU that Bush is a screw-up.


I can't believe you actually cite a poll to 'prove' Dean was right because he held a popular opinion.


And then as you point out, and as is the point of the original cited article, he changed his tune.

In June 30, 2002, after all, it wasn't very hard to see the Iraq conflict looming on the horizon. President Bush had already included Iraq in his "axis of evil." Vice-President Cheney had toured the Middle East to drum up support for an effort to topple Saddam. On June 17, 2002--two weeks before Dean praised Bush's "good job"--former President Clinton delivered a speech criticizing Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Reuters' reported:

"I don't have any use for Saddam Hussein. But I think you have to ask yourself in what order do we have to do this," said Clinton, who spearheaded Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that came close to an agreement. ... (snip) ... "He has no missiles to put warheads on that could reach us," Clinton said of Hussein ... (snip).

Clinton said Hussein's Iraq was a threat because of its attempts to build biological and chemical weapons, but the immediate danger to the United States was minimal.

Was Dean unaware of Bush's steps toward war, and Clinton's criticism? Or did he become the most vocal foe of the Administration's Iraq initiative for tactical reasons--out of an accurate calculation that it would bond him to the party's grass roots and set him apart from the field?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291

[dajabr]

109. Please focus and pay attention ...

You're all over the place.

The issue is Afghanistan. Kudos to you if you had the foresight to see in June '02 that it would be a disaster. The poll and a survey of the Mainsteam Media shows that you were in a very small minority.

Again, the numbers do not prove Bush was "right," it just shows a snapshot of public perception of the operation. So, to fault Dean using hindsight is disengenuous ( unlike Kerry with Iraq, who had enough empirical data available to at least vote "no" on the IRW).

Make your case:

1. Produce a plethora of articles by news outlets criticizing Bush's prosecution of the War in Afghanistan (prior to June 30, 2002).

2. Produce reports of millions taking to the streets to protest the invasion - a la the Iraq protests(prior to June 30, 2002).

3. Produce evidence of major Democratic figures (other than DK) loudly and publicly denouncing the action in Afghanistan (prior to June 30, 2002).

Do you know who Clare Short is? Should she have kept her mouth shut about Iraq because months earlier (June '02) she put her name to a undeniably positive assesment of Bush's efforts in Afghanistan?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. Please focus and pay attention.

Dean was wrong to praise Bush's conduct of the 'War on Terrorism'.


That is obvious. If you don't already believe that, nothing I say, and no quotes I produce, will change your mind.


Later, Dean started criticizing Bush. Either he was sincere, or he wasn't. You are welcome to make your own judgement.

[dajabr]

116. Figures...

When pressed for information to support the claim - all opinion and no facts.

Judgement made...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

118. The fact is Dean praised Bush, then changed his mind.

Call it an opinion if you want. Call it borscht. Call it cotton candy.

It's still a fact.

[dajabr]

119. If you'd rather not apply critical thinking...

To the circumstances that contributed to Dean forming that opinion, then I think I'll call it cotton candy.

Kerry has also praised Bush and supported his wars, but, sadly, there can be no reflection on timing/context in those matters either?

Oh well, guess I'll take your advice and drop my #1 & 2 candidates...

Good job!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. I'd rather not give some tortured explanation as to why black means white.

[blm]

111. Only AFTER Conason said the only one taking on Bush here was Kerry

and AFTER Dean backed up Bush on national television knowing full well that Gore and Kerry pinpointed Bush's military failures for months before he chose to back Bush.

[dajabr]

112. Examples and quotes please...

I see plenty from Gore in the Fall of '02 - not so much prior to that...

Kerry? :shrug:

[blm]

115. Shrug? If you're implying Kerry and Gore weren't critical back then

you are very wrong or being dishonest. The Conason article was quoted above, you must have missed it. Also back in the April 2002 Rolling Stone interview Kerry hit Bush on Afghanistan, and also every show he was on from Imus to Hardball. The press wouldn't focus on either Kerry or Gore's criticisms because they were still very much in cover Bush's ass mode.

July, 2002:

Russert plays clips of Gore and Kerry criticizing Bush on military strategy:

 MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.



Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason
New York Observer
>>>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.

>>>>>>
He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.
>>>>>>>

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.
>>>>>>>

No doubt the party''s consultants are advising Mr. Edwards, and other Democratic contenders, that such subjects bring only pain and no gain. Every poll indicates that defense and foreign policy are advantageous to Republicans. Every expert knows voters tune out topics like foreign aid and international treaties.

There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President. 
 Alert

[dajabr]

117. What's wrong or dishonest about asking you to cite sources?

The Conason article is from August. Let's see some Kerry quotes prior to Summer '02.

Same for Gore. I can't find any major comments prior to fall '02.

Give me real proof - not anecdotal evidence...

[blm]

121. The Rolling Stone interview was in the April 2002 issue.

and Kerry talked about Tora Bora on Imus and in various tv interviews that spring and early summer. Where do you think Russert got the criticisms from?
We talked about it here at DU many times during that period. Granted the media hardly covered any news that reflected badly on Bush, but you would expect well-informed Democrats to be more aware.

The news clips link from the Kerry campaign has the RS interview.

www.johnkerry.com

here's another refence to Tora Bora and questions to WHY the media wouldn't make it news:

http://www.nextdraft.com/points/pol/quiet.html
6-24-02

The Culture of Quiet

This weekend on Meet the Press, Senator
John Kerry criticized the Bush administration,
its Middle East policies and even the war on
terror. Kerry explained that he believes it was
a "catastrophic mistake" by the President not to
build on the Middle East efforts made by Bill
Clinton. "There's no continuity. There is no
fundamental plan, and they have restrained the
State Department and Colin Powell from effectively
being the State Department and being the Secretary
of State. I think they've got to announce a vision.
They've got to put something on the table and take
advantage of this new dynamic that exists in the
Arab world." Kerry went on to suggest that certain
failures in the war on Al Qaeda have left us vulnerable.
"The prime target, Al Qaeda, has dispersed and in many
ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the
mountains of Tora Bora. The strategy failed at Tora Bora
and Anaconda. I believe we didn't complete the task of
killing those 1,000 people or capturing them in that
mountain. We didn't shut off the back door."

Kerry's comments shouldn't be news. We are approaching
a moment when the key Democratic presidential contenders
will begin to rise above the fold and it makes sense that
some of them would want to use this period to begin to
chip away at the Bush administration and proclaim their
own policies and strategies. The problem is that Kerry's
comments are news.

You can choose to agree or disagree with the tone, timing
and content of the remarks above. Smart people will
on occasion disagree about big issues. The problem
is that a critical voice, in the current environment,
is a largely lonely one. There is virtually no major
public debate about the war on terror and its successes
or lack thereof. In fact, the key debate that has spilled
into the public over the last several months is the
one within the Bush administration - the Powell-backers
vs the more hawkish Rumsfeld and Cheney camps. How to
deal with Iraq has become a wholly internal debate.
That is absurd. These are the most complex and dangerous
issues our nation has faced in a generation. There's definitely
something here worth talking about.
>>>>>

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. The central fact here is

Dean is on the record in June 2002 as praising Bush's conduct of 'War on Terror'. Later, he became critical of Bush's conduct of 'War on Terror'. Either he was sincere, or cynical about it. You are welcome come to your own conclusion.

And why demand a quote from Kerry 'prior to Summer '02'? Is there something magical about 'prior to Summer '02' that makes only those statements valid?


Dean, June 30, 2002

"I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28

Kerry, June 23, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Osama bin Laden: Do you believe the war in Afghanistan has been a military success?

SEN. KERRY: Only partly, Tim. I think that our troops did a superb job on the ground. I think those guys who went in in the dead of night, joined up with Hamid Karzai and with the warlords in the north, did a superb job of soldiering. They showed initiative, courage and they really helped to topple the Taliban and move the process forward. But the Taliban are not the target. They were a collateral target. The target is and always has been al-Qaeda.

And al-Qaeda, a thousand strong, was gathered in one single mountain area, Tora Bora, and we turned to Afghans, who a week earlier had been fighting for the other side, and said, "Hey, you guys go up there in the mountains and go after the world's number-one terrorist and criminal who just killed 3,000-plus Americans." I think that was an enormous mistake. I think the Tora Bora operation was a failed military operation, which resulted then in Anaconda, which also did not do the job. And the fact is that the prime target, al-Qaeda, has dispersed and in many ways is more dangerous than it was when it was in the mountains of Tora Bora.

MR. RUSSERT: A spokesman for al-Qaeda said today that 98 percent of the leadership is intact, escaped Tora Bora, that Osama bin Laden is alive and we will hear from him soon.

SEN. KERRY: Well, we're certainly going to hear from him in the sense that al-Qaeda has the ability to strike and we know that. Those warnings have been properly given to everybody. We have a tough job--Tim, what I think all of us need to focus on is the fact that the rhetoric of this war is overblown in some ways and not focused properly in others. This is not a war as we have known it. This is not a war in which there's a front line or the troops are going out every day on control. This is fundamentally an intelligence operation and the law enforcement operation and a diplomatic operation. On all three fronts, we have not been doing adequately in my judgment and the reorganization of homeland security leaves the CIA and the FBI, the law enforcement and intelligence component, outside.
http://tinyurl.com/vpiy
(sorry for the google cache link, it's all I could find)

Dean, MTP July 21, 2002

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I've seen others criticize the president. I think it?s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don't choose to engage in doing that.
http://www.bankofknowledge.net/2004/archives/2002_07.html

Dean was wrong. Afghanistan was a failure - not because our troops didn't do the job they were assigned - on that level it was a success -- but they were not given the right job to do. It was a failure of leadership on the part of Bush. And Dean was either too cowardly to say so, or not perceptive to realize so.

Dean, March 20, 2003: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush

Kerry, April 3, 2003: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States"
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

Kerry, April 7, 2003: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" ... "Let's not have a lot of phony arguments here about what we can and can't talk about," Kerry said. "We need to talk in America about the things that make us strong as a country."" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

[dajabr]

125. Was that so hard?

Jeez, it's like pulling teeth to to get SBNA Kerry supporters to back up their allegations with evidence. One reason IMHO, that Kerry's campaign has failed to gain much traction on this board (and, tangentaly, in the "real world").

Anyway, I believe Dean was sincere in his assesment at the time. But, is there a need to defend Dean in that regard? It may show that Kerry had the FP advantage at that point, but not much else. Dean is speaking in abstractions - Kerry in specifics. It shows who's been getting the briefs... Still, Kerry would eventually make the wrong decision on Iraq (hmmmmm....).

I can excuse Dean for holding this opinion at the time, for reasons which you've already dismissed upthread, mistakenly equating "public opinion" with "right & wrong."

What would change my opinion? Well, I'm still waiting for evedence that widespread disfavor of Bush's actions in Afghanistan was rampant at the time Dean made the statement.

Otherwise, it's Dean reading the NY Times vs. Kerry having access to classified briefings. Advantage Kerry, I guess, but what's the payoff? I guess he could bring it up in a future debate, but (as the poll I cited in a previous post shows) 80%+ of the population will think back and realize they agreed with Dean at the time. No damage to Dean, and Kerry will be perceived a going negative yet again.

Can it go anywhere else? Snowball? Judging by Kerry's attacks in the past, doubtful. But hey, you never know...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. You mean reposting these quotes AGAIN?

No, it wasn't hard. It was a waste of time however since these quotes have already been provided in the thread several times.

Dean was totally wrong about Bush doing a good job on the 'War on Terror' and if he was only following public opinion it just makes it worse. Leader or political weathervane?

[dajabr]

132. What's worse?

declining to read every post in a thread in some futile search for infomation to back up someone else's argument, or being obtuse and ignoring the issues raised in the post to which you're directly responding?

Like I said in my first response to you, this had all the hallmarks of being a waste of my time and energy... and (suprise!)I was right.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

136. I'm glad to see you've finally realized

that it is a waste of time and energy to try to argue that:

"I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28


Means something different from what it obviously does mean, or is in some way not a significant comment.


However, if you want to continue wasting your time and energy, keep going. :eyes:


Dean either changed his mind after June 2002 and decided Bush wasn't doing "good job on the war on terrorism", or he cynically changed his stance to win votes, or maybe he still thinks Bush did well up till then and has only screwed up since. That is the point of this thread.

[helleborient]

131. How is that different from John Kerry voting against the first Gulf War,

Then for the next war, and then attacking Bush later?

I don't follow your attack on changing one's mind about the Bush family.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

135. I'm not surprised that you say you don't understand the difference.

And I know that you wouldn't admit Canada was to the North of the US if you thought it would make Dean look bad.

[helleborient]

138. Ummm...check out the gay marriage thread...

Then tell me about how wrong you are about me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

142. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

However, this isn't really about you or me and I'm sorry I posted in a way that made it personal. That was a mistake.


What it is about is Dean approving of the way Bush was conducting the 'War on Terror' in June 2002 -- and only after that point opposing Bush's war efforts.

I haven't seen any statements from Dean saying that Afghanistan was a failed effort, or blaming Bush for allowing Al-Qaida to disperse. So I must assume he still feels the same way.

Later, Dean began qualified criticism of Bush in the run up to the war in Iraq. Did he cynically shift his stance to win votes or was he sincere? That is a valid question and only Howard Dean knows the answer.

[helleborient]

144. Thank you for recognizing the mistake (n/t)

[mzmolly]

69. Goodness, is that all you got? Slow news day............????

Oh my, the stuff that 'scandal' is made of these days *sheesh* :eyes:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[helleborient]

129. After watching Wesley Clark's fantastic clip on Fox News...

It would seem that he probably would have said the war on terrorism was going well until the "tangentially related" (in Clark's words) attacks on Iraq.

As Clark so well said, the war in Iraq has little to do with the war on terrorism...so it seems to me comments by Dean about Iraq really have little to do with his opinion of the war on terrorism...particularly prior to the congressional vote on Iraq in the Fall of 2002...perhaps Dean had some faith Democrats would put up a bigger fight to stop it and keep the focus on fighting terrorism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

143. Interesting.

"comments by Dean about Iraq really have little to do with his opinion of the war on terrorism"

So this pre-Iraq comment: "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

still stands? Or has Dean made some other statements retracting that?

[Scott Lee]

146. Interesting...

Is it possible to compliment someone at one time, but laer, upon seeing them make a mess of what they were praised for earlier, criticize them?

Why yes, yes it is!

That evil Howard Dean. He changed his opinion again! When will he stop doing that, and hold doggedly on to all of his positions no matter how things have changed?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. Dean, a man with vision...hindsight, that is...

[helleborient]

149. Like John Kerry's brilliant hindsight about Iraq...

Too bad he didn't have the foresight of a number of liberal Democrats. Over 400 deaths of our soldiers and thousands of Iraqis later, too bad he didn't have that foresight.

Flexibility in a leader is a virtue...I wonder where this country would be if Lyndon Johnson had not changed his views on civil rights.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. Kerry :vs: Dean on Iraq: who was right?

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html


Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Kerry:"we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[mitchum]

147. kick

[Octafish]

150. Dean is Bush-Lite.

More domestic mandate taste.

Less foreign policy filling.

Don't take my word for it. Here's what a real progressive has to say about Dean, the best Democratic friend the GOP ever had north of Zell Miller:

Progressives and the Dean Campaign

by Norman Solomon

Let's take Howard Dean at his word: "I was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator. In my soul, I'm a moderate."

Plenty of evidence backs up that comment by the former Vermont governor to the New York Times Magazine a few months ago. The self-comparison with Clinton is apt. "During his five two-year terms as governor," the magazine noted, "Dean was proud to be known as a pragmatic New Democrat, in the Clinton mold, boasting that neither the far right nor the far left had much use for him."

Of course, what a mainstream publication is apt to call "the far left" often includes large progressive constituencies. In the battle for the '04 Democratic presidential nomination, Dean clearly finds grassroots progressives to be quite useful for his purposes. But is he truly useful for ours?

This summer, many news stories have identified Howard Dean with the left. But Dean's actual record verifies this assessment from University of Vermont political science professor Garrison Nelson: "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal." After seven years as governor, the Associated Press described Dean as "a clear conservative on fiscal issues" and added: "This is, after all, the governor who has at times tried to cut benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, whose No. 1 priority is a balanced budget."


CONTINUED...

http://www.progress.org/2003/sol125.htm

[helleborient]

152. Norman Solomon on John Kerry and John Edwards

If you want to support Norman Solomon's attacks on Howard Dean, that's fine. He doesn't like your candidate either.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0626-11.htm

"Now, the Los Angeles Times reported in late June, "the centrist 'New Democrat' movement is struggling to maintain its influence in the party as the 2004 presidential race accelerates." DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting nowhere. Other DLC-friendly candidates, such as Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, are hardly catching fire.

A recent memo by a pair of DLC honchos, Al From and Bruce Reed, linked the party's progressive-leaning activists with "elitist, interest-group liberalism." The salvo is laughable. It would be difficult to find any organization of Democrats more deserving of the "elitist, interest-group" tag than the DLC, which has long been funded by oil, chemical, insurance and military-contracting corporations -- and has served their interests."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

153. Well the big difference

is that the piece about Dean actually talks about Dean' record. The article you describe merely characterizes Kerry and Edwards as 'DLC-friendly' whatever that means.

[helleborient]

154. Just amused about support of the writer who trashes Kerry as well...

So if you think he's reliable when he speaks about Dean, he must be reliable when he speaks about Kerry and Edwards.

So, there all 3 lousy candidates...that really gets us somewhere if we were both Kucinich supporters.

[helleborient]

155. More of Solomon on Kerry...

Pathetic...and oily tongue

I think Norman Solomon is exceptionally biased and unfair about both Kerry and Dean.

http://www.newcollegenews.net/nsolomon_mediabeat031303.html

"A pathetic case in point is Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who voted for the congressional war resolution last October while trying to pass himself off as a critic of President Bush's enthusiasm for war. While campaigning in Iowa recently for his party's presidential nomination, Kerry told a New York Times reporter: "When the war begins, if the war begins, I support the troops and I support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible. When the troops are in the field and fighting -- if they're in the field and fighting -- remembering what it's like to be those troops, I think they need a unified America that is prepared to win."

Prepared to win. Such a phrase rolls off an oily tongue with ease. As a consequence, of course, many blameless people must die."


And yet more:

Read this and tell me you still think Solomon is capable of fair assessment.

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/021010.html

No one in Congress better symbolizes the convergence of political opportunism and media pandering than John Kerry. Thirty-one years ago, as a Vietnam veteran, he denounced the war in Southeast Asia. Today, Kerry is gaining distinction among Democrats as one of the prominent hollow men in the Senate.

It was no surprise on October 9 when Sen. Kerry announced that he would vote for the pro-war resolution. Gearing up for a presidential run in 2004, he never seems to miss an opportunity to make his peace with the next U.S.-led war, as if to cleanse himself from the taint of past principles.

A week before his announcement, Kerry appeared for an hour on MSNBC's "Hardball" program. With a backdrop of earnest young cadets at The Citadel, the graying senator burnished his warrior persona.

"Soldiers who love each other and really fight for each other as much as for anything else, I think that that's what we want to make certain is what happens if and when we go into Iraq," Kerry said. "I'm prepared to go. I think people understand that Saddam Hussein is a danger. But you want to go maximizing your capacity for victory, not beginning with deficits. That's one of the lessons of Vietnam."

Millions of Americans actively opposed the Vietnam War because it was morally wrong, not because it wasn't being won. But these days, while drawing lessons from that conflagration, Kerry goes out of his way to tout a more media-palatable imperative -- "maximizing your capacity for victory."

In essence, like most Democrats in Congress, the junior senator from Massachusetts keeps trying to have it both ways -- sounding notes of restraint while helping to open the floodgates for a horrendous war. Pieties about democratic procedures spiced the red meat that Kerry spent much of the hour throwing out to the uniformed crowd and the national TV audience.

But in the race to the bloody bottom, Democrats will not be able to keep up

[patricia92243]

161. deans' stance on war

Dean is for the war on terriorism - he is not for the iraq war which is NOT a war on terriorism.

STOP the GOP!