Dean's negative tilt in Iowa

[Feanorcurufinwe]

By Thomas Oliphant, 11/23/2003

HOWARD DEAN is dropping about $300,000 of his gazillions in Iowa these days on two preposterous assertions about the presidential candidate who is leading him there. One is flat-out false about Iraq, and the other sets up an assertion by Dean about himself and the postwar mess that takes the term "misleading" to new depths.

Those gobs of campaign cash -- spent on a mailing to Iowa Democrats and on the first television attack ad of the presidential campaign -- also illustrate just how silly and wrong, not to mention mean-spirited and undignified, is all the political rhetoric about who was "for" the war in Iraq and who was "against" it.

<snip>

Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate. This junk is generally accepted in politics, but the situation in Iraq is too serious and deadly for tolerance of it now. As the facts show, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean was; the facts show that each of them was basically in favor of the same thing, namely bringing matters with Iraq to a climactic head. Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly.

<snip>

Against that background, Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution. It is no more Gephardt's fault than it is Dean's fault that Bush decided to invade the country on March 20 with only Britain as a serious ally and without a clear plan for the aftermath. The ad's implication to the contrary is false.

<snip>

As for the $87 billion, the ad misstates Dean's position. In debates and statements he has said the United States has no choice but to fund the occupation. He told Iowa reporters last month, "We can't cut and run from Iraq." In addition, Dean has said that he supports spending $87 billion but would not have voted for the bill in Congress unless previously enacted tax cuts were repealed to pay for it. Contrary to the ad, however, he supported funding the occupation and added that he was not going to raise the issue in the campaign against people who supported it without the tax proviso.

<snip>

The best summary of the real political test posed by Iraq in the campaign was offered by Dean himself recently: "Trying to have it both ways demonstrates neither strong leadership nor good judgment." Now that Gephardt is up on the air with a response to Dean's baloney, I have a suspicion that Iowans who have a record of disliking this kind of campaigning will take Dean up on this point.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

[joeybee12]

1. Why is Oliphant lying?

There were no negotiations, there were no alternatives--there was no discussion or debate! Gephardt went to Bush and basically agreed with what Dumbo wanted and forced an early vote to get the issue off the table for the 2002 elections! Lots of good that did the Dems--thank you again, Mr. Gephardt!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Your attempt at revisionist history is pathetic.

[hey2370]

3. My memory of the events

The Senate Dems were still negotiating when Gephardt undercut them by showing up in the Rose Garden alongside He Who Will Not Be Named. It was a betrayal of the Dems who were trying to avoid our current mess of a situation, pure and simple.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. So you remember the events that the first poster said didn't happen.

So do I.

[Andromeda]

6. Your denial is pathetic.

That's exactly what happened.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. There were no negotiations? No discussion or debate?

Then how exactly did it happen that Bush didn't get the resolution that he wanted, that would have given him authority to wage war throughout the Middle East?

If there were no negotiations, discussion or debate, explain this editorial 'Gephardt Caves' (a sentiment I wholly agree with, btw):

Among the concessions Mr. Gephardt trumpeted was one requiring Mr. Bush to certify to Congress, either before war began, or within 48 hours afterward, that "diplomatic and other peaceful means alone are inadequate to protect Americans from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction." That's no real impediment to the president. It's a foregone conclusion that Saddam will not comply with every one of the dozen resolutions that the United Nations has passed.

Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Just what exactly did Gephardt cave on if there were no negotiations?

[robbedvoter]

5. Even so, no one cares about that now. With every coffin coming back

the question on people's mind is <b>"Who can take us out?"</b> rather than how did we get started. Any parent having to stop a quarrel between two kids you say: "I don't care who started, just stop it right now"
BTW, I know what gephardt did and deeply resent it. But even I, after marching against this war am a little tired of these he said, he didn't say it loud enough... Tests of purity. You guys love it - voters out there don't give a damn. A mistake.