Ted Kennedy will explain it to those of you

[blm]

who still haven't figured out that Dean was being deceptive when he accused the other Dems of giving Bush a "blank check" while all along he supported Biden-Lugar but failed to enlighten his audiences of the similarities in the two versions of the IWR.

We have every right to believe the media purposely looked the other way while Dean used IWR as a wedge issue.

Oct. 2002

Kennedy, and presumably from context Robert Byrd agrees, doesn't seem to see a whole lot of difference between Biden-Lugar and the version that passed. (thanks Cocoa)

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0210a/iraqdebate4.html

<snip>
The test in the Gephardt-Lieberman-Warner Resolution says to defend against the continuing threat from Iraq -- that is the operative word. And in Biden-Lugar it talks about dealing with the threat of Iraq is "so grave" that force should be used. New words, "so grave." The President already said it was a grave situation.

In effect, if that was to be accepted -- the President already said it was a grave situation. It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do.
more...

[RogueTrooper]

1. John Kerry voted for the war

and he winces everytime he thinks of that vote. John Kerry knows he was wrong.

[sandnsea]

2. What does that mean?

Here's what he said in Sept 2002. He has also said repeatedly, as recently as a couple weeks ago on Hardball, that he would be perfectly content to still have inspectors in Iraq and continue diplomatic discussions with our allies. By this time, other information would have come out completely, like the yellowcake forgeries, and there would be no war. With a Kerry Presidency our kids would still be sitting safely in Kuwait (or be home) and we'd be moving down a different diplomatic process altogether. He didn't vote for a war, he voted for a disarmament process because every single international expert said Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD.

"There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war."


"For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5596.xml

[NewYorkerfromMass]

117. it means this very weak reasoning

must finally succumb to true reason.

[blm]

3. Typical response. Stick your head in the sand.

Dean's deceptions will sink this party in 2004 if they aren't dealt with now.

[genius]

4. Kerry did not vote for the war. The resolutions is mislabeled and Dean is

nothing more than a liar. I opposed the resolution because it gave Bush too much power. Those who voted for it weren-t pro-war. They were just gullible. DEan was pro-war and still is pro-occupation. But he didn't have to vote.

[sandnsea]

5. Dennis - 2002

What was Dennis' plan to accomplish this? Certainly Bush's approach wouldn't have done any good at all. Dennis called for the sanctions to end, which is good. But since no country had been able to get inspectors in Iraq, how did Dennis propose to do it?

I only quote this here to show that even Dennis Kucinich acknowledged the need to be concerned about an Iraq with WMD. Congress was not gullible.

"It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites.

The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted."

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[Scott Lee]

37. Lie. Dean has always opposed war on the grounds it came about

And by the way, IWR was indeed an understood blank check on giving Bush war powers - which anyone with a pulse knew he'd use.

If the Democratic congressfolks who voted for the IWR say they "didn't know Bush would actually go to war", this is evidence of gross negligence and incompetence, demonstrating that they are not worthy of their congressional seat, let alone a presidential one.

[Andromeda]

95. That is a lie...

So Kerry was just "gullible?" Puleeeeez, your logic is skewed and to expect anyone to buy into that craptrap is farcical and absurd.

Read my lips: Kerry voted for the IWR. It was a calculated risk he chose to take because he didn't want to appear weak on defense. He is not gullible and he of all people should have know better with all his "foreign policy" experience---he is well aware that Bush is deceptive and a liar but John Kerry is a politial opportunist who thought he was making a good career move by voting for the IWR. Principles had nothing to do with Kerry's vote--he thought that G.W. was such a popular president that it would look bad for him if he voted against the resolution so soon after 9/11. Kerry voted against Desert Storm as did a number of other Democratic Senators and as a result they were labeled "weak on defense" while Republicans maintained their "strong on defense" mantra because Desert Storm was perceived a success.

Kerry made a big, big mistake and he knows it now but he won't admit it. He talks a good game but he will never convince me that what he did wasn't self-serving.

Dean believes in a strong defense but that doesn't make him pro-war. If he is elected I will feel very safe because he will negotiate for peace without letting anybody walk right over him.

He is pro-occupation in the sense that WE ARE ALREADY THERE---hello??? so we need to protect our troops and make an orderly withdrawal. Dean believes that the United Nations needs to be involved in this endeavor also and if HE had been president we wouldn't be in this mess.

[LuminousX]

6. Fundamentally, this issue has been judged already

No matter which way it is spun, it is a weak spot for Kerry. It is best that he do everything to move beyond that one vote and focus on all the other decisions that have to be made regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism.

[blm]

7. While Dean and his supporters use deception to beat Kerry up on IWR?

Disgusting.

[LuminousX]

9. The more he (actually he has stopped) defends, the more it just looks bad

the quicker he moves beyond it, the quicker people will forget about it and when anyone, Dean supporters or others bring it up, they will look like they 'can't move on' which allows Kerry's campaign to make statements about the importance of moving forward, and how living in the past doesn't benefit anyone.

My opinion. If the Kerry campaign and Kerry supporters want to keep coming up with more and more interesting ways to defend a vote that disappointed so many people, that is fine by me. I'm not getting paid to win the election for Kerry, so it is no skin off my nose.

[Padraig18]

10. I'll talk about it every time they bring it up.

They fail to understand that it's not smear of Gov. Dean, but rather a gaping wound in the Kerry campaign they insist on picking the scab off of. :shrug:

[blm]

12. Thanks to Dean's deception and the media's complicity.

.

[Padraig18]

14. No deception--- clear differences.

But feel free to keep repeating the meme, if it gives you comfort about your candidate's tanking campaign...

[Scott Lee]

39. Good. The best way to fight lies and memes is to refute them.

As often as they are repeated. The Goebellsian Big Lie (which is what the antiDeans are using on Dean) only works if the Big Lie is repeated more often than it is disproven or refuted.

[virtualobserver]

54. It is amazing to watch.......

What disturbs me is just how similar it feels to the Republican attacks on Gore and Clinton over the years.

[blm]

87. Name the difference that Dean has stated.

The statements that he has made about Bush being allowed to make the decision without returning to Congress happened to be in B-L, too.

[mzmolly]

90. He he...

good one. ;)

[Northwind]

25. You know what?

Kerry gets no boost in the support, no matter how many times you say "disgusting".

[Scott Lee]

38. Actually Kerry is tanking with no help from the IWR issue.

I suppose we should be merciful and allow him some privacy for the death rattle.

[Padraig18]

8. Oh, bullshit!

The substantive difference in the bills was that B-L reserved rights to Congress, something the IWR that Senator Kerry voted for did not do.

Calling Dean a hypocrite is refuted by his repeated statements in August and September of 2002, before the IWR vote. Gov Dean was clearly against the war unless Bush made his evidence and reasoning public, and he also warned that the occupation of Iraq would last "5 - 10 years" in order to establish democracy in Iraq.

Supporting the B-L amendment is absolutely consistent with all of his statements expressing reservations about the Iraq war. Anyone who cares to actually read what Gov. Dean himself said, rather than what some rabid, pro-Kerry apologists say he said may consult the following archive to obtain his actual statements:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/deanarchive/2002.html

[blm]

11. Dean still supported Biden-Lugar. Did he not understand it?

>>>>>>>>
Huh? Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

>>>>>>>
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.
>>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[Padraig18]

13. Since it didn't pass,...

... it's pure speculation on both your and Sen. Kerry's part about 'what might have been'; that's the problem with the blank check your friend, the Bush enabler, handed to *, isn't it?

[blm]

24. No spinning Dean out of his deliberate deception.

.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

15. Biden-Lugar supported war

Dean supported war. He believed Saddam had WMD and was a threat and inspections were needed. You don't support war for any other reason.

How is he going to get up in a debate and have all of this thrown at him and then turn around and say Bush didn't make the case? He made the case enough for Dean to support a war resolution. He made the case enough for Dean to say Saddam must be disarmed in March 2003. He may be able to convince his Deanie's that he was all-knowing in being against the war, but not next year.

We need a candidate who looked at the facts, voted according to the facts, and supported a diplomatic and reasoned response to those facts. That's John Kerry and only John Kerry.

[Padraig18]

16. Keep telling yourselves that.

If you can't understand the substantive difference between Biden-Lugar and the IWR, then I can't help you; it's been explained often enough, and the voters certainly seem to understand it. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

18. People are misinformed

If you can't understand that your candidate said that Saddam was a threat, had WMD, must be disarmed, supported Biden-Lugar and therefore was NOT anti-war; then I can't help you. People are misinformed about Biden-Lugar, it's that simple.

Biden-Lugar was NOT a two-step process. Here's Gephardt's words at the time:

“Now, whether they will have a one-step or a two-step at the end of the day, I don't know. What the exact language of the one-step will be, I don't know. You have got Biden-Lugar, and our compromises are of the same basic category. And then you have the Levin, or other approach, which is the two-step approach."

http://dickgephardt.house.gov/info/press_releases/index.asp?ID=439

In the document posted above, Senator Kennedy said it granted the President authority to go to war:

"In effect, if that was to be accepted -- the President already said it was a grave situation. It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do."

[Padraig18]

20. Would that be the same Bush-enabling Gephart who voted FOR IWR?

It boggles my mind to think that you would expect him to say anything that didn't try to justify his vote. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

26. He wasn't

That was just a section where he was explaining the different ways to go on resolutions and where he says Levin's approach was the two-step approach. Between that and Kennedy's comments, it's clear Biden-Lugar didn't require Bush to go back to Congress and didn't provide any more controls than the resolution that passed.

And still, if Howard somehow knew Bush was a liar and there was no reason to go to war; then how come he supported any resolution at all and said repeatedly Saddam had weapons, had to be disarmed and we should disarm him unilaterally if necessary?

[Scott Lee]

30. Blaming Dean for the US governments crappy intelligence. Wow.

Again, for the bazillionth time, Dean supported fighting if the WMD evidence was factual and we were in a clear and present danger from it. Any rational person would. The fact that this government lied about or conjured false evidence of such does not mean Dean was at fault.

To assume otherwise is simply not logical. But, logic is no friends with the obsessive DeanHate club.

[sandnsea]

32. Nor anyone else

Except Bush and his administration. My fucking point exactly. I am so goddamn glad you've finally figured it out.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

49. Bush lied

Nobody authorized Bush to lie in order to start a war.

[virtualobserver]

55. What I want to know......

is why I could see that Bush was lying and Kerry couldn't.

[sandnsea]

67. Run for President then

Dennis Kucinich said sanctions should be lifted, Saddam must allow free and unfettered weapons inspection, and strict regulations should stay in place so that he couldn't get weapons in the future.

Howard Dean said Saddam must disarm and must allow inspectors in within 30-60 days or we should unilaterally go in.

Every leader in the world, every expert in every agency including the IAEA and UNSCOM said Saddam had weapons.

So you think you knew something nobody else knew?

[Octafish]

22. Dean's a liar.

He talks and talks about how he was the only candidate against the war.

What about Sharpton?

What about Kucinich?

Oops. A mistake? No, Dean kept repeating his lie.

Why? It works on people like you.

Ask yourself this: "What else does Dean lie about?"

[Scott Lee]

"If I just keep repeating it, it will come true"

Ask yourself this - when did Dean become a candidate? When did the other "antiwar" candidates declare theirs?

Get back to me.

[Octafish]

98. IOIWT: "I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

If Only It Were True.

And "If only wishes were horses, beggars would ride." That's the stockbroker's favorite phrase.

Here's a photo of a guy who's actually DONE something to stop war — by fighting in one to keep you free and to stop the same war to keep free people from being used by their government as pawns.

Dean didn't do either. Instead, he went skiing.



Of course, I refer to the man on the left, John Kerry.

The man on the right is the late John Lennon.

[Scott Lee]

130. Vietnam war kept me "free"? LOL!!

"Here's a photo of a guy who's actually DONE something to stop war — by fighting in one to keep you free "

Oh you are hilarious! I hope you don't work on someone's campaign.

Thank you oh thank you John Kerry, for keeping the Vietnam hordes from sweeping over our shores and taking away my freedom.

[babzilla]

17. who ordered the heaping pile of condescension?

thanks for explaining it for those of us who still haven't figured out Dean's deception, very helpful.

Sadly, I will have to decline at this juncture, I had condescension for lunch.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. If you have already "figured out Dean's deception,"

but know that others haven't, why do you see an explanation as condescension?

[Octafish]

21. Kerry's been to war. He lost six friends in Vietnam.

Howard Dean talks about war. He got a doctor's note so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam.

I don't know about you, but if my son or daughters had to be in the armed forces, I'd prefer Kerry as Commander-in-Chief. Why?

First, he wouldn't send our armed forces into a fight unless it was in the national security interests of the United States.

Second, John Kerry is no coward.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

27. He did more than that

He made a special appt. and got a letter from his doctor about his back. He didn't just show up at the draft board with vague medical records in hand.

And he wasn't forthcoming about not being 'anxious to serve' and the extra efforts he took so he wouldn't have to serve either. He tried to make it sound like a routing army physical when it wasn't. Hiding the full story of his medical deferment isn't very courageous.

[Scott Lee]

35. Lie.

well you've heard the lies, now here are the facts.

FACT: Howard Dean hid nothing from his draft board.

FACT: Howard Dean complied in full with his legal obligation under military rules to provide the draft board with all medical information pertaining to his elegibility for military service.

FACT: The antiDean haters continue to spread lies about Howard Dean, even to the detriment of their own candidates.

[Octafish]

50. FACT: Howard Dean got out of the draft for a bad back and went SKIING!

Dean, even bragged about loving to hit the moguls, as he spent at least 80 days that same winter he dodged the draft in Vale, Colorado, skiing. Nice digs, if you're connected, eh Scott Lee?

[virtualobserver]

56. so, Dean brought evidence of a diagnosed condition to the draft board

and didn't go to Vietnam, which was another war that the right-wing wanted us to fight......and which ground up endless streams of young men of that generation.

Gee, Dean must have been crazy.

[Octafish]

57. No. Self-preservation is not "crazy." Remember Catch-22?

If you didn't want to fly, you were not crazy, so you had to fly. If you did want to fly, you were crazy, but you were allowed to fly. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Regarding Dean: Absolutely the war in Vietnam was illegal, deceitful, immoral and abhorent in almost all ways. Why didn't Howard Dean oppose it? Bill Clinton did. So did John Kerry.

What Dean DID do is go skiing. And for money, he poured concrete. Both activities require a strong back, note or no note from one's orthopedist.

[virtualobserver]

58. then why are Kerry supporters calling Dean a coward?

Pointing out how brave Kerry was to serve his country is wonderful, but the reverse causes me to do a quick check of which party I am affiliated with.

I can also undestand why you would want someone who actively opposed the war in Vietnam.

My problem with Kerry is that he didn't oppose this one to my satisfaction. When Dean said this in February....

"What I want to know . . . is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq?

What I want to know . . . is why are Democratic leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be -- the question should be: Can we afford a tax cut at all with the largest deficit in the history of the country?

What I want to know . . . is why we're fighting in Congress about the Patient's Bill of Rights when the Democratic Party ought to be standing up for health care for every man, woman and child in this country?

What I want to know . . . is why our folks are voting for the President's No Child Left Behind bill that leaves every child behind, every teacher behind, every school board behind and every property tax payer behind? "


......he said what I had been feeling for years.

Republicans called Dean a traitor, and everyone said he had no chance to win.

This war will ultimately be such an albatross around the neck of anyone involved with it that only someone who actively opposed it will have any credibility in the next election.

Note: this is my opinion, not a statement of fact.

I like Kerry. But I really like Dean.

[Octafish]

100. Great questions, yours. You and all good people deserve answers.

Like you, I didn't think attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. Sen. Kerry didn't think it was the right course of action, either, but voted to protect America's national security.

To serve as leader of the armed forces of the United States requires a person of the highest standards of character and intelligence, as well as a broad-ranging and inquring mind familiar with all the issues and threats facing our nation today and in the coming decade. To be the best commander-in-chief also requires military experience. History shows combat-tested leadership is best.

Howard Dean, when faced with the prospect of having to serve in the military, did what many people did during the Vietnam War. He chose to find a way out of serving in uniform. To do that, he did what many of the children of the wealthy did — Dean got an expert's opinion in writing and an X-ray. The fact Dean's back was good enough to ski on that entire season betrays the validity of his medical claim. Doesn't it also proclaim a flaw ini character — the lack of personal courage?

[peaceandjustice]

128. COME ON!! ...no, it doesn't.

If Dean's back gives out while skiing, then he may have painful lifelong complications. If his back gives out while fighting the Vietnam war, then some poor Black or Hispanic kid could get shot and killed while held-up with helping him out.

Do you see the difference?

[Scott Lee]

131. If you don't like the law, change it. Dean abided by it.

From the Vietnamese free republic of New Mexico. Thanks again, John Kerry, for keeping Ho Chi Minh out of my cactus flowers.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

51. An appt. with the draft board

I have to say, if you'd read anything on the topic, you'd know that. He made a special appt. with the military draft board people in advance, before he was actually called up. He took a special letter from his doctor, in addition to the routine records, to highlight his back. He went out of his way to make sure he didn't have to go. He avoided the draft. Please note, nowhere in here have I used the word dodged. Dodged would be a phony medical condition or something like that. Dean avoided. People agree all over this board, yep, he avoided and he was smart to do it.

But he didn't admit that when he first began talking about his physical. He didn't admit to taking a letter from his doctor, which is more than just medical records. He didn't admit to making a special appt. at the draft board. He didn't admit to not being willing to serve. He implied he was willing to go, showed up and they rejected him. It's a lie.

[Octafish]

45. Yeah. Dean's a coward.

And I'm no Bush-enabler.

In fact and deed, I've devoted most of my adult life to fighting what Bush stands for.

That's more than Dean has done.

What about you?

[Scott Lee]

40. And now he's gonna lose a campaign.

You gotta hand it to John - he is an expert at losing.

[Octafish]

46. No. John Kerry has fought the Bush Organized Crime Family...

... and WON. Too bad you don't know about BCCI, international terrorism, Ollie North, and Iran-Contra drug-running. What the public does know is largely due to Sen. Kerry.

[drfemoe]

102. He did it all?

...
"I have a long history with Kerry. Back in 1986, 1987, and 1988, I was in contact with his office and his chief of staff Jonathan Winer on a number of occasions about CIA drug trafficking. They eagerly asked for any material I could send them and gave me a direct line. It was one of my most bitter lessons about how hot issues are controlled. Kerry, in charge of the potentially explosive Iran-Contra drug hearings succeeded in producing a 1,200-page record that was a treasure trove of information for researchers, but absolutely useless in unraveling a corruption that controls the US government to this day. What lies buried in those pages was enough to have turned the American political system inside out. In the end, its greatest usefulness was as a benchmark against which to compare the CIA's investigation of itself after the 1996 Dark Alliance stories and hard revelations of CIA connections to cocaine smuggling that Kerry knew all about anyway. Those of us close to the issue took the lemons Kerry had left us and made lemonade, as we forced the CIA Inspector General to reconcile his 1998 report with what we already knew was in Kerry's.

And still - as intended - nothing changed. John Kerry had successfully contained what was, up to that time, the biggest scandal in American history.

Wealthy in his own right, Kerry's fortune has been reinforced by the wealth of his wife (heir to the Heinz food fortune), estimated by the Associated Press at $550 million. This is old money and deeply rooted in establishment politics.

A key sign that Kerry might be the anointed one came for me when George W. Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser Rand Beers resigned in a dramatic moment last June, in protest over Bush's handling of the war on terror and his headlong rush into Iraq. Beers immediately became Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor, as Kerry continued to state that he would improve on and expand the war on terror. Beers' protestations concealed what I considered to be a much more sinister objective, the placement of a key, hands-on operative to manage a smooth transition of power and a continuation of secret policy. Beers, who had served in national security roles for three Republican administrations, was the man who had replaced Lt. Col. Oliver North after North was fired in 1987 during the Iran-Contra scandal. " ...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

[Octafish]

119. Kerry modeled his own career after JFK...

... like the late President, John Kerry has demonstrated courage, intelligence, and leadership in his career of public service. And, like JFK, Kerry believes "to whom much is given, much is demanded."

I, too, read and like Ruppert, but he's wrong if he thinks John Kerry is the "annointed one." Nixon feared the war hero turned war protestor. The Mafia feared Kerry for busting their No. 2 guy in Boston. In the Senate, for dredging up all that stuff about Ollie North and his drug-running connections, the FBI was sicced on John Kerry.

Here's another opinion on Kerry:

CIA Drugs: The Record Ignored

- by Joe Horman , October 22, 1996

In their rush to mask the crimes of government and CIA officials, the LA Times and Washington Post predictably omitted salient and persuasive evidence that clearly supports the findings of the San Jose Mercury News that the CIA's contra army smuggled tons of cocaine into the United States. What follows are some of the published reports, congressional findings and testimony all of which, when taken in their entirety, amount to a preponderance of both direct and circumstantial evidence that persuasively support the central contentions.

UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS.

That investigation, directed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., established that the administration gave contra-supply contracts to four companies that were either under indictment for drug trafficking or listed as suspected smugglers in law enforcement computers. Kerry's probe also confirmed that pilots used for contra arms flights carried cocaine into the United States as well as guns to Central America. And Kerry found that drug kingpins had contributed heavily to the contra cause, in hopes of gaining favor with Washington.

IRAN CONTRA SWORN TESTIMONY

The Iran-contra testimony of CIA officer Alan Fiers, "with respect to the Resistance Forces it is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people." Friers was the CIA's Central-American Station Chief and contra coordinator.

OFFICIAL FINDINGS OF COSTA RICA CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION

In July 1989, North and other major contragate figures were barred from Costa Rica. The order was issued by none other than Costa Rican President Oscar Arias acting on recommendations from a Costa Rican congressional commission investigating drug trafficking. The commission concluded that the contra resupply network in Costa Rica that North coordinated from the White House doubled as a drug smuggling operation.

The narcotics commission started probing the contra network centered around the northern Costa Rican ranch of U.S.-born rancher John Hull because of the "quantity and frequency of the shipment of drugs that passed through the zone." North's personal notebook mentioned "the necessity of giving Mr. Hull protection.

CONTINUED...

[Scott Lee]

132. And he off and on supports them too. For which they are grateful.

IWR, Patriot Act I and II, etc

[kayob1]

123. Actually

Both my sons and my daughter-in-law were in the Army last fall - one son at Fort Lewis, and my other son (who had just gotten out of the Army) was in the National Guard at Fort Riley attending school - he was waiting for his wife to get out of the Army in April.

My Fort Lewis son was toting around a beeper and couldn't go any farther than 100 miles from the base. My daughter-in-law was busy training the reservists that had replaced most of the people in her unit because, gee, most of her unit had already been deployed - guess where? And this was around September/October last year.

Now just from those two pieces of information, I was able to - correctly - conclude that the War in Iraq was already a done deal - all the rest was just pretty much talk about bogus issues. So my question would be if I - a singularly uninformed (don't watch TV, don't read newspapers, etc.) less-than-intelligent high school graduate - could figure this out why the HELL couldn't Kerry or anybody else who voted for this resolution figure this out??

I would also like to note that my ex-husband - the Purple Heart Vietnam frontline combat infantryman, yada, yada, yada - was drafted. He actually volunteered for the draft. That really looks good on paper, but I kind of chuckle when people start flinging words like "coward" around about "draft dodgers" - the reason he volunteered for the draft was his lawyer advised him to volunteer so he could get out of a grand theft auto charge. It worked, too!!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[blm]

31. Either Ted Kennedy is lying, or Dean is being deceptive.

Which is it?

[Scott Lee]

33. Ted Kennedy is entitled to his opinions. That does not make them fact

Opinions are not always factual, regardless of what it states in the AntiDean Handbook.

[Padraig18]

36. Opinions are like assholes, even Teddy's opinions:

Sometimes they stink; as stated above, his opinion is just that--- an opinion. His is no more valid that Gov. Dean's on the subject.

[Octafish]

47. Ted Kennedy has a record of accomplishment. What's Dean ever done?

The Dean Record: Zero. Nada. Zilch.

What he DOES do is wag his wug.

Talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk. Just like too many of Ho-Ho's supporters. All talk. No action.

True to their master's form, Trippi and his Internet tools issue and re-issue Dean statement after statement.

[Padraig18]

64. Aside from 5 1/2 successful terms as Governor of VT?

You really DON'T want to 'go there' with Teddy Kennedy, my friend--- truly you don't. It could get VERY ugly VERY quickly. :eyes:

[Octafish]

78. The question regarded Dean. What do you have against Ted Kennedy?

Do tell, my friend. I'm not afraid of ideas or people.

In fact, I'm Liberal and proud. I'm also proud of what Ted Kennedy has done for this country.

Dean is another matter. I don't recall him doing anything for anybody other than himself and his cronies.

Unlike most of his supporters, I also can recognize what Dean is. Dean is basically, at heart and in deed, a moderate Republican shooting his mouth off as a Democrat.

Don't take my word for it, here's what someone who knows said (in case you don't know, Jim Farrell was Paul Wellstone's press spokesman):

Dean's No Wellstone

by Jim Farrell

Lately, presidential contender Howard Dean has been likening himself to the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Out on the stump, Dean has used a phrase that Wellstone long employed--that we need candidates who "represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Before audiences of progressives and party activists, it is reportedly Governor Dean's best applause line. No wonder. The Democratic rank and file yearn for populist leadership based on a firm commitment to progressive policies.

Dean acknowledges that his own politics are considerably less "liberal" than Wellstone's but that he identifies with the senator's passion and commitment to beliefs. Certainly, Dean's campaign has many of the trappings of progressive politics. Dean himself is an upstart and outsider, and his call for a grassroots campaign to "take back America" sounds progressive.

But as Wellstone frequently said, it's not the thought that counts but the deed. So how do the records of the two men compare? Wellstone's history included both activism and intellectual support for civil rights, and he took that same spirit to his first Senate election and ran against big money in politics. In the Senate, Wellstone stood for economic and social justice. He supported expanding collective-bargaining rights and universal healthcare. He opposed the death penalty because it is inequitably applied to minorities and the poor. And he was the only senator up for re-election to vote against the so-called Welfare Reform Act in 1996, because he believed it punished children and played into stereotypes of single women on welfare. Wellstone also voted no on the October Iraq war resolution, following a lifetime of advocating for peace and for a US role in the world that fostered democracy and used military intervention as a last resort.

While Dean may share some measure of Wellstone's passion, his record and his agenda are very different. As governor of Vermont, Dean targeted for elimination the public-financing provision of the state's campaign finance law--a law similar to the one Wellstone pushed in the Senate. In February 2002, Dean said his big donors are given special access. While Wellstone fought for people on welfare, Dean said some welfare recipients "don't have any self-esteem. If they did, they'd be working" and scaled back Vermont's welfare program, reducing cash benefits and imposing strict time limits on single mothers receiving welfare assistance.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=farrell

[Padraig18]

84. I have nothing 'against' Ted Kennedy, per se.

But don't try and lionize or deify him, just to take a cheap slap at Dean. TK's opinion on the B-L Amendment is no more valid than anyone else's, and if you REALLY want to get into 'baggage', I'll call a bellhop to help with Sen. Kennedy's.. :eyes:

[Octafish]

99. I don't need anybody to dump on Dean.

And I don't need anybody's permission to dump on Dean.

FYI: What I DO is I ask DUers: What has Dean ever done? So far, all he's done is talk. Oh yeah, and he's got a great marketing team helping him. Of course, they won't help him explain how he went skiing after talking his way out of serving in Vietnam with a note from his doctor.

[Meshuga]

101. Right, Dean brought the X-Rays to make sure...

his "back problem" was not overlooked by the physical.

[Padraig18]

110. Who said you needed permission?

You can clearly cheap-shot Dean without anyone's permission, as you have demonstrated repeatedly; for the record, he compiled 5 1/2 successful terms as Governor of Vermont (something you ignored earlier). Additionally, you ignored his legal obligation to bring his medical records to his induction physical, choosing to 'nuance it' in terms of yet another cheap shot.

Your 'questions' show all the subtlety of a wounded, dying, imploding campaign's lashing out at the one person who has actually attained the front-runner position you so clearly believe your candidate 'deserves'. Don't blame Dean for the fact that Kerry's run a crappy campaign.

[peaceandjustice]

129. What Dean has done

He risked his life by signing a civil unions bill. Yes, he risked his life. All it would've took is some nut-jobs donating Eric Rudolph bus fare and one unlucky break for Dean's security detail and we wouldn't be talking about Dean '04.
While governor, Vermonts child abuse rate declined by over 60%.
By using federal resources wisely, he provided universal health care for Vermont's children.
He balanced Vermont's budget for 11 years.

[Scott Lee]

133. Actually he was governor of Vermont for many terms.

How many states has Kerry governed, and how long? Or has he

Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked TalkedTalked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked Talked?

[sandnsea]

42. I give up

I was going to post, jokingly, that of course Ted's a liar. How could you expect anything else? Never thinking anybody would actually have the audacity to take up the case against Ted Kennedy. Silly me. I'm ready to support NCLB because what we've got now is clearly not working.

[mzmolly]

60. Neither. Your missing the point of B/L...

Ted Kennedy may have opposed B/L but since the OP is about an entirely different piece of legislation, you have yet to prove your case.

However, B/L was never formally submitted so this is a moot point. The B/L proposal would have 'tied Bush's hand's' according to Bush himself, and his hands should have been tied. He would not have been able to proceed in the wreckless manner he did with the B/L proposal in place.

Kerry keeps promoting the "Dean is not anti-war" meme, and guess what John, WE KNOW THAT. The whole point of him shoving Deans support of this ammendment is because he wants to illustrate what we already know.

I respect Ted Kennedy and Dean, and just because they may disagree from time to time, doesn't mean I can't respect them both.

[blm]

65. You believed Bush when he said that? He just wanted the vote over with.

B-L couldn't tie Bush's hands because the "determination" of the use of force was STILL left to Bush.

[mzmolly]

66. Nope... Read the B/L ammendment, and then tell me it's the same as

supporting a 'blank check' it's simply not.

Edited to add see posts 59 and 61. Additionally look up information on Biden Lugar. I have no problem with my candiate supporting this measure.

[blm]

94. I never said it was the same and there was NO blank check in IWR.

They curbed Bush where they could. They kept him out of Iran and Syria, and forced him to present evidence to the UN which has caused some hits to his credibility.

But, the point is that DEAN attacked the others on aspects of IWR that he agreed with in the B-L mostly in regard to Bush having the power to "determine" if the situation was grave enough for use of force. SAME as in IWR. That's the point of deception and you can't admit it, yet you KNOW Dean has scored all his hits based on that.

Khephra even admitted last week that he just found out about that when all along he believed B-L forced Bush back to Congress first. Why did he think that? Maybe because Dean always attacked the others on that very point.

[mzmolly]

103. I never thought B/L forced * back to congress first...

The point is there is a difference between B/L and the rez Dean criticized. That is 'the point.' B/L did force * back to the UN and that may have been the confusion on K's part?

[blm]

118. Not the way Dean has used it.

Ryan Lizza on Biden-Lugar- :

>>>>>>

Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

Dean himself admitted in the debate that he did indeed support it. Mustering some faux shock that his rivals would attack him on this issue, he retorted, "Let me use the first five minutes to correct an important thing that Dick Gephardt just misinformed us about." Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.
>>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[mzmolly]

41. This entire article is about the Gep-Lieberman Resolution

with the exception of the small snip you included. :shrug:

Here is a bit more info...on B/L

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

[mzmolly]

43. "Bush Criticizes Draft Congressional Resolution on Iraq"

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml

"US President George W. Bush on Tuesday criticized a proposed alternative draft congressional resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq, saying the draft resolution would tie his hands."

[sandnsea]

48. It limited the enforcement of UN resolutions

If the UN had chosen to enforce all of their resolutions, or different resolutions, such as the ones based on human rights, then Biden-Lugar would have been of no use. Bush didn't say anything about a two-step process, or coming back to Congress, or anything else people think Biden-Lugar required.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Bush believes that the Biden-Lugar draft ties his hands, "because it pulls back from many of the provisions that Congress itself cited in 1998, such as requiring or demanding of Iraq to cease their support for terror, to stop oppression of his own people, to cease threatening his neighbors."

[mzmolly]

59. Biden Lugar required several things...

1. The US would have had to exhause all options at the UN
2. The US would have had to prove a grave threat existed
3. US would have had to LIMIT the mission to disarming Saddam Hussein. No regime change, no lenghty stay, no 170 billion, no soldiers dying today...
4. The * would have had to seek congressional backing via reporting every 60 days.

ect...

I for one would have been fine with that scenario. I have no problem with Dean backing B/L. :)

Your quote only illustrates my point BTW.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Bush believes that the Biden-Lugar draft ties his hands, "because it pulls back from many of the provisions that Congress itself cited in 1998, such as requiring or demanding of Iraq to cease their support for terror, to stop oppression of his own people, to cease threatening his neighbors." *B/L pulled back from these provisions thus limiting the mission drastically.

In other words, the mission would not have been called "Operation Liberate Iraq" it would have been called "Operation Disarm Saddam, and then get the F out."

[sandnsea]

69. Bush did all that

At least he said he did. He got a UN resolution in October. He says he worked with the UN and the inspections process until March. He said Iraq's weapons were a grave and growing danger. He hauled out all sorts of pictures and reports to prove it. Same actions with either resolution, same results. And both resolutions called for continual reporting. And supporting either resolution is supporting war.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Source: Thomas, Federal Legislation Server.

[mzmolly]

70. Bush did not 'do all that'...

I can only assume you haven't read B/L.

[sandnsea]

75. I have

Actually read and posted Biden-Lugar and the resolution. I don't rely on what articles say it said. That's why I know Bush complied with the requirements of Biden-Lugar and we would have been at war anyway. So what would Howard be saying then?

[mzmolly]

83. We would be home by now, as there are no weapons and that's

painfully clear. We would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein. We would have had to allow inspections to continue etc...

I am aware of the vastly different course this country would be on if B/L had passed, and your candidate *the foreign policy expert* should be too.

Your own candidate preferred B/L but didn't stick to his guns. Why did Kerry prefer it to the rez that passed? Why did Bush say it tied his hands?

I think you know why, your spinning for John Sandnsea. :crazy:

[sandnsea]

86. We would not be home by now

They're still looking for the weapons, hadn't you heard??? We would not have allowed inspections to continue, Iraq wasn't cooperating. Did you miss that? Did you ignore the Determination Bush made, that there was a continuing threat from Iraq, which Biden-Lugar only said had to be a grave threat?

Bush said it tied his hands because it didn't give the US authority to enforce any of the other UN resolutions, if that was the route the UN chose to go. Doesn't matter, the WMD was the route Bush chose anyway. Either resolution would have ended up with the same results.

And again and again and again, Howard Dean cannot support Biden-Lugar and say he was against the war from the beginning. It makes no sense.

[mzmolly]

89. Did you miss the part where Iraq was cooperating according to the UN???

Did you miss the part where Bush kicked out inspectors so he could invade? Did you miss the part where the UN said they would NOT SUPPORT REGIME CHANGE.

Your right, we probably would'nt be home by now, we never would have invaded.

If it were about WMD and WMD alone we would have had no choice but to allow UN inspections to continue. End Of Story....

Bush would not have been able to proceed in the manner he did, were Biden-Lugar passed. Instead Kerry helped give Bush the blank check he so desired.

Bush chose to highlite several factors, one of which linked Saddam to 911. Another was about his treatment of Iraqis etc etc..

"Operation Liberate Iraq" remember that? Bush has been allowed to spin this war every which way he chooses.

Was your swammy of foreign policy right to support B/L or not? Was he correct that it was preferable, and if so why? Or, was he wrong about the fact that it would have made a difference? If he was wrong, as you seem to imply, his 'foreign policy' experience doesn't mean shit.

There would have been a major difference in how we proceeded, were Biden-Lugar passed. You don't want to admit that, and that is clear.

[sandnsea]

96. How do you figure?

Biden-Lugar didn't require acting in concert with the UN, it just didn't. It only focused the situation in on the WMD resolutions, which is what ended up happening anyway. That was the reason Kerry preferred Biden-Lugar, to make sure Bush focused on the WMD only. Bush said Iraq was not cooperating with inspections and diplomacy had failed. Would have said the exact same thing with Biden-Lugar.

And you haven't answered my question. How can Dean support Biden-Lugar and disarming Saddam unilaterally, and then claim to be anti-war from the start?

[mzmolly]

104. I'll let the words of Kerry and * speak for themselves.

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this ...

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach." ~ Senator John Kerry October 9, 2002


""We'll continue to work with the members of Congress, but I don't want to get a resolution that ties my hands," George W... October 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/bush.iraq/

You asked~How can Dean support Biden-Lugar and disarming Saddam unilaterally, and then claim to be anti-war from the start?"

Minor correction that supporters of other candidates don't seem to grasp, Dean never claimed to be anti war, he was critical of this war and the blank check that congress provided the resident in the process.

Now answer my questions... ;)

[sandnsea]

106. against this war...

but supported Biden-Lugar and disarming Saddam unilaterally. How can that be against THIS war from the start?

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the

explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Exactly. And the resolution passed was to enforce UN resolutions OR protect U.S. security. Bush based his war on the UN resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. He did what Biden-Lugar would have required.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to

send a determination to Congress that the United States
Which Bush did.

tried to seek a new Security Council resolution
Bush got a Security Council resolution, continued to work with the UN, and said that diplomacy had failed.

or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--
Which is exactly what Bush said.

a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has."

Kerry preferred Biden-Lugar because it was focused on WMD and would allow war only to disarm Saddam. Which Dean supported but says he didn't. Bush followed Biden-Lugar anyway, we would have been in a war anyway, Dean supported a resolution that would have led to war.

[mzmolly]

107. Show me where Dean says he didn't support Biden/Lugar....

in addition, your paraphrasing and revisionism are uninteresting to me.

Now answer my questions...

I'll be back in the am :boring:

Kerry saw the 'difference'
Bush saw the 'difference'
Dean saw the 'difference'
The majority of Democrats 'see the difference'
The polls reflect the 'difference'

:hi:

BTW, your missing one very important yet subtle point. Saddam allowed inspectors back into the country and Saddam had media witnessing the 'disarming' of Iraq. Bush would have had his "hands tied" because of this, thus the outcome would have been vastly different. One of many subtle differences you choose to overlook. Saddam was 'disarming' via inspections and thus the war would have been unnecessary and unauthorized.

[sandnsea]

108. He DID support Biden-Lugar

Which was a resolution to go to war. How the hell can he say he was against war with Iraq from the beginning when he supported a resolution which would have allowed war? It makes no damn sense.

And if what I say is uninteresting to you, why do you want my answers?

I've explained to you that the differences at the time ended up being unimportant in the overall picture. Bush focused on the WMD requirement of Biden-Lugar anyway.

And YOU can say Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. Bush said he wasn't. Blix said cooperation wasn't as good as it should be. Bush then said that further diplomacy wouldn't work and getting a further UN resolution wouldn't work and the threat was such that war was justified. That's EXACTLY what he would have said with Biden-Lugar.

Same result.

[mzmolly]

111. Spin, spin oh desperate spin....

:crazy:

Dean was against 'The War' ... you know the one that took place in Iraq. He was not against 'war' or even against the idea of going to war with Saddam Hussein. He has said on many occasions that he could support an invasion of Iraq under certain circumstances. Biden/Lugar was inline with his position on the war.

There is nothing contrary, as in the case of John Kerry. Much as you'd like there to be.

And, you still haven't answered my questions, but that's ok, don't bother I've got no time for this conversation anyhoo. ;)

[sandnsea]

121. Well you admit it

He was not against the idea of going to war with Saddam Hussein. He was not against war with Iraq from the beginning. He supported going to war under Biden-Lugar, which was specifically to disarm Iraq, and that's what Bush did. Bush went to war with Iraq based on hyped intelligence and he would have done the same thing under Biden-Lugar.

This anti-war maverick outsider is all a fabrication of Joe Trippi, that's clear from the WP article that came out yesterday.

[Classical_Liberal]

52. Kerry was clearly hedging his bets that the Iraq war would be successful

If it had been he would be tooting his horn about trusting the President, and giving him a blank check.

[sandnsea]

53. Why would you say that?

Every single candidate, every world leader, every WMD expert, said Saddam Hussein must disarm and must not be allowed to get bio/chem/nuclear weapons. Why would Kerry not take that seriously? Why would he make the exact same statements in Sept, Oct, Jan, and Mar; warning Bush to take the correct path in order to succeed in disarming Iraq without creating the chaos that we have?

"In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5596.xml Sept

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5459.xml Jan

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_marapr_2003/JKessay.html Mar

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722.xml Mar

[mzmolly]

62. Absolutely.

:toast:

[blm]

124. Really? That's why he worked with Clinton on regime change for Iraq in 98?

The lack of understanding of recent Iraq policy of the last decade is appalling. It may make your narrow political agenda happy to promote the false claim that Kerry was being politically expedient but his stance on Iraq has been consistent with his past efforts.

[mzmolly]

61. "ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise "

Just so were clear on what were discussing here.


"The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:


Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress."

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[sandnsea]

68. That all happened anyway

There is no way Bush can use the current IWR to go forward into Syria or anywhere else.

The current IWR has kept the focus on WMD.

The current resolution has the same determination and reports to Congress.

The results of either resolution would have been the same. And besides, supporting EITHER resolution is an admittance that Saddam likely had weapons and support of a war to deal with it. Support of one is no different than voting on the other.

[mzmolly]

71. BULL, we went in and 'changed the regime!!'

The resolution that passed is vastly different, and to insinuate otherwise is not only desperate but uninformed.

See the words of John Kerry below, he saw the difference...

~Peace

[mzmolly]

72. An article for your review

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

"HOUSE MINORITY Leader Richard A. Gephardt (and John Kerry) acceded to the drums of war on Wednesday, agreeing to an overly broad resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to attack Iraq. In the process, Mr. Gephardt undermined efforts in the Senate to limit the war authority to disarmament, rather than regime change."

"The compromise language that Mr. Gephardt agreed to would authorize Mr. Bush to wage war for violation of any of the past United Nations' resolutions that Saddam Hussein is violating. Those resolutions include matters that do not justify war -- such as the requirement that Saddam pay reparations to Kuwait, and that he treat his citizens more democratically. A far better proposal by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would limit the war authorization to enforcement of the resolutions requiring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction."

"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."

Hmmmmm .... Common dreams 'gets it' and John Kerry 'got it' when he supported Biden Lugar, so why doesn't he seem to 'get it' now?

[sandnsea]

74. This is an editorial

So what? Because an editorial say something makes it right? Read the resolutions. They are so close to the same that it's clear the outcome would have been the same. And the point is that Howard Dean supported Biden-Lugar which gave the President the Determination to Authorize Military Action and decide that seeking a UN resolultion had failed and that Iraq was a grave threat. Dean was not against this war from the start. We would be right where we're at with either resolution.

[mzmolly]

82. The outcome would have been the same????!!!!

Okey dokey :hi:

[TopesJunkie]

63. Yes, Dean is the perceived front runner.

So he will get the slash over every possible misstep. If the onslaught brings him down, a new front runner will emerge, and the onslaught will start again. It's entirely too predictable. What if we chose to be different this time?

[mzmolly]

73. By the way, I just learned that Kerry saw the difference between the

version that passed and the one he himself authorized.

In fact he criticized Gep for caving in too soon on the rez that did pass...

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this ...

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach." ~ Senator John Kerry October 9, 2002

More here...

http://www.independentsforkerry.com/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[blm]

76. No kidding, B-L was the better bill, but Dean's deception

was that his stance was so significantly different when it wasn't on the most important matter. Bush was still allowed the authority to "determine" the graveness of the situation in B-L. Dean has been acting as if he was against that, knowing most people were completely unaware of B-L.

Kerry and Dean were more on the same page, yet Dean acted as if they were polar opposites and the press allowed Dean to get away with it.

[mzmolly]

79. Dean has not been deceptive. Was there a difference between B/L

and the rez that passed or not? You cant have it both ways.

Kerry said he prefered B/L, and he should have stuck to his guns. Now, he wants to backpeddle. He had an opportunity to make a difference, he chose not to-end of story.

[blm]

85. Dean was deceptive in his REASON for not supporting IWR.

He said it gave Bush the authority for use of force without having to return to Congress, but, B-L did, too, since it allowed Bush to "determine" whether the threat was grave enough for use of force.

Dean knew most people would never hear about his support for B-L and he was right. The media allowed Dean to use IWR as a wedge issue for the Dem party. Gee...I wonder why they would do something like that?

[mzmolly]

88. Bull...

you and your counterpart are aware of the vast differences, and the great foreign policy expert John Kerry claimed he was too. Until of course he voted to 'un-tie' Bush's hands.

[blm]

91. Name the differences Dean talked about when he slammed the others.

.

[mzmolly]

92. One phrase...

"Blanko Checko" that's the difference.

[sandnsea]

97. Tell it to Teddy

"The test in the Gephardt-Lieberman-Warner Resolution says to defend against the continuing threat from Iraq -- that is the operative word. And in Biden-Lugar it talks about dealing with the threat of Iraq is "so grave" that force should be used. New words, "so grave." The President already said it was a grave situation.

In effect, if that was to be accepted -- the President already said it was a grave situation. It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do."

NO DIFFERENCE. Unless you're claiming to know more than Ted Kennedy.

[mzmolly]

105. Kennedy was speaking about the Gep - Lieberman Rez

and spoke briefly of B/L in regard to 'unilateral vs. multilateral invasion.' He did not say there is no difference between the two bills, that is your paraphrase.

Now ... find me a quote where "Teddy" says there's no difference, and I'll be glad to send his office a letter on the double. ;)

An aside...

The B/L proposal would have required the resident, "before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution..."*. as per Senator Kerry...

"We'll continue to work with the members of Congress, but I don't want to get a resolution that ties my hands," ~ George Shrubbish * in regard to Biden/Lugar...

[sandnsea]

109. jeez

No wonder people support Dean. Words don't mean a flippin' thing which is obviously why his past actions don't have to match his words and even his words don't have to be consistent. Let's try again.

The test in the Gephardt-Lieberman-Warner Resolution says to defend against the continuing threat from Iraq -- that is the operative word. And in Biden-Lugar it talks about dealing with the threat of Iraq is "so grave" that force should be used. New words, "so grave." The President already said it was a grave situation.

In effect, if that was to be accepted -- the President already said it was a grave situation. It would, in effect, grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war, as the President has indicated he may very well do."

He's talking about the two bills and saying that either bill would give the President authority to go ahead with war.

[mzmolly]

112. Once again, Dean never claimed to be anti-war...

And Ted Kennedy never said 'there's no difference.'

Obviously both B/L and the 98 rez gave * the authority to go to war.

"He's talking about the two bills and saying that either bill would give the President authority to go ahead with war."

Ahhh, no kidding. But he's also talking about doing it unilaterally. It would appear Mr. Kennedy supported the Levin ammendment? Dean supported Biden/Lugar, and Kerry supported the blank check resolution.

Dean has said on several occasions he could/would support the IRW under certain conditions - Biden Lugar was in line with those conditions.

As painful as it is to realize that 'tying Bush's hands' would have done just that, the fact remains: The outcome would have been vastly different.

I must leave this fruitless and desperate attempt to protect John Kerry from himself. So...until next time...Happy Spinning! :hi:

[sandnsea]

120. Ignore facts if you like

You know you are. This is what Ted Kennedy said about Biden-Lugar. He considered it as much a blank check as the resolution passed.

"grant unilaterally, without any involvement in the international community, any effort whatsoever to try and bring allies into this, give the authority for the President to go ahead with war..."

Dean supported going to war with Iraq to disarm Iraq, I presume as a last resort although he said give them 30-60 days. He was not against this war from the beginning. He actually went against this war when Joe Trippi came on in February and told him he needed to run as the anti-war outsider.

[blm]

114. You can't do it because you know Dean's deception worked for him.

Honesty and integrity are not hallmarks of Dean's campaign. Any Dem who builds a campaign on dishonesty will bring suffering on the whole party in 2004.

[Scott Lee]

126. you mean like Kerry's did for him?

The guy votes for BOTH Patriot Acts and then tries to lambast them as if he were against them the whole time.

Dishonest? Oh yeah. As hell.

[blm]

127. No, he acknowledged voting for the Patriot Act, but Dean doesn't

acknowledge that Biden-Lugar had the same provisions he rails against in the IWR for the last 11 months.

Big difference.

[Scott Lee]

134. Dean wasn't in Congress to vote on the IWR.

Were you aware of that?

[sandnsea]

77. Bush did this anyway

I posted the Determination he sent. He said diplomacy had failed. He had already gotten one resolution from the UN in October. He said that he must act due to the continuing threat from Iraq. He had already blabbered on about a grave threat and would have had no problem inserting the word if required. This resolution would have been preferable as it was more focused. But in the end, Bush met the requirements of Biden-Lugar anyway. And if there's no reason to go to war with Iraq, there's no reason to support Biden-Lugar in the first place. Dean was not against the war from the beginning.

[mzmolly]

80. dup

*

[mzmolly]

81. "The resolution would have been preferable..."

John Kerry himself said it would have been a better way was he wrong?

"Bush met the requirements of Biden-Lugar anyway. And if there's no reason to go to war with Iraq, there's no reason to support Biden-Lugar in the first place. Dean was not against the war from the beginning."

Bush did not meet the requirements of B/L. Your playing with the facts Sandnsea, and so is your candidate, I think you BOTH know that. Dean saw through George Bush and he wanted to limit the agenda because of that. That's the difference between Kerry *the candidate falling in the polls* and Dean *the candidate rising in the polls*.

Were Bush's "hands tied" the outcome would have been vastly different, you should know that.

If you don't see the difference between B/L and the rez that passed, I don't think I can help you...However, I think that explains your support for John Kerry.

"The differences make a difference..." Sandnsea

[Fleshdancer]

93. I love it.

The Iraqi WAR Resolution was not about allowing bush to go to war. Interesting.

Calling it IWR reminds me of when Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to call itself KFC so that it wouldn't have to say "Fried"...because, you know, fried food is bad for your health and it's easier to justify eating the garbage when you don't have to hear it for what it really is.

[helleborient]

113. All of this would be significantly more interesting...

If Kerry were a more compelling candidate...showing some significant strength SOMEWHERE or if...

Dean were a one-issue candidate, instead of a candidate with powerful, pragmatic positions on education, early childhood care, healthcare, the budget, and foreign policy, to name a few.

[blm]

115. Let's reward the dishonest politician. Just because the media allows him

to get away with his deceptions for the primary, doesn't mean they don't plan to collapse Dean on all his lies and inconsistencies in their efforts to elect Bush. They'll bring down the whole Dem party who will be smeared along with Dean as unprincipled politicians and liars.

[helleborient]

116. It must be miserable living life in utter fear of the media...

They didnt' topple Bill Clinton, and they didn't elect George W. Bush.

It is the people that vote...and run campaigns.

[blm]

122. Not fear...awareness. And Dean isn't Bill Clinton

who stated that post 9-11 even he would have a hard time being elected with his resume from 92.

The awareness is that the media is letting Dean slide now on the scrutiny until they are assured he's Bush's opponent and then hammer him with every lie and inconsistency until he helps them bring down most of the Dem party.

[Scott Lee]

125. Good thing. Clinton couldn't get elected in today's climate.