If The Flip-Flop Fits: Kerry and Dean

[DrFunkenstein]

Kerry has been totally up front about exactly what his position is and has always been. He did not try to play down his vote in front of anti-war crowds to get applause lines. He said it was a difficult vote with no choice he was totally comfortable with. However, he wanted to go on record as voting in favor of enforced disarmament.

This is Kerry - in 1997 - explaining his position:

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if...we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

Here is a link to the history of Kerry supporting the multilateral disarmament process, courtesy of the GOP (you can read it in French if you want):

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

Here is a link to Kerry's Foreign Policy speech. At roughly 58:20, he is taking a question from an anti-war activist. He does not try to pander to the activist, but instead responds openly and honestly.

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/odrive/c04_012303_kerry.rm

Despite endorsing the same position, Howard Dean has tried to pretend that they are radically different. Beyond registering a protest vote, Dean could do no more than Kerry to stem the tide of Bush's rush to war. Yet he makes it seem like he would have shut down Congress on sheer lung power and reversed the course of history entirely.

Dean misled many antiwar activists early in his campaign by promoting himself as THE anti-war candidate. Trying to have it both ways, Dean was not forthcoming about his support for Kerry's position (although not his vote) until he had built himself up as a legitimate contender. If there was a flip-flop anywhere, it was Dean's shedding of the anti-war mantle.

This does not make him an impossible choice for me. In fact, he remains a strong second choice for me. Although I don't believe he has the same credibility or depth as Kerry, I like most of his positions very much. He is not a progressive along the lines of Kucinich or Kerry, but he is still a better choice than Edwards (too inexperienced) or Gephardt (who completely undercut the Biden-Lugar proposal).

For the Gep story:

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

Not that the watered-down resolution was worthless.

1) It pressured Bush to go to the UN. The administration, namely figures like Lewis Libby and Alberto R. Gonzalez, was speaking openly of circumventing both Congress and the UN. Here's a link to an article indicating this to remind you:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0906-05.htm

2) It limited the theater of war to Iraq. The Pentagon hawks were speaking of "reshaping" the entire Middle East. The resolution, however faulty, is exactly why we are not knee-deep in Syria right now. Here's a link to that a reminder:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm

I will leave off by presenting the position held identically by both Kerry and Dean:

1. They would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, they would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. They would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.

Now let us pause while the Dean supporters totally blow a gasket.

[JohnKleeb]

1. very interesting doc funk

Maybe this is why I prefer Kerry to Dean. I gots another reasons too being that my political mentor is supporting Kerry I will stay with Kucinich though but Kerry is liberal and Dean is moderate no denying that IMO.

[dkf]

2. We all know that Dean is not anti-all-wars

He's just anti-this-unilateral-and-unnecessary-war.

Anyone who was paying attention should have figured out that the Bushies were BSing left and right.

Howard Dean figured this out and therefore deduced that there was no imminent threat. John Kerry didn't. Or if he did, he didn't want to speak out.

I figured it out and that is why I was against this war. Didn't you?

[blm]

7. Dean's statement when we went into Iraq

was that he never doubted the need to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction. Now he says he was never fooled.

Even if it's only semantics, this war was a multilateral effort according to Webster's.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. I think everyone was surprised that Saddam apparently had

no WMDs. Nobody suggested that he shouldn't be disarmed if he did have them.

But by "never being fooled" I think that Dean is suggesting that Bush never proved his case before rushing to war, which is why Dean opposed the war. He was not fooled into having to "trust" Bush as the basis for going to war, regardless of whether he (Dean) thought Saddam had WMDs or not.

[killbotfactory]

23. Yep..

Dean said that Saddam probably had some chem/bio weapons, but he had them for years and that didn't constitute a threat to the US. (Kerry seemed to agree with this line of reasoning when he voted for the Iraq resolution).

[killbotfactory]

3. When...

Did Dean say he was THE anti-war candidate? Please cite one source.

I have quotes going back to september of 2002 where he clearly outlines what his position is, and that he was not an "anti-war" candidate, only an anti-Iraq war candidate.

When did he say he could stop the war if he was in congress? Please cite one source.

It is irrellevent wether or not he could do anything about it, if you can't stop a stupid bill from passing that doesn't mean you have to vote for it or support it.

[CODemocrat21]

11. Don't evade the question sir

We all know Howard Dean is "the" Anti-War candidate, and he doesn't need to say anything to be that; its who his supporters are.

If it smells like an Elephant, looks like an Elephant, tastes like an elephant, it MUST be an elephant.

Nice dodge though ...

[MercutioATC]

16. Kucinich is the "anti-war" candidate, if there is one.

Dean supported the war in Afghanistan (though not the way it was carried out). He's repeatedly stated that he's NOT "anti-war", he's just opposed to the war in Iraq and the lies that were told to put us there.

[killbotfactory]

19. What the...

So other people label him "anti-war" (sometimes just as a short way of meaning anti-Iraq war) that means he misrepresented himself? I've watched him for months say that he's not a dove, that he supported the Afghanistan war, but that invading Iraq didn't pass the smell test, all the while being labelled a peacnik hippie by the press. It's his fault now?

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Dean Played Pacifists Like $5 Fiddles

From Salon.com:

"Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly."

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

I'd have to say that's something of a misrepresentation. The title of my post may be an exagerration, but Dean knew what he was doing. I don't blame him. It is part of "the game."

He went from zero to hero as the viable opposition to the war. He didn't say exactly how he would oppose the war beyond some speeches, but at least he sounded pissed. Which is important.

But he also was less than forthright about the conditions of his support of a multilateral invasion in the likelihood that Saddam would yank the inspectors around. Eventually, he became more and more clear about this, but only after becoming a legitimate contender.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. that's a fair post

with a lousy title. Having written some lousy titles myself, I guess I can't complain.

But really, as you've pointed out, Kerry plays other half of the glass on this issue as well.

Kerry can say that he didn't support the invasion of Iraq, especially now. But with everyone mischaracterizing his vote for the resolution as a vote for war, he doesn't tick off the war supporters - he gets to play it both ways a little bit too.

If I had to choose a constituency I'd rather have a Democrat pander to, I guess it would be the anti-war crowd, though. How often do they find a champion in national politics?

[killbotfactory]

40. It just shows how insane the political rhetoric was at the time

1/3rd of the nation didn't support the war. 1/3rd of our nation are not anti-war activists. Most of them were/are democrats. Frankly, I'm sick of people grouping everybody who opposed this idiotic war with anti-war pacifists. If you want to know why his support didn't dwindle after the war, it's because a lot of people didn't support the goddamn thing, and his position was always sensible.

Here is a timeline of quotes. Please show me where he wasn't forthright or clear on his position about a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

"'there's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims.' Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet."

Dean, who is an underdog in the presidential race, said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment, Dean said."

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq.

So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

“I personally believe hasn’t made his case”

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_dean2004_archive.html#90170263">January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_01_26_dean2004_archive.html#90251570">January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/751619p-5441227c.html">February 5, 2003

''We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_dean2004_archive.html#90383552">February 27, 2003

[blm]

66. Anyone can cherrypick comments...

Put EVERY comment together and see how they stack up. He straddled plenty of times.

[ProfessorPlum]

70. how true it is

that anyone can cherrypick comments.

[killbotfactory]

73. Those were all the comments I could find..

And they seem pretty consistant to me.

Dean wasn't getting much press back until Feb of 2003.

[DrFunkenstein]

67. Dean Does Not Mention "Disarmament" (Whoops)

1. They would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, they would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

---

He omits disarmament from any of his talks, in favor of speaking about invasion. He keeps the debate locked in two choices: invade an imminent threat, or not-invade a non-imminent threat. It is not until February that I see any mention of "disarmament," although it has been part of the debate the entire time - certainly from Kerry's corner.

Dean may have mentioned "disarmament" in a speech or two before then, but certainly before almost all, if not every anti-war crowd, he failed to mention a central issue in the debate. I find that misleading.

One of the reasons that Kerry is perceived as a hawk is because he spoke openly about the need to disarm - especially before anti-war crowds. Not to tell them what they wanted to hear, but to tell them his true feelings on the matter.

Here is two speeches where he speaks openly about his position before anti-war audiences:

http://cms.ourfuture.org/media/kerry.ram

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/odrive/c04_012303_kerry.rm

The second one is at 58:20. I'm sorry but I don't know the time for the first.

[ProfessorPlum]

69. that may be because Dean

really didn't feel threatened about Saddam and his weapons, even though he thought it likely (as did everyone, it seems) that he had some.

I mean, the timing of the announcement that Saddam was this big threat to us was so cynically timed, so "packaged" - how could someone not believe that Bush wasn't really afraid of Saddam, but was just using him as the boogeyman du jour? Was it Andrew Card who said they didn't "roll out" Iraq in August because that wasn't a good time to launch a new "product"? Bush never talked about Iraq at all in the campaign. It is easy to speculate that because Bush needed a war, any war, for the 2002 elections, he chose Iraq because it was the least armed of the "axis of evil" countries, and therefore the least scary (to him).

If Bush really cared about "imminent threats" he would put some money towards actual security at our ports and airports. That he doesn't care is painfully obvious. That's why all of his breathless spooky tales about the urgency of disarming Saddam should have been taken with a large grain of salt, and Dean did.

Now granted, because he is not a senator, Dean didn't have the additional problem of having intelligence agency heads lying to his face, and so didn't have to factor in their (now besmirched) credibility into his equation. But I think Dean suspected that the importance of the problem of Saddam messing with the inspectors didn't rise to the level of something we had to sacrifice American lives for, and I think that suspicion has been more than borne out. I realize hindsight is 20/20, but Dean evaluated the situation correctly (by not trusting Bush, which every Democrat would I think by now, know not to do).

[DrFunkenstein]

75. Kerry Leads, Dean Misleads

"Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given. The questions are: how - when - under what circumstances - and by whom he is to be disarmed." Howard Dean, Foreign Policy Address, February 17, 2003.

---

"I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections."

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent."

"The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption...This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq." - John Kerry, Senate Floor Statement, October 9, 2002.

---

Kerry never said that he trusted Bush, only that Bush may have misled us specifically on the Niger purchase. What Kerry did say was "disarmament." That was Kerry's clear stance at this time, just as it was that spring in a Washington Journal article (before 9/11), just as it was in 1997.

Dean absolutely knew this, but continued to omit it from his own speeches and his criticism of Kerry. Only months later did he make it clear that his position was identical to Kerry's, particularly on the need for disarmament.

---

PS - On North Korea, Kerry had argued directly against the actions Bush later took that compelled North Korea to renew their nuclear production:

"It is important that the Bush administration not allow the Congress to undermine the 1994 Agreed Framework, which holds real promise for verifiably freezing and eliminating the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for annual shipments of heavy fuel oil and the onstruction of two light-water reactors to provide a long-term energy source to North Korea."

http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

Kerry leads, Dean misleads.

[killbotfactory]

74. Probably because the Iraq resolution authorized regime change.

And Dean supported Biden-Lugar which only allowed action to disarm Saddam.

[DrFunkenstein]

78. That Is Why Dean Never Mentioned A Major Issue?

Why did he feel compelled to speak about it once he was a legitimate contender? I can't help but find his convenient omission of a central part of the Iraq debate out because it was irrelevant. It seems more like political expediency to me.

For the record, Kerry came out early against regime change, as another example of Bush putting the cart before the horse. He supported it as a last resort, just as Dean did.

"The reason for going to war - if we must fight - is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver Gulf War prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war.

Regime change has been American policy under the Clinton administration and the current U.S. administration. It is a policy that I support. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction."

Biden-Lugar is la-la land talk. Kerry also strongly supported Biden-Lugar, but he didn't keep bringing it up after it was no longer a political reality.

"I want to underscore, this Administration began with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some Democrats supported it. I would have opposed it...I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar...I believe that this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority that Congress was giving the President. The Administration, unwisely in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=statement_iraq_2002_1009

It seems to me that Dean continues to try to put the debate in the terms that are convenient to him, not in terms that address the full reality of the situation.

[killbotfactory]

85. Dean didn't support regime change.

Dean wanted Iraq disarmed through the UN, thought if there was proof of Iraq having WMD and dicking around inspectors the UN would authorize action. Failing that, he would support military strikes against Iraq, but not and invasion for a regime change, hence his support for Biden Lugar.

Kerry voted for a bill that allows Bush to wage war whenever he wants for the purpose of regime change. He may have done it to try and get Bush to go through the UN, but that's what he voted for. Hence Dean's rejection of the final Iraq war resolution.

I'm not sure what you find to be an ommission. Is it because you can't find many quotes where Dean says what he would do if Iraq had WMD and the UN wouldn't enforce it's own resolutions? Most of Dean's objections were based on the fact that there was very little evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US, there was no post-war plan and a bunch of neocon nonsense about getting out in a year, and authorizing a unilateral invasion in the future without proving that Iraq was a threat to the US is wrong.

[RogueTrooper]

21. and this would be the latest wheeze

from Team Inner Party. Dean has never said that he is anti-war he has only ever said that he was against this Iraq War.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Citing One Source

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted “No” on the Iraq Resolution." - Howard Dean at the progressive Take Back America Conference, 6/5/03.

Besides the obvious gaffe (he did not, in fact, vote), I'd say that's a pretty lucid statement of being THE anti-war candidate.

As for action being irrelevant (his campaign song is "A Little Less Conversation"), Dean frequently suggests that the act of voting is the only action of principle. Making statements and clarifying your beliefs are meaningless - although that is all he does, ironically.

He also suggests that there is only one reason to have voted "yes": the full endorsement of whatever action Bush takes afterwards. It couldn't possibly be construed as a support for legitimate disarmament. Out of the question. Vote "yes" means you are pro-war, hell, even if it goes nuclear. That "yes" vote would be a vote for nuclear war.

Obviously, I am extending the logic to ridiculous extremes, but with a good point - Dean is saying the only legitimate protest to Bush is a protest vote, a vote he could not even make. Confined only to statements, Dean would limit others to one statement, and one statement alone: You are either with us, or you are with the terrorist President.

To which I say, a little more conversation, please.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. I agree

that Dean shouldn't conflate Kerry's vote with a vote to support everything Bush does/did. Obviously that isn't what it was, even though many different people (for a variety of different reasons) continue to mix up these two issues.

You have to admit, though, that Dean took enough heat from the media ho's and the pundits for his anti-war stance that even if he HAD had the chance to vote, and vote No on the resolution, he probably wouldn't have taken any more heat. You are right that he could have kept quiet, not having to make a vote, but he was vocal about his position when it wasn't politically "wise" to do so. Having the out of not having to vote up or down, he still took the consequences of taking one of the positions.

As far as minimizing the other candidates with rhetoric, Dean is running a hard campaign against the other Democratic candidates. I do regret in a way that keeping his elbows out the way he does damages other good citizens of the country - Kucinich, Kerry, etc. But Dean is coming from way behind in name recognition and money, and he is campaigning hard to win. I realize this strategy is jarring coming from a Democrat. We normally expect them to get into a race in 7th out of 9th place, state their positions, and if nothing happens, to bow out gracefully. But Dean is fighting to win, and co-opting other candidates anti-war stance while minimizing their importance is a strategic move that a fighter would use. I'd much rather see him do this against a field of Republicans first - I'd love to have seen him in action in his elections in Vermont, but I can't wait to see him make Rove crap in his pants when Bush is crying for Mommy in the first debate.

[DrFunkenstein]

29. How Was It Not Wise?

Dean was a longshot from an unpopulated corner of the country. He did very well by the media attention - good AND bad. It was a fantastic move on his part. He cut away Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley-Braun as marginalized, and made himself the viable protest candidate. The more the media singled him out, the greater his exposure to the "Democratic wing."

Early in the race, it didn't matter at all that he was cherry-picking the activist vote. He played off of alot of liberal anger at both the GOP and the DLC corporate hookers. It didn't matter that he was a centrist. He respected their anger. However, as he gains in stature, he is going to have to give himself some stability. Which is why he is so vocal now about his support for Afghanistan and Biden-Lugar. You didn't hear him touting his Afghanistan support in December!

As to you last pararaph, Dean is no longer in left-field. His divisive tactics are no longer necessary to get himself heard. Yet he continues to claim that anyone that voted for the resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein has no right to say anything.

I agree with you that he is playing politics to win. And for a long time, I let him get his jabs in. But there is no need for it now, which is why I put together this post - to say that his claims are unjust, unfounded, and just a little bit hypocritical. While Kerry has kept a disciplined focus on Bush, Dean continues to undermine the other candidates. Not the positive type of campaigning I was hoping for.

If it works for Dean, and he gets the nod, I will support him. But the more he tries to silence good candidates like Kerry, the less happy I will be about it.

[ProfessorPlum]

30. I meant that it was a gamble,

and that the conventional wisdom would have been to keep quiet, not take a stand, let the people who had to vote go out on a limb themselves, and distance himself from the controversy. He didn't do that, took a chance and a stand, and has come out looking pretty intelligent for doing so. I don't think that his position was an obvious slam-dunk at the time, and I'm sure he gave it a bit of thought.

Having gambled and "won", he is less inclined to let other candidates try to co-opt his position, especially in retrospect. In other words, "why should Kerry get anti-war support now when Dean took the heat for being anti-war in the midst of the war"? - when the media hos were writing about what a nutjob he was. It would be especially galling to have to share the validation for being "right" on the war with someone who gambled the other way.

I think I give Kerry his due for his positions and the benefit of the doubt. I would like to see Dean graft Kerry's positions onto his own, and create a unified vision of "what Bush did wrong from the Democrat's perspective", but so far his instincts about playing to win have served him well, and I'll let him decide when to do that.

As you've said, it is a bit of a game. Dean claiming that no one else has a right to the anti-war mantle makes sense politically. Kerry won't listen to Dean's advice if he wants to beat him. This is a bit of what Republican's do - trying to control the terms of the debate. Many Democrats let them do it. We'll see what the other Democrats are made of, and if they will let just anyone do it to them, or whether they will only let Republicans control the terms of debate. My hope is, they won't let anyone control them anymore.

I hope these two men find a way to work out their differences in a way constructive to our country and destructive to Bush's vision for it. It's tough, though, with both of them vying for the top spot. Here's hoping the bad blood is kept to a minimum.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. It Does Make Sense Politically

I'm just trying to figure out how someone who has taken no action to stop the war, and could take no action to stop the war, can say that actions speak louder than words.

And while it makes sense to attack other Democrats for political gain, I'm not sure how it is our best interest at this point. And remember, this is not what Republicans do to each other. This is what they do to Democrats.

As for the gamble, I don't see it. Dean responded to the lines that got the best response from the crowds, which claims got media attention, which zingers bumped up the poll numbers. I'm not saying that Dean was ingenuine, but that he realized very quickly that the John McCain/Howard Beale angry-man routine was playing well and could rocket him into contention. There was no risk of backlash from the GOP, because at that point it would only help his numbers.

I was hoping for a battle of ideas between two powerhouses like Kerry and Dean, but Dean keeps attempting to silence Kerry with the vote. Just as he tried (unsuccessfully) to silence Kerry by calling him Dean-lite.

I think these attmepts to silence Kerry's genuine and long-held opinions are fundamentally dishonest.

There are many things to recommend Dean. But these tactics are surely not one of them.

[killbotfactory]

41. Is speaking out against the war an action?

While pundits and politicians from both sides said doing so will doom his candidacy?

Dean spoke out for months against the war, that's all he could do.

[DrFunkenstein]

56. That's All I Wanted To Hear

That is, in fact, all he could do. Which bring us to the question - why does he keep repeating over and over that actions speak louder than words?

In my opinion, it is an attempt to silence Kerry instead of welcoming another voice of resistance. It would have been easy to build bridges with Kerry and Kucinich, but Dean's message from the beginning has been divisive (cough Democratic wing cough) and attempting to set himself up - not as the most important or insightful voice of resistance, but as the ONLY voice of resistance.

It is precisely this kind of circular gun-fighting that has plagued liberalism and the Democratic party for years. I just don't understand why Dean is so unsure of his vision and stature that he has to cut down the other candidates to get ahead. Dean has an excellent platform. He should run on his platform, not by silencing others before they speak.

"A little less conversation, a little more action please. All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me."

[blm]

59. He didn't do it at any antiwar protest...

because he was straddling his Iraq position and wrapping himself in the word "unilateral" like a security blanket.

[ProfessorPlum]

61. speaking of straddling,

blm, maybe you can help me out. I'm looking for direct quotes from Kerry, after the war started, that either support or refute the thesis that he supported the military action in Iraq. Not the vote on the resolution, mind you, but the actual war itself. I've been looking and I can't find any. I find it interesting, but maybe you have more extensive resources than I do.

[blm]

62. I only have what's available on his site

right now. I lost alot of links when lightning hit our home recently. The third time I've had to rebuild my links, and it seems some have been scrubbed aand are no longer available.

[ProfessorPlum]

63. I'm sorry to hear that

If you do find some quotes from Kerry like that (do you remember any existing?) I'd be interested in reading them. Thanks.

[killbotfactory]

22. Note..

Although he made a gaffe about voting, he didn't say he was anti-war, a dove, or a pacifist. He's always said the Iraq war was unjustified, gave conditions on which he would support it, and then proceeded to get labeled a peacnik hippie traitor who wants to give the UN a veto on national security by his detractors by a lazy press.

The vote allowed Bush to invade whenever he wanted, it's in the damn text of the resolution that it's up to the presidents discretion on when to invade. If you vote for that, then it's hard to bitch about President Dipshit (who made many statements previous to the vote that the UN was unneccessary) goes off and invades prematurely. The people who voted for the resolution still could have protested before the war when it was clear Bush had no intention of getting UN support, but that didn't happen. They just went along with the whole shameful ordeal.

I think it's clear what Dean meant throughout this whole debacle when he said, many times and to loud applause, "What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Remember that both houses are controlled by

Republicans. Kerry didn't have total control over which version of the bill he ultimately had to vote yes or no on. That he and other Democrats were able to make it binding on Bush to the extent that it was IS something of a small victory for them and for us.

But I agree with you that Dean's position on whether the actual invasion was justified or good policy seems to be the morally and legally correct one, not just in hindsight, but at the time.

I'm glad Kerry is starting to speak up more now, though, and hopefully he will continue to use his powers for good.

I don't blame Dean for trying to edge Kerry away from this, for trying to polarize the debate a bit. Dean took most/all of the heat for his anti-war position when it actually mattered, and now that the public is turning against Smirky, it is a little disingenuous of Kerry to act like he was against it all along. He was against Bush's methods, but not the war itself.

[killbotfactory]

35. If Kerry stuck to his pledge when he made the vote..

I would have less problem with him, but he didn't. He didn't oppose the war even when Bush cut short inspections and prematurely invaded, he was fooled by Powell's presentation that could be debunked on with minimal research, he criticized Dean for saying we should work through the UN when everyone was saying what a worthless "debate society" they were. If Kerry thinks it is wrong to invade countries which don't pose a threat to the US, or that it's wrong to invade countries based on a hunch that they are up to no good, then he should speak up.

[ModerateMiddle]

46. Kerry has taken heat from both sides

for his "nuanced" or "fence-sitting" position (depending upon your point of view). He has taken quite a lot of hits.

[ProfessorPlum]

57. But I think he

decided that it was more politically astute than coming out anti-war and having the media go after him the way they did Dean.

If it was actually worse politically for him to go the route he did, than his decision makes no sense at all!

[Forkboy]

4. damn

try saying that subject line three times fast!

[w13rd0]

5. Why blow a gasket?

It isn't as if we haven't heard this apologist pap before. I'll vote for Kerry if he's the nominee, maybe even support him. But don't try telling me that they both waffled. Dean has been forthright with his position in opposition to the Bush doctrine. He's also proposed an alternate vision for what US foreign policy should be (CFR). I started supporting Dean before the Iraq issue, so that's just icing, but we've heard this all before. Dean has been relentless in his attacks on the horrid Bush policies and the Administrations lack of credibility.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Madball02]

32. Though, I don't think Kerry waffled either

I think that its the "privilage of the activist" as William Rivers Pitt puts it that we can sit and judge and critic Sen. Kerry for his indecisivness. I think he is for protecting America first and foremost.

And the director of the CIA sat in front of him and lied to his face, but until now , who would doubt the director of the CIA testifying to the Joint Intelligence Committee?

I think he went back and forth between his committment to the country and especially the troops and what his liberal principles say.

I don't think its fair to call that waffling, but call it whatever ya like, i just think your wrong.

[tedoll78]

6. *yawn*

Next..

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[ProfessorPlum]

9. There is a critical difference between Dean and Kerry, though

Dean opposed the actual war, while Kerry explictly did not.

Let's forget about the vote for a while. Both Dean and Kerry supported a variety of contingencies that made sense before the war. Once the shooting started, though, Dean pointed out that Bush did not fulfill his duty to justify the war before rushing us into it, and said that therefore we should not be fighting it. Kerry explicitly supported the war, which was contradictory to his pre-war writings and statements.

I do wish that Dean would not try to make a big point out of "Kerry voted to let Bush go to war", because we both know that isn't what Kerry voted for. Dean should say "Kerry supported the war", which is pretty bad in itself, and is actually true.

As far as trying to play both sides of the vote, Kerry's supporters can say that his vote wasn't actually for the war, while because of the confusion about what the vote means, people who supported the war won't be turned off from Kerry because of his vote. Kerry's gambit to use the vote to not alienate pro-war voters is at least as cynical and misleading as Dean's gambit to use the vote to alienate anti-war voters from Kerry.

In any case, at least they are both now going after Bushco. That's the good news.

There, I think my gaskets are still intact :)

[DrFunkenstein]

10. What Does "War" Mean When We Talk About It?

There are several issues wrapped up in the terms of the debate - invasion, disarmament, pre-emption, multilateralism, regime change, and the enforcement of inspections. We could also include speed, or the "rush," to war.

This has been the source of much confusion, a confusion that generally benefits Dean supporters because they are not on the defensive. But what "war" means is crucial to our discussions.

I encourage everyone to submit what they believe war means, as well as being anti-war and pro-war.

Prof Plum, it seems you are suggesting that Kerry did not criticize the conditions leading up to the war once the fighting started. This is wrong. When Bush gave the 48 hour ultimatum, Kerry said: "I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight...the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating...My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration - like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6394&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Only days later, Kerry claimed Bush's rush to war was a "breach of trust" and called for "regime change":

"Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

The GOP jumped at the chance to squelch dissent, and the Kerry campaign fired back:

``The Republicans have tried to make a practice of attacking anybody who speaks out strongly by questioning their patriotism,'' the Massachusetts senator said in a telephone interview with The
Associated Press. ``I refuse to have my patriotism or right to speak out questioned. I fought for and earned the right to express my views in this country.''

Following a speech to the New York State United Teachers convention in Washington, Kerry said, ``I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and
bled for in order to have the right to speak out.''

Kerry said Republicans have no right to criticize him when they are cutting funds to veterans hospitals.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, backed a congressional resolution last fall giving President Bush the authority to use force to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but he repeatedly has
criticized the president for failing to give diplomacy more time.

In a speech Wednesday in Peterborough, N.H., Kerry said Bush so alienated allies prior to the U.S.-led war against Iraq that only a new president can rebuild damaged relationships with other
countries.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6455&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Kerry was responding to Delay and Limbaugh by the 3rd of April, which means his comments were at least by April 1st or 2nd. The invasion began on March 18th. That is the length of time Kerry kept quiet about Bush's ineptitude.


Kerry has been very specific about why Bush was inept - by saber-rattling over invasion and regime change, he lost focus on the real issue of disarmament. This alienated both our allies and the American public itself. He has never strayed from that assessment.

When you say he "supported the war," you mean he supported disarmament, then you would be right. But to say that he ever supported a unilateral rush to war - ever - is just plain wrong.

Let me leave you with some quotes that could not be more clear:

1) "Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force."

2) "The United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action."

3) "The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction."

4) "I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose."

5) "Mr. President, do not rush to war."

[ProfessorPlum]

18. It's true

people have been playing pretty fast and loose with their terms here, and it does cause confusion. I remember when Kerry came out with those statements in the early days of the war, and the uproar they caused. And bravo to him.

When you say "supported disarmament" you are right that Kerry supported that, and Dean too. You know I don't have anything against Kerry's pre-war position, or even against any of the sentiments he expresses in the above five quotations, all of which are relevant and salutary.

And in his statements he never supported a theoretical rush to unilateral war - ever. I'm sure that is true as well.

But when Bush staged an actual rush into unilateral war, Dean said (and of course I'm paraphrasing) "this war is wrong, we shouldn't send those young men and women in there, Bush has not proved his case." Kerry said (again paraphrasing) "Bush really screwed that up. I cannot believe what a bungler he is. We should replace him." I agree with both positions. But by not actually saying "This war is wrong, this invasion should be stopped, we cannot do this based on the resolution from Congress, etc.", Kerry made his position look and feel like a lot of other Senate Democratic positions: they sort of disagree with Bush, but don't like his style, but they aren't going to speak up and say what is on their minds.

And I'm really tired of the mis-representation of Kerry's vote, both in the instances where it hurts him and those where it helps him. Even in that CommonDreams article above, it made it sound as if _Kerry_ handed Bush the keys to the war machine.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Once Troops Were Committed

It's not like you can say, "Turn the boat around." Are you referring to afterwards or before here?

I am not trying to misrepresent (spin) things to look better for Kerry. I am trying to dispell misrepresentations if I can. If I feel Kerry did something wrong, I'm more than willing to admit it.

Ok, we've covered the betrayal of the Biden-Lugar, the White House's efforts to claim it already had authority, the plans to reshape the Middle East, Kerry's 90's claims about disarmament. That more or less backs up the history leading up to Kerry's half-war vote.

He gives a 45-minute speech before the vote, then reiterates and details that on January 23rd, where he says "Mr. President, don't rush to war." In between, he has several statements about the failures to specify disarmament rather than pre-emption and regime change. In front of anti-war audiences he is clear about his position and why he made the choice to vote yes.

On the eve of war, Kerry says, "My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration - like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success."

However, he also says, "Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Clearly, Kerry is not saying the war is wrong because Bush failed to make the case for an imminent threat. He is saying Bush is wrong for failing to make the case for disarmament. As far as I am concerned this is speaking up and saying what is on his mind. You may disagree, but I don't think Kerry said this out of political expediency.

Within two weeks, Kerry is calling for regime change. From there he continues to point out the many blunders of Bush at every level of the war's prosecution, but does not say it was wrong to depose Saddam Hussein. Eventually, Kerry explicitly states what he has been implying all along - that Bush's rush to war circumvented the intentions of (but did not break) the resolution.

Am I over- or under-emphasizing something here? Kerry was not critical of disarming Saddam (although Bush even screwed that up), but just about every other facet of the war from well before the vote to well after the occupation.

[ProfessorPlum]

49. You know, I think we've finally reached the actual difference

at its core, the difference between my take on the war and Kerry's is that he wanted to see Saddam gone, and I didn't.

My position is the same as the July 26th Daily Brew (Have you seen it?), which asks would we like Saddam back? And answers, Hell yes.

The massive price we are going to have to pay for creating a power vacuum in Iraq and being the only ones there to have to fix it is just too big a price for me - I would rather have Saddam's stable, if brutal, society in place there, with Saddam contained economically and militarily. I think that situation was working out just fine for the people of the US, and I think the situation which has replaced it is a horrible, costly, egregious mess.

Kerry is willing to pay that price to see Saddam gone (and of course, he would like to see the price be smaller, which it would have been if Bush were competant/had a plan for reconstruction/etc.). That is a difference I have with him - I want Kerry, in my little world, to realize that the price we are paying to "remove Saddam" is way too high, and to say so. He probably disagrees with me on this point. This shifts the argument to why would he be willing to pay such a high price for such a small benefit, but that can be argued for a long time.

This is a REAL difference in policy between Kerry and Dean. As so many have pointed out, Dean has said that the ends don't justify the means, also implying that the price we have paid is too high for too little benefit.

Therefore, Kerry is saying he is willing to pay the price to have Saddam gone, but that lying to get us into war was wrong. Dean is saying the cost is too high for little benefit.

That's really where the issue lays right now, not who voted for what or who wanted war or whatever. In that analysis, I really do agree more with Dean.

I was working from the premise that it was obvious that the cost of the war was too high, and I thought this was self-evident. That's why I couldn't figure out Kerry's position. This clears it up for me. If the cost is not too high in Kerry's mind, it makes his actions much more logical.

Thanks for your help, Doc.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Not Exactly

You are suggesting that Kerry's position is for regime change, but again, Kerry calls on this as the final, exhausted step of a failure to peacefully disarm him. The danger was not so much WMDs (lots of countries have them), but that Saddam was a total loose cannon with WMDs that refused to cooperate with the terms which signalled the end of the Gulf War.

By the end of the 90's Kerry realized that the sanctions process was a failure that punished the Iraqis and actually bolstered Saddam's position. Saddam had screwed around to the point were Clinton withdrew inspectors to launch a brief attack on suspected sites. It was clear that Saddam had no intentions of voluntarily cooperating. Kerry's assessment in 1997 was the same it was in 2003 - Saddam would submit to disarmament only at the barrel of a gun. And, Kerry said, if Saddam did not submit, we would have to pull the trigger.

However, Kerry also said that Saddam would have less room to screw around if the weight the world was upon him, not just imperial yankee dogs. Kerry argued that few in the UN would fail to back up disarmament. Unfortunately, the Bush administration went about it ass-backwards - from talk of pre-emptive, unilateral invasion and regime change to multilateral invasion to disarmament to inspections. In that order!

Where Kerry suggested regime change as the "ultimate" (meaning final) disarmament tool in the shed, the Bush administration talked about it as a matter of policy. By doing so, the Bush administration (rightly) scared the crap out of the whole world. Instead of a tough, but fair choice to disarm Saddam, the world was confronted with the choice to give legitimacy to a superpower on steroids hell-bent on an elaborate assassination attempt. The world (rightly) decided not to give that legitimacy.

With Saddam gone, disarmament is a reality. But at a cost we never should have had to pay - in blood or treasure. Kerry said the burden was upon Saddam to live up to the agreement he signed to dispose of his weapons and give unfettered access to proof. Saddam paid the price for that failure, but it is squarely Bush that set the cost. We could have had disarmament without a single drop of blood - if! - if disarmament had truly been Bush's goal.

Saddam's demise is welcome, but it was never Kerry's true goal. And this is where I think you are mistaken. Kerry is shouting from the rooftops (in his reserved manner) that the cost of this war has been too high. Like most Americans, Kerry is glad Saddam is gone, but the ends do not justify the means. Here he agrees with Dean, although he doesn't use it as a snipe when major resistance figures are killed.

Kerry has questioned both ends and means. The ends for Bush are reshaping the Middle East in America's image, only, you know, more submissive. Reshaping Iraq's political structure has never been an sought-for end by Kerry. He does (rightly) feel compelled to help rebuild Iraq, but his major campaign theme is energy independence so we don't have to worry so much about Middle Eastern internal politics. And, of course, Kerry has complained since day one about the means by which Bush has brought us to the state of things today. It is hard to think of a more inept, wrong-headed, and dangerous course as Bush has laid out. And, in Kerry's belief, unnecessary.

[ProfessorPlum]

58. When the Bushies made it clear that

they would use regime change to enact disarmament, Kerry (albeit reluctantly - because of the rising costs of disarmament) supported it.

If he didn't, then there is not one bit of difference between Kerry and Dean's position on the war. Can that be true?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Who had to get a message deleted responding to me?

What the hell?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

38. Probably me

I had asked DU over the weekend to change my handle, and it happened today, wiping out my old posts (didn't know that was going to happen) because I wanted to go back to having one handle for all the message boards I read. Sorry for the confusion!

(teacher4dean04)

[ThorsteinVeblen]

27. Dean IS NOT Anti-War

He supports just wars. He supports wars to protect national security. He supports defensive wars. He also supports military action in cases like Kosovo where a little pro-active action now will prevent a holocaust later.

The Afghanistan war met a number of the above critierea.

The Iraq war met none of them and that is why Dean did not support it.

Howard Dean has values and standards - Something Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt do not.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. It's actually an amazing testament to the marginalization of anti-war

sentiment in this supposedly "christian" nation, that if someone comes out as against a particular war, the majority (which is of course filled with jingoistic nuts) denounces him as a peacenik dove, and the minority antiwar people latch on to him with all their might as one of their own, as they are so unused to having anyone in national politics who is against any particular war, let alone war in general.

War is a racket. Boy ain't that the truth.

[Madball02]

31. Actually, I think Dean lacks the most values

He tricked true anti-war activists into believing that he is truely anti-war and wait till they get their just desert in 2004?

At least stand up for you are, like John Kerry, a war hero.

Dean?

He doesn't even know how big the US military is!

[ProfessorPlum]

33. come on,

Madball02, Dean had the size of the military correct when Russert asked him. Also, Dean is against this particular war, not war in general, but he therefore stands with both the anti-Iraq-war crowd and the anti-war-in-general crowd on this particular issue.

And what could be worse for the anti-war crowd than Smirky?

[killbotfactory]

34. Who are true anti-war activists and do they make up 1/3rd of the nation?

Because that's how many people were against this war. Dean happened to be one of them. Dean has always said he is not against war and gave his conditions on which he would support the war. It's not Dean's fault if anyone took that position to mean that he was an anti-war pacifist.

[lastliberalintexas]

36. Do you really think I'm that stupid?

And/or uninformed about where he stands on issues?

You people truly slay me. You act as though you are the only ones who are informed about your candidates' stands on issues, and that we Dean supporters are blind foaming at the mouth rabid liberals who lack rational thought and have been tricked into supporting him. You people seem to think that I'll be disappointed when I find out his "true" stands on issues because you apparently think that I have failed to take the time to study the candidates. Please.

Well, guess what? I am a NOT-so-blind foaming at the mouth rabid liberal with fully developed rational thought who wholly supports Dean and knows damn good and well where he stands on issues. I KNOW that the man is a freaking moderate-left candidate! I am not some 5 year old who is being tricked into anything.

Dean has never claimed to be anti-war, and I agree that Kucinich is that candidate. Dean simply said he was against the Iraq invasion b/c it was unjustified. If you are going to simply buy hook, line and sinker what the mass media tells you about the Dems, then you may as well give up now.

Damn it people. Stay positive. Post positive, good things about your own damn candidate and try to keep us from emerging from the primaries with a candidate that is so freaking bloodied that Shrub wins with his pea-sized brain tied behind his back.

And btw- the more the other candidates' supporters obsess about Dean, the more certain I become that he IS the one creating the biggest buzz and therefore the one to beat Shrub. Your attacks do nothing but reinforce my support- probably quite the opposite effect of what you intend.

[DrFunkenstein]

39. Yes.

Just kidding. You asked for it.

Please look at my #25 post for clarity, because you are changing my argument.

I never said that Dean claimed to be a pacifist. That would be a lie. I claimed that he was less than forthright about the nuances of his position - the same nuances Kerry was getting skewered for. It was a sin of omission. Kerry, on the other hand, was absolutely upfront about where he stood no matter what audience he was in front of. I have two links where you can actually watch him do this.

Next item. Why is your argument presented as a defense against a personal attack against your ignorance? No one is blaming you for anything, or persecuting you in the least way. And I take your word for it that you are not 5 years old.

Finally, my point is exactly about positivity. Dean and many of his supporters have tried very actively to silence Kerry from expressing his true positions. He tried to silence Kerry when he called him "Dean-lite," and he continues to do so now with the Iraq resolution.

That is not positive politics in my book. That is precisely the type of divisive politics all of us have cautioned against since the race began.

Why is Dean afraid to take Kerry on at the level of ideas? Why does he try to silence him, except for underhanded poltical gain?

[lastliberalintexas]

44. Well,

for the most part, my post was in response to Madball02 who DID state that we Dean supporters had been "tricked" into supporting him. S/he did make a statement which at least impliedly attacked the intelligence of Dean supporters in general, though perhaps not mine specifically.

I would agree that SOME Dean supporters are a bit overzealous, but I think that's true for all of the campaigns. I guess it's because people see just how much is at stake this time around, and are scared that we (the collective Dem we there) are going to blow it. But it's pretty early in the process, and we have a good field of 9 from which to choose. Although I think politics should be rambunctious, I just don't think that means we need to become cannibals. :-)

[Nicholas_J]

45. Dean did little

to disavow others of the "ANTI-WAR" label applied to him. and frequently changed his stance on WHAT constituted the appropriate reasons to go to war. wavering from supporting unilateral invasion if the U.N. did not choose to enforce its own resolutions,to stating that the U.S. had no right to go to war to enforce U.N. resolution without U.N. approval. He made thies greatly differing statements not over a peropd of months, reflecting on the changing circumstances, which of course can happen. After all he did "EVOLVE" from being against the death penalty to being for it under certain circumstances. But Deans changes occreded in days, hardly evol;ution, but more like mutation:


On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "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."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

This link referes to a number of other times and places in which Dena has taken almost diametrically opposing stances within days, and even hours of each other.

[DrFunkenstein]

48. I Forgot About The 30-60 Days Line

And the first quote only suggests the presence of WMDs, not the imminent threat posed by them.

But it is always bad news when you end up scanning the NRO for dirt.

I'm not sure what to make of Dean's changes between Feb. 20 and the 21st. Was he confused or just working it through in his mind? Or do the 30-60 days refer to an imminent attack? But that would sort of contradict the idea of imminent.

[killbotfactory]

50. That "quote" in NRO was really Brownstein paraphrasing what Dean said...

That doesn't stop NRO from putting citing it as a quote, though.

Here's what he said on Januarty 29th

"every president must be prepared to use military force in defense of the United States...every president must first strive to exhaust all other means of American power at our disposal, including diplomacy with friends and allies."

Here's what he said on Feb 11th:

Dean's own position is more nuanced than his speeches suggest. In interviews, including one with The Times on Sunday, he has said he would support U.S. military participation if Hussein continues to resist disarmament and the U.N. then votes to invade. But he insists that Iraq does not pose a sufficiently "imminent threat" to American security to justify a unilateral invasion without U.N. approval.

Here's what Dean said on Feb 17th:

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.

Saddam Hussein must not have weapons of mass destruction. But particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes. That is a much larger step, for which the case has not yet been made.

[DrFunkenstein]

54. Ok, I Think I Figured It Out

The NRO was not quoting Dean's actual statements, it was quoting Salon.com's writer paraphrasing Dean. Am I right? If so, was the paraphrasing an incorrect assessment of Dean's position?

[killbotfactory]

72. That's basically it...

I have no idea if it was accurate, since there is not transcript of what Dean said available, and I lost the link to the original article.

[killbotfactory]

43. Is Kerry against unilateral invasions of countries...

which do not pose an imminent threat to the US?

I can't find anything where he says so, instead he seems to claim that we should try and make it a multilateral effort first.

"As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action."

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=spc_2003_0123

[DrFunkenstein]

47. Does This Help?

"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, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.” - Washington Post 10/10/02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3754-2002Oct9¬Found=true

Just a note that false claims about Kerry "trying to have it both ways" are not Dean's alone. The sentence that uses the quote starts out, "Or they have tried to have things more than one way, as in this statement from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.):"

The Daily Howler does a nice job of taking this ridiculous attack apart - and provides the 3 conditions of invasion I originally posted. They even simplify Kerry's position nicely: "Saddam is an unacceptable danger but Bush is responding too quickly."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101002.shtml

[killbotfactory]

51. We have two quotes now...

One where Kerry says he would not support a unilateral War unless the threat is imminent, and then a month later one where he says he would support a unilateral effort to invade Iraq provided we exhaust our multilateral effort and make the case to the US, even if there was no imminent threat.

Since Kerry ended up supporting a rushed unilateral (or faux-multilateral, whatever) war that wasn't a last resort (and we can see he thought this, since he supported an extention to the inespection), while he grumbled that he would have "strongly prefered" a better multilateral effort... well, It doesn't reflect well

[blm]

52. Iraq was already under UN demand to disarm....

and had been for over a decade. It wasn't an invasion by any war standard but enforcing disarmament as per the UN demands. By not enforcing its own demands, the UN gets in trouble for being "toothless" and gives the GOP more reason to seek its dissolution. People like Kerry and Clinton were mindful of that when they made their decisions.

To say that he was for a unilateral invasion of an innocent country and would do it again is just hyperbolic nonsense.

[killbotfactory]

53. Who said anything about Iraq being innocent?

Saddam was a bastard, but that doesn't change the fact that they were not an imminent threat to the US, even Kerry has said as much.

Which is why I find it surprising that he supported the war even though inspections were working, and after Bush said he was going to make the UNSC "show their cards" before chickening out, cutting short inspections, and invading. You can't just go around invading countries because you have a hunch they are up to no good.

Invasion wasn't even required, as Clinton proved in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox.

[blm]

76. Not the point...

False choices on both ends. "You can't have force without diplomacy or diplomacy without force."

[killbotfactory]

77. Diplomacy was working...

so why did Kerry support a war which cut short diplomacy?

[blm]

80. He said it was the most abysmal diplomatic effort

in US history.

He always supported regime change. He says that Bush has totally effed up in his execution of the war and is incompetent at winning the peace. He called for an investigation into the intel 6 weeks ago, and called for the US to cease the occupation of Iraq and be part of a UN and NATO peace force.

What more do you want? Is Dean leading antiwar rallies in front of the White House? Get real.

[killbotfactory]

87. So he supports the war despite Bush violating every condition Kerry had

for giving his support of a unilateral invasion?

[DrFunkenstein]

81. What Do You Mean By "Support The War"?

Where does Kerry support the war anymore than:

"Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past six months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

[killbotfactory]

86. Find me one quote where Kerry says we shouldn't invade.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

Frankly, I don't know how you can construe the above as anything other than support for the Iraq invasion. He's certainly expressed his opinion that he wished Bush would have done a better job, but when it comes down to it, he didn't speak out against the invasion. If you want to know why he's accused of waffling, that's why.

[SGrande]

65. But the Director of the CIA was lying to him!

The Director of the main intelligence agency in the United States stands and LIES to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and all those Senators go tell Senators like John Kerry that the Nukes are built, on their way and if we don't go to war NOW, we are going to lose New York and Washington D.C.

What would you have done, given that information?

[killbotfactory]

71. According to Kerry, everything he knew was public knowledge.

And the reports from the CIA are filled with footnotes saying how unreliable the data was, and there was no mention of nukes.

Tons of the accusations were proven false by UN weapons inspectors once they went in, the nuclear program, the UAV, WMD labs in the north... I guess Kerry bought the BS that the weapons inspectors were inneffective or something since he supported the rush to war committed by the idiotboy president.

[SGrande]

79. Im talking about the Senate Select Intelligence Committee

While Kerry is not on it himself, Sen Graham and others are and the they walked out of that meeting and rallied support for the war days before the vote and possibly before that; god knows we might never know when the lies started.

I mean c'mon, Senator Bob Graham walks up to you and gives you a briefing you need to make your final decision and he says "they have nukes"; what do you do as a Senator?

Act responsibly, based on the info that was just given to you?

Or stand up for your principles, even though it is very possible ( according to Bush and Tenet) that New York City and its 9.6 million people within the blast range may be dead next week over your vote

What does one do?

Its an important question everyone must ask themselves.

Of course, all of us "Wished" he would of voted NO in retrospect, but he voted what he thought was right for the country based on flawed and doctored evidence from "the" supposedly trusted source? Partisan Politics aside, who would of believed that the PRESIDENT of the United States and the DIRECTOR of the CIA would LIE to the Senate in order to get their support for a war thats based on a thoery out of a conservative think tank.

Kerry nay sayers should REALLY read William Rivers Pitt's book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745320104/qid=1059586240/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2338468-0040735?v=glance&s=books

[killbotfactory]

83. Graham voted against the resolution...

And Kerry said there was nothing that wasn't public knowledge...

[DrFunkenstein]

82. Instead of Guessing, Address #68

The falsification of evidence does not change Kerry's position at all. The issue was accountability, not the WMDs themselves, and Kerry continued to say that Bush had not given enough time to let Saddam account for himself.

But Kerry also blamed Saddam for screwing around long enough to put himself in that position. Kind of like I blame Gore for putting himself in the position where Bush could steal the election, but doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

[genius]

60. One thing Kerry's campaign has above Dean's is honesty

I'm not supoprting Kerry. But I think he is a good man and he would make an excellent President. I believe he is trying to do the right thing. I have often disagreed with his positions. That's why I'm not supporting him. I mostly appreciate the fact that he is running a clean campaign.

[SGrande]

64. thank you!

As William Pitt says :

"its the privilage of the activist to judge Senator Kerry harshly when you have the President of the United States and the Director of the CIA LYING to you about Weapons of Mass Destruction"

John Kerry voted his heart out with the best knowledge available to him at the time.

Critics out are of line with this support of a slimy new democrat Howard Dean and turning their back on a Senator with a 94% liberal voting record.

Remember Howard Dean cut medicaid to balance his budget. John Kerry would never do that!

[DrFunkenstein]

68. Issue Not WMDs, But An Unaccountable Saddam

Kerry himself believed not so much in the threat of the WMDs, as the threat of an unaccountable Saddam Hussein. Kerry was comfortable with an accountable Saddam, but Saddam had jerked around inspectors ever since he signed the terms of the Gulf War resolution.

Kerry spoke up in the late 90's about the need to do this job.

"Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” - Kerry 11/9/97.

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

Kerry also spoke in spring of 2001, during Bush's Presidency but before 9/11, about the failures of sanctions and the threat an unaccountable Saddam continued to pose.

"In Congress, concern that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD programs is bipartisan. Since the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq two years ago, however, little serious attention has been paid—either by the Congress or the White House—to addressing Iraq’s growing threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region.

...

We should be willing to consider adjusting the current economic sanctions, as long as such a change is accompanied by renewed commitments from U.S. allies and others to enforce the sanctions on military and dual-use exports to Iraq."

http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

[killbotfactory]

84. No one wanted an unnaccountable Saddam.

The problem is voting for and supporting a resolution which gives the president the discretion to invade a country on a whim.

The problem is Bush violating every one of Kerry's conditions for supporting an invasion, and Kerry still supporting the invasion.