Dean Supported War Resolution

[molly]

"Dean...said he supported the Biden-Lugar resolution and acknowledged that Bush could have used it to go to war without a vote from Congress." (AP)

Reporters are beginning to look closely at Howard Dean's position on the war in Iraq. The Associated Press story includes Howard Dean's admission that he supported a Senate resolution authorizing the President to go to war before he adopted his anti-war stance.

The resolution the Senate adopted was only slightly different than the resolution supported by Dean.

Until recently, Dean has been able to pull the wool over the eyes of voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and across the nation on his position on the war. The facts are now clear: Dean supported giving the President the authority to go to war. Only when he determined it to be politically advantageous, did he take an anti-war stance.

http://www.johnkerry.com/

[La_Serpiente]

1. *duck*

[eileen_d]

2. Well,duh!

LOL - enjoy the flamefest. Personally I think Dean's anti-war stance has been overstated by the Dean campaign for political reasons. But you can't deny it worked.

So in other words: "Of course he misrepresents himself. He's a politician."

[molly]

3. Yep - he's a politician

NOT the savior of the Democratic party.

[polpilot]

47. Kerry, Gep, & Edwards pro-war platforms collapsed as have their

campaigns. The first mantra was that Dean was leading only because of his anti-war position and NOW the mantra is that he wasn't anti-Iraqi War....

Dean '04....

[WiseMen]

35. IS IT ALL POLITICS.-AS-USUAL. SHOULD WE JUST GO HOME.

What Democrats need most of all at this time is the TRUTH.

WHO IS THE REAL HOWARD DEAN?

I have heard from several source that Dean was actually for the IWR, but his campaign manager got him to oppose as campaign strategy after he saw that the other major candidates had voted for it.

If this is so Dean should come out straight and tell us. If he isn't straight now, the Republican will be running him as a foreign policy dumbo that did not understand enough of the Senate resolution to know what he believed.

WHAT WENT DOWN? The record now show conflicting positions. Was Dean turn to the anti-war position a strategy to position himself against the others so that he would get the 40% anti-war vote and the rest of the pack would would be split. Was it to get urgently needed funding from the MoveOn movement?

We need some straight talk.

I know that Dean gets his best scores from the NRA. That on the recored. He is also a big supporter of the Death Penalty. Somehow it is not the peace-activist profile I am familiar with.

I have seen written that Vermont voter say of their former governor “he’s never saw a welfare program he did not want to cut.” As governor Dean made major cuts in aid to education, retirement funds for teachers and state employees, health care, medicaid benefits, and welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled, all under the cloak of “fiscal responsibility”.

I did some research.
I was sincerely searching the web for any solid evidence that Dr. Dean was seriously involved in the peace protest movement before the campaign. I did not find any. What I did find is that several progressive groups are now PROTESTING DEAN’S claims to be progressive. At one site I found these 10 Questions for Dean

1. Why did you support sending Vermont's nuclear waste to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas, 16 miles from the Mexican border -- a plan described as "blatant environmental racism" by Paul Wellstone?
2. Why did the Dean administration increase funding for Vermont's state colleges by only 7% while you increased funding for prisons by 150%?
3. Why did IBM, the leading polluter in Vermont, receive your Environmental Achievement Award nine times?
4. What did you mean when you said, "I've had 40 or 45 private meetings with IBM since I've been governor. And IBM has gotten pretty much everything they've asked for"?
6. Why did you wait for the courts and legislature to bring about the civil union bill before you supported it? Why did you sign the bill in private when you finally did sign it?
7. Why did you oppose the Israeli Labour Party candidate for prime minister Amram Mitzna's call for unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians?
8. While you acknowledge at one point that you "haven't condemned Congress for passing the Patriot Act," Bernie Sanders from your own state of Vermont is leading efforts in Congress to overturn the Act. Why were you not supporting Bernie Sanders' efforts and condemning Congress for its attack on civil liberties?
9. How do you respond to Annette Smith of Vermonters of a Clean Environment who says: "Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud. He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with developers, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke. EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection"?
10. Since you pride yourself on your "fiscal responsibility" why did you refuse to even consider any decreases in the bloated Pentagon budget?

Will we get answers to these questions before the votes are cast? Will the record books remained sealed until after the primaries. Is it true that these records portray a Governer who is the opposite of the Campaigner?

WORRIED MINDS WANT TO KNOW.

[Zomby Woof]

53. Welcome to DU WiseMen!

That sound of crickets chirping is the sound of the best rebuttal you're going to get to an excellent post.

[Egnever]

80. LOL

Try the search function. These things have all been rehashed a million times here. It wont be hard to find threads on each of them.

Its a nice cliff notes version of all the BS that has been thrown at him though. I dont know what your objective is here, but tearing down dems with completely bogus posts should not bring you glee.

DU does not become a better place with another rehash of all the debunked talking points coming from the far right.

Bring on the primaries! May the nominee win soundly and early so that DU can rid itself of this constant dem bashing. I look forward to the return of sanity here.

[seventhson]

4. More Crap from the Kerry Campaign

Fact is Kerry voted for the Authorization to go to war.

Biden Lujar was MORE RESTRICTIVE than what Kerry voted for and was not a Carte Blanche as Kerry gave Bush with his spinless political vote.

Dean is the tar baby on this: the more Kerry kicks him the worse Kerry looks.

"Please don't kick poor Howie, massa John! Please don't trow him in dat briah patch, Miss Mollie!"


Oh say whatever you want. Kerry ALWAYS says whatever he wants to to sling dirt and lies about Dean.

One word: SkullandBonesw/BothBushes

Biden/Lugar MIGHT have prevented the war, but we will never know now because your friend John Forbes Kerry voted for Bush to go to war WITHOUT the resitrictions in Biden/Lugar.

So there!!!

[molly]

5. Since you are so good at research

could you - would you please detail the differences?

[seventhson]

6. Nope. This has been covered to death

If you post both of the bills I MIGHT bother to analyze the differences, but I will leave that to you: YOU are the one claiming there is no difference so YOU have to provide the evidence: The BURDEN OF PROOF is on YOU.

[BootinUp]

11. Oh no, I don't think so

From you that is so disingenuous. Posted any Clark attacks lately?

It's time for Dean to go under the microscope, since he wants to use double talk and then accuse the other candidates of F'in up on the IWR.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. How long have you been around here Jim?

I'm not asking that as an attack or to try to call you a freeper. But if you were around here this summer you would have already seen this charge debated and de-bunked by many Dean supporters. There was a huge difference between Biden Lugar and the IWR, and it has been pointed out many times on this board. If you do a search, it wil be easy for you to find those threads. That's why so many Dean supporters (as well as supporters of others) get tired of responding to the same old, same old.


I'm actually sorry to see Kerry stooping to this. He's getting very bad campaign advice, and they are doing everything they can to make sure he loses more support by being perceived as merely the anti-Dean candidate. Kerry is a very good Senator and candidate- I just wish he'd tell the pundits and consultants to take a flying leap.

[BootinUp]

29. My position is laid out in #23, but to answer

I am an average guy who really wants Bush evicted, and I only discovered DU around September or October. I lurked for a while and found that it is a great source of information and full of like minded dems and progressives.

I am not suggesting this is in any way the impetus to defeat Dean. But on the other hand it should not be a litmus test for Dean to win on either. He didn't have to vote.

[lastliberalintexas]

32. I agree

Kerry has actually long been my #2 choice, and I'll still vote for him if he is the nominee, in spite of his vote on the IWR. I just find it disingenuous to assert that there are no differences between the 2 resolutions. After all, Kerry even said he preferred Biden Lugar himself. If there were no differences, why would he have had a preference?

And I really wasn't trying to attack or demean you by asking how long you'd been here. Thanks for taking that question in the spirit it was intended. The archives probably contain hundreds of threads attacking each candidate on certain issues, with very good responses from supporters. It's just disheartening to see the same, tired arguments posted over and over. That goes for all of our canidates, btw!

[polpilot]

48. I didn't have to vote either...maybe that means, to some, that I couldn't

have opposed The Sheperd Bombing. Take 'absurdity' and multiply it by 1 million...there's where we are now...

Dean '04...

[ibegurpard]

7. Here is the ACLU's take on Biden-Lugar

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

[Andromeda]

54. Thanks for posting that...

there are big differences between the Biden-Lugar compromise and the resolution passed by the Senate last year.

[WiseMen]

64. BIDEN-LUGAR ALMOST SAME AS THE FINAL IWR

The ACLU comparison is to Bush's first draft resolutions request
and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

BIDEN and LUGAR have both said that the final IWR was basically
their resolution. The only difference was the BIDEN-LUGAR required a "FINDING" letter from Bush to the congress.

THIS POST IS A SHAMEFULL ATTEMP TO DECIEVE.

[jadesfire]

74. Ummm...not quite

First Bush did clearly identify the enemy, even if noone agreed with him.

Secondly, it did not require Bush to come back for further authorization, it just required him to notify Congress of his findings after having consulted with the UN. Which he did by the way, he just chose to ignore what they said and go in unilaterally. There have been multiple people (pro and anti-Dean) who have been reporting that Bush, regardless of the fact that the Biden-Lugar Amendment failes (which Kerry voted for) Bush met it's requirements.

You seem to have a the same little quirk your candidate does...say whatever fits your arguement at that moment.

The truth is, if Dean had not spent the last four days telling the media that he had NEVER thought that Saddam was a threat then this story would have died; since he clearly did and it is documented by everyone from NPR, to the Post, to local papers in Iowa and New Hampshire over the same period.

[xJlM]

8. Those of us with eyes already know this

And it's just now becoming news? Does anyone else see how the media has skewed the Democratic nomination? These guys aren't playing for animal crackers, they're playing for our nation, and they're playing for keeps.

Expect a report of spinning from the Dean Army on this one.

[HPLeft]

73. Kucinich is a "minor" candidate

I guess being mayor of Cleveland is less of an accomplishment than being Governor of a state with a population of 620,000. Or, maybe Kucinich didn't play up the paranoia angle the way he could have.

On a purely personal level, I liked Howard Dean before this campaign began. IMHO, he's run a dishonest campaign. Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, is a profoundly honest man. He's not getting the nomination, and I may not even agree with him on certain issues, but my respect for him as a human being has only grown.

[bushisanidiot]

9. Repuke Propaganda Doesn't Belong In Democratic Campaigns

"Dean supported giving the President the authority to go to war. Only when he determined it to be politically advantageous, did he take an anti-war stance." Is merely someone's opinion of why he changed his stance.

The rest of us who have been listenening to what Dean himself has to say know that he was in favor of going to war IF the evidence was there that Hussein had WMD (which it wasn't) and IF the UN approved the decision. Dean was against unilateral "pre-emptive" war based on the Bush administration's lies about Hussein's possession of WMD. It was congress's job to make sure the evidence was there before making their decision because they were privvy to more info than Dean or any of the rest of us.

[eileen_d]

13. While it's the primaries

Kerry can express any opinion he wants. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I don't doubt Dean believes the war is wrong, but I don't think his position overall is that different from several of the other Democratic candidates, including Kerry.

[BootinUp]

23. Who didn't say that

Leading up to the vote. The democrats (the minority party in congress) and a few republicans pushed for a different resolution. They weren't going to get that resolution.

Dean could speak out both sides of his mouth but didn't have to vote. I think the point some are trying to make here is that Dean is playing politics on this and since he decided to go this route then his statements should be subjected to a little more scrutiny. The fact is when he was asked about his position right before the vote he couldn't state it in less than a 5 paragraph essay. Thats because his position was just as mushy as the majority of dems. Whether he would or wouldn't have voted for it will never be known. Does that give him the moral authority to attack Kerry and the others...well that is the point that should be debated in my humble opinion.

[HPLeft]

75. Don't Say Such a Thing

You'll offend the Dean true believers. Dean was a candidate on the fence looking for a side to come down on. I agree that, on balance, he was probably anti-war - but he wasn't the only candidate who held that position (and isn't Bob Graham infinitely more qualified to be President than Deanya) - and hindsight is always 20/20. There's no question, however, than when the chip were down, Kucinich and Graham were there to be counted, and Deanya was no where to be seen.

[La_Serpiente]

10. If anyone is too tired to join in this thread

just read this other thread. If you want to respond to the original post, go ahead.

Dial Up BEWARE

[molly]

15. WOW - THANKS!

I missed that thread. It has it all!

[demnan]

12. Who advises Kerry anyway?

The whole tone of this is so negative it is bound to turn potential supporters of Kerry off. I started out supporting Kerry but he just didn't project positively while I thought Dean did.

Really, I think Kerry is a fine man, but I feel his campaign tone really does him a disservice. You should be worried about this, Molly, not whether Dean supported some similar resolution last year on the war.

[molly]

16. You obviously were not around when Dean first

came to DU like an attack dog demeaning ALL other candidates.

[demnan]

19. I was here when a lot of Dean supporters acted stupidly

and I've always been against candidate bashing. I don't recall Dean himself ever being on this board.

[HPLeft]

76. I don't advise Senator Kerry...

although I'd like to...

That said, the bottom line is that sometimes negativity is truthful and factual. Would you rather deal with facts or fantasy? As far as I'm concerned, a person who would use dishonesty to get elected, is likely to employ the same approach as an office-holder. Democracy will not survive a tolerance for dishonesty.

[dajabr]

14. What is Kerry's argument here?

"Dean's as bad as me on this issue."

Is that going to win anybody over?

[blm]

17. People don't want to know that the frontrunner used deceit to make his

gains?

That shouldn't be a story?

How many speeches did Dean make that informed his audience that he supported Bush making the final determination for use of force and unilateral force if necessary? How many did he make saying he was against it?

The story is also that the press never examined this.

[Nazgul35]

31. That's your assumption...

You assume that Dean's support is based upon just his anti-Iraq war position....and this may go a long way to explain why the other Democrats are not able to tackle Dean, but continue to flounder...

I see this alot....many people here like to make assumptions about the candidates, the supporters, parse words...do careful cut and pastes of quotes...all in the name of scoring some cheap debating points for a group of people who make up less than .001% of the Democratic Party....

For myself, I am not going to make any assumption about why you or anyone else supports a given candidate other than you made your decision after thoughtful consideration and some soul searching....

Why don't you allow the same respect for others...maybe your arguments would be more convincing if they weren't accompanied by back-handed insults...

[deutsey]

18. As someone who has been very active in the anti-war movement

for a long time and a Dean supporter, I knew about Dean's stance on Iraq a long time ago.

My understanding is, Dean said if Bush could rally the support of an international coalition (preferrably the UN), which would require make a convincing case that Iraq had WMDs, he would support an invasion.

:shrug:

[molly]

21. Bingo!

thankyou for your honesty!

[NashVegas]

28. Apparently You Think That's Damaging?

This may surprise you, but there are a lot of people on DU who were against the war and are not pacifists.

I wasn't about to post in Will's 400-count thread, but to take 1 comment that was generally consistent with Dean's anti-Iraq war stance - one that allowed for the possibility that a case could be justified, but did indeed say that justification was still forthcoming from Bush* - and try to stretch it into something to get into the vapors about .. let's just say I really hope Karl Rove is paying very close attention and will himself try to use this argument. It'll be a laugh a minute.

[deutsey]

36. What's there to be "honest" about?

I know lots of people who worked with me in protesting the march to invasion who would have grudgingly supported action if the UN was leading it.

The point of my post was that there ain't nothing new here, and I'm puzzled as to why Kerry (and his supporters here) are making a big deal about it now. I've posted Dean's views on Iraq here at DU months ago.

[LuminousX]

20. Still searching for the silver bullet

The one fact that remains true is when U.S. troops were breezing through Iraq and victory looked inevitable, Dean was still opposing the war. When nearly everyone else was closing ranks behind Bush and conventional wisdom was "Supporting the Iraq War will get you re-elected" Dean was opposing the war.

The day the Saddam statue was torn down, Wolf Blitzer called Dean, to question how this was going to affect Dean's campaign.

Dean never said he was a pacifist. Dean never opposed going to war with Saddam. Dean opposed the lies and betrayal of trust that went into convincing fine senators like Kerry to allow Bush to wage this war.

Kerry is just now waking up to the fact that Dean's early stance, whether chosen for political reasons or not, was the right stance.

[virtualobserver]

22. Exactly !

Kerry seems to think that a statement about Biden-Lugar somehow disproves that DEAN was against the war from the beginning.

Kerry gets to decide when the beginnning is I guess.

As troops massed on the Iraqi border, Dean was loudly opposing the action( and being called a traitor and unelectable), while the Senators and Gephardt were mouthing words about how Saddam must be stopped.

That is "beginning" enough for me.

[ludwigb]

24. Right on

That is a key difference. Remember the first debate after the war started? Kerry--"I'm glad we did it". Now he tells us that he would never have gone to war. What are his opinions actually based on anyway? Basically, the only thing consistent about Kerry's position is it has always been that of current conventional wisdom, and can always be easily changed should that wisdom change.

I just don't understand why these Kerry supporters keep bringing IWR up. All it does is underline what an opportunist their own candidate has been all along. I like and respect Kerry--but I'm so sick of this IWR hypocrisy.

Look, I didn't support Biden-Lugar, but then I'm slightly to the left of Dean anyway. However, as I understand it, if we had Biden-Lugar then Bush would have had to get a UN-Resolution authorizing force, which he never actually got. If Bush had gone to war as he did under the authority of Biden-Lugar, Bush could be reasonably impeached for decieving the American people and breaking the law. Furthermore, Bush would have been forced to go back to Congress under Biden-Lugar and at least present a case for war, which, if anything, would have given the opposition an opportunity to undermine him and the case for war, perhaps in time to avert the conflict.

Any way you look at it, it would have been better for Democrats to hold out for something like Biden-Lugar (even though I, personally, would have held out for a resolution that required a 2nd vote in Congress). If that meant voting "no" on the resolution, then so be it--at least Americans would know where Dems stand.

[helleborient]

25. This is what Al Gore meant about Dean's stance being correct...

And common sense.

It was common sense that Bush was likely to lie...Kerry either didn't understand that, or has still not told the truth about his vote.

Kerry is definitely in the mode of "let's throw things and see if anything sticks" desperation mode.

Yesterday's asking the FEC to block the NRA buying a radio station is a perfect example. If Kerry had strong legal advice, he knows there is nothing illegal about it, and it would not be legal for the government to block it. If the NRA is blocked, private ownership of the media must be blocked. My estimation is Kerry does know the FEC can't block it, but is searching for cheap publicity.

[deutsey]

37. Excellent points

:thumbsup:

[ProfessorPlum]

27. Back into the fray . . .

The IWR vote was a punch in the gut for most of us who knew Bush couldn't be trusted - but I forgive Kerry for the vote as I understand that he saw it as the best way to make sure Iraq was inspected and if necessary, disarmed.

By the spring, it was clear to everyone that Bush was going in, in clear violation of international law and in betrayal of the promises his administration had made to people like Kerry. It was clear he was gaming the system, would not wait for the UN inspectors to do their jobs, and in short was thirsty for blood regardless of the law or of the consequences to this country.

It was at this point that Kerry should have seen the writing on the wall, knowing that he had been betrayed and played for a fool by these immature, fantasizing zealots. I know he talked about "regime change" and made some noise about Bush then, but was too timid to be smeared as a dove. At least I think that is the explanation for his more or less tacit approval, and then his vocal approval in the first debate, for the invasion. While he knew that Bush was about to break or had broken international law (and who would understand this better than Kerry?), he hemmed and hawed about how getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, etc. Like, well I'm going to support this invasion, even if it is illegal and leads us into a quagmire, because some good might come out of it.

That was the same time that Dean was telling Bush to put up his evidence. Dean wasn't saying he was any less concerned about Saddam's phantom WMD than Kerry or any of the rest of them. He was just saying that if there was proof, this was the time to actually get it out there, because nothing had proven that this adventure would actually be worth it.

That was the difference. Now people yell "IWR" and "Biden-Lugar" at each other as shorthand for these two different responses of the candidates this spring to the imminent invasion. I think everyone, Kerry supporters and Dean supporters and everybody else's supporters, wishes Kerry had been more clearly against the invasion in the spring. That he hoped it would come to a good end was a good hope to have, but placed in the wrong people's hands. And it still doesn't justify a war based on a non-proven threat. Kerry must have realized he was "duped" long before the spring, and certainly by the time of the first debate, but he wanted to be a hawk to the hawks and a dove to the doves. That sort of makes sense from a strategic point of view, but it doesn't make him the right sort of campaigner for 2004. A good person, an excellent legislator, but not the person who can hit Bush hard about just how awful this country has been f*cked by this invasion.

[helleborient]

30. Thanks for staying in the fray Professor!

Well-reasoned and thoughtful are adjectives that come to mind...

[deutsey]

38. Well said, Prof

There really is no "there" there with this stunt of Kerry's.

Like you, I gave Kerry a pass on his vote for IWR. I even defended him here at DU (I was still a supporter of his then) because I felt as a combat veteran himself Kerry had legitimate reasons for voting as he did. I was disappointed in his vote and disagreed with him, but I respected him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Since becoming a Dean supporter I've held back in any attacks on Kerry--I have made my arguments here about why I stopped supporting him, but I have refrained from smearing him. I prefer Dean but I still respect Kerry...I have to say, though, that my respect is beginning to wane with things like this. It just seems it's so beneath him.

[killbotfactory]

40. Yep,

Kerry could have been a leader against Bush. Reading what he said about the run-up to war, he should have been. But for whatever reason he wasn't. He can quibble about the differences of the resolution Dean would support and what Kerry supported, but that just ignores the real issue here.

[lyonn]

71. really like your post

You have expressed what so many of us felt when we "knew" Bush was going to war and none of the leading democratic hopefuls spoke out. Dean did, on the war and all the other important Dem. issues. At that time I didn't know much about Dean but knew I wanted to know more, thinking this guy may be the one to shake up the troops (democrats) and make a real election possible the next time. The 2002 election was so embarassing, the Dems. were all "me too" candidates that were not speaking out against what Bush was doing. I remember on this site all the complaining about the weak democrats and how we needed a strong voice, bingo, Dean. Now so many are bashing him. Go figure.

[jadesfire]

77. Kerry's Position in January- not quite as simplistic as you portray...

Remarks by John Kerry at Georgetown University

ON JANUARY 23, 2003

For the full text go to: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

"I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

...

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. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

...

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

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.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

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. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."

John Kerry
Georgetown University
JANUARY 23, 2003

[NaderIsMyHero]

33. WHEN ARE U GOING TO LEARN...YOU CAN ONLY TRUST NADER

How can people still believe in politicians? Draft Ralph Nader for the Democratic nominee. He is the only man you can trust 100%. I heard some sour grapes from people here about how much Nader made in the stock market....LOL...do you know what he did with that money??? He donates 80% of his income to good liberal causes...hey the man doesn't even own a car and lives on $25,000 a year...so if he can make a ton of money in the stock market...MORE POWER TO HIM!!!! THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOST ITS SOUL....DRAFT RALPH!!!!

[molly]

34. The Democratic Party has not lost it's soul

there is still hope, but it doesn't lie with Nader!

[ProfessorPlum]

39. Thanks for the great advice

we'll be sure to give it the response it deserves.

[killbotfactory]

44. Nader/LaRouche '04!

Chant it with me now:
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!
There is no difference between the dem and Bush!

[MercutioATC]

81. Hehehe...Yeah, I'll do that..

Nader, as a politician, is only capable of being a spoiler. He doesn't speak to enough people to be a viable candidate. Unfortunately, we DON'T have a 3rd party candidate with any chance of winning. A vote for Nader is, essentially, a vote for Bush.

[Fleshdancer]

41. Is this thread on auto-redial???

Every week it seems as if we have this exact conversation.

Okay, you win! Dean is pro war! He really wanted to go into Iraq and kill as many civilians as humanly possible. He also wants our soldiers to die die die!!! I also heard he likes to eat puppies for breakfast and shoot bald eagles but his campaign manager told him to keep it a secret for political reasons.

*sigh*

[ProfessorPlum]

42. It's even worse than you think

we'll have to keep having it from now on, for a long time.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

43. Which I think, is the basis for their argument

that Dean is unelectable. Look, he's going to get attacked! We'll show you!

Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. I am starting to wonder if a lot of people would rather say "I told you so" than "President Dean."

[ProfessorPlum]

45. Here's the thing about the "unelectable" meme that bothers me

and screw everyone who objects to "meme".

Candidates who turned out to be "unelectable" - Mondale and Dukakis, in recent memory, were men who thought their qualifications were enough for the job. Dukakis famously took a long vacation after the Dem. Convention, which he left with a big bump in the polls, allowing Bush I to overtake him. Dukakis famously didn't fight back when attacked. Neither of them ran very dynamic campaigns.

Dean has HUSTLE. He works like a demon. He fights. He has an incredible store of energy. He will be perceived as someone who works hard and fights for himself. That's the kind of person that voters can respect, even those who won't appreciate his position papers. Dean is the exact opposite of the kind of candidate that everyone is so afraid of here, the one who is unelectable because he just sits there and undynamically takes it when he is attacked. No offense to Kerry or Kerry supporters (because I think Kerry's qualifications for the job are very excellent indeed), but he is running that kind of campaign in the primaries. Dean is creating his own success, through hard work and sweat making things happen and getting people fired up about being rid of W. That is exactly the kind of candidate this country needs right now.

[lyonn]

72. Pleez, no comparison

Mondale was not believeable when it came to being able to stop the war. It was probably more media than anything. I voted for Nixon only because he also said he'd stop the war. He was more believable than Mondale. Same with Dukakis. He appeared weak. Media again I guess and I voted for Reagan. I've done some very intelligent voting in my time as you can see. Hope to do better this time. So far Dean seems to stir up interest, why is that? He doesn't play cute word games, answers questions like it is spontaneous not some written speech which makes him seem real and fairly honest. Must be careful with the word honest now days. Dean is no Mondale or Dukakis.

[BootinUp]

46. Yes as long as Dean tries to use it to attack the other candidates n/t

[ProfessorPlum]

49. Yeah, yeah.

he's a horrible guy.

[blm]

50. So, he's not horrible. But don't you think he was wrong

to use it as a wedge issue when his position wasn't really too different than Kerry's? He wasn't exactly honest with his audiences, many of whom will likely never hear that Dean supported measures that he attacked the others for.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. It's a fair question

Here's my shorthand recollection of what happened. Biden-Lugar is in the senate. While it is being debated, Dean says he supports it. The senate bill is undercut by certain nefarious Democratic congresscritters. IWR results, which is an inferior bill in many important ways. Bush has laid a trap for them: vote for this inferior bill, which cuts congressional oversight of my actions and field of operation, or the GOP will smear you later as weak on terraists. Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards all vote for it, hoping, we assume, that the outcome is good for the US. Then Bush sh*ts on those who voted for IWR by breaking international law to conduct an illegal invasion of a sovereign country. At this point, Dean is opposing the invasion, pointing out that although a case could be made which would support unilateral invasion, it certainly has not been made at this point. The four candidates above at this point were all tacitly or vocally supporting the invasion.

At this point, Dean uses IWR to point out the difference between himself and the four above, saying that capitulating to Bush in this trap was a weak choice. Emotionally, I agree. None of the folks above would have had to vote for it - it would have passed the GOP controlled house anyway. If you are making symbolic votes, can't you symbolically oppose a power grab by Chimpy, even if you think the IWR might do some good?

I think Dean was criticizing not only the substance of the IWR, but the message that those four symbolic votes sent. And I think rightly so. Again, I think Kerry was caught in the trap of not wanting to be labelled weak on defense (not seeming to realize that Patton himself would be labelled as such if he were running as a Democrat) when he didn't oppose the invasion, months after he realized he got used on IWR. Had he done so, Dean would have had no traction on the issue.

I just don't see how Dean is the bad guy here. He was unimpressed with that vote, especially in retrospect and especially since Kerry was supporting the actual invasion. And so was I.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Pretty close to reality with that post, Prof.

[deutsey]

55. Hear hear

:thumbsup:

[blm]

56. But Dean attacked them for allowing Bush the final decision for use of

force even if it was unilateral and the attacked them for that very same position. He also knew, as you do, that those who negotiated had different obligations, and if Bush came their way at all, they owed their support of the final bill. Well, Bush did come their way more than has been reported because Rove made sure it was spun as Dems caving to Bush.

The UN involvement, weapons inspections and no expansion into Iran and Syria were hard won concessions. Thankfully, they also forced Bush to overreach on the presentation of evidence to Congress and the UN and his credibility took a big hit. That wouldn't have happened if Bush had gotten what he wanted.

[ProfessorPlum]

57. There were some good things that came out of IWR

including the UN obligation. What I think was not fully appreciated at the time is that we are living in a world where there is seemingly no consequence for our leaders breaking international law, and they were fully prepared to do it - a lot of people suspected as much, though.

As far as owing Bush support on a bill in which the Republicans compromise (no matter how small or large their concessions), I'm not sure I buy that argument, but I think that is a matter of opinion on which people could reasonably disagree. I think that if the four IWR voters had voted No, like Kucinich, it could reasonably be chalked up to wanting to oppose Bush because of their presidential campaigns - I don't think they would have lost much political capital for it.

As to the matter of Dean attacking Kerry and the others on the IWR, I don't think anyone should take it too personally. Look at it this way. You are in a race against someone. You have to offer up some reasons why they would be a worse choice than you. So, you start presenting some facts about them. Say Kerry started saying "You shouldn't vote for Dean because he was a governor - governors make bad presidents compared to senators." Would that be an attack? He's just stating a fact and an opinion, to see if the message resonates with people. Dean says, don't vote for John Kerry, he voted for the IWR.

I'm not explaning this well because it is late here and I can't get my thoughts very clearly around it. What Dean did is good for the race and for the party. He points out that Kerry voted for IWR. That fact is true whether Dean says it or whether Bush says it. If Kerry has a strong defense for this fact, he needs to deploy it deftly. The problem is, every time he opens his mouth about it, people hate his defense even more - it is perceived as weakness and/or gullibility, with or without any help from Dean. We can't have that in our nominee. Kerry would be a potential wreck for our side because he has that liability. Dean's exposure of that is good for the party - Kerry's liability on that subject with the base is not going to magically go away - and the primary process is a good place to get those issues sorted out. Dean knows the value of his competitors as workers with him in the good fight to get rid of Chimpy. But it is his job as someone working towards the nomination to point out weaknesses in the other candidates, before Bush does it for us.

Kerry should have had a way to turn this vote around to his benefit, and he hasn't found it yet. That is a weakness that we cannot afford in this race. Other candidates have other weaknesses, of course. But don't take it so personally that Dean pointed it out. The fact remains - and I still think Kerry could overcome it with good campaigning, hard work, and excellent strategy. He just hasn't found that yet, and again, we cannot wait for him to get it together if it isn't going to happen.

Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as too harsh - I enjoy discussing things with you when it isn't highly reactionary.

[molly]

58. Dean conned the "base" - Kerry did not

"Dean's exposure of that is good for the party - Kerry's liability on that subject with the base is not going to magically go away - and the primary process is a good place to get those issues sorted out. Dean knows the value of his competitors as workers with him in the good fight to get rid of Chimpy. But it is his job as someone working towards the nomination to point out weaknesses in the other candidates, before Bush does it for us."

[LuminousX]

59. I look to Tom Harkin's example

Harkin on the IWR vote

Harkin said that at the time, he believed Bush was trying to seek a peaceful solution in Iraq, but instead the administration has been "like the cowboy who rode out of Texas, all guns blazing" in pursuit of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"As I look back, it sure looks like the administration was never serious about resolving the situation peacefully - I thought they were," said Harkin.

He said others who voted for the resolution also did so with that belief. Asked whether that means it is unfair for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a presidential contender, to continue criticizing Democratic presidential candidates who voted for the resolution, Harkin said he's not familiar with what Dean has said.

"I could be criticized," he acknowledged.

And it wasn't just Dean criticizing Kerry... Kerry dodges constituents

[blm]

62. DEAN WAS STILL BEING DECEPTIVE AND NONE OF YOU GIVE A SHIT!

So don't give me any crap that pretends Dean had a position of honor on this.

He knew exactly what he was doing and also knew the press were running with the storyline that he was antiwar and so he kept all his real red meat attacks for his audiences ripping at those who were no more prowar than he was. Fer chrissakes, Kerry was catching shit from every direction because he was criticizing Bush heavily for deciding to go in. He was accused of trying to have it both ways. "You can't vote to allow Bush to go to war, then criticize him."

Well, they didn't realize that Dean was the one who was actually having it both ways. Because he would have allowed Bush the same power AND he got to be labeled the antiwar candidate which brought him LOTS of antiwar organization that had been in place and lots of liberal antiwar $$$$$. For a gawddam STORYLINE perpetuated by the press.

[LuminousX]

63. Interestingly enough

Did Dean ever accuse Kerry directly or did Kerry choose to step in front of that bus?

[deutsey]

66. How was he deceptive?

I was very active in the anti-war movement and knew very well what Dean's position was on Iraq when I became a supporter. His view reflected the views of many people I knew in the movement who were not pacifists...they wanted the US to make a case that would rally the international community to join us in Iraq. While I never believed that Iraq posed a threat that would justify invasion either by us alone or with a coalition, I see the logic behind such an argument. Dean has always said that he supported the first Gulf War, he supported bombing Afgahnistan as well. He did not believe there was enough justification for invading Iraq. Had there been, he would have supported it.

[ProfessorPlum]

67. Dean only "had" it one way

once the bullets started flying. He was against the actual invasion which had not been justified, not the theoretical one in which Iraq had been proven a legitimate threat to us. He took that position and he paid the political price for it - he was labeled a peacenik, a pinko, an un-American reincarnation of McGovern who didn't "support the troops". And I'm sure there are millions of people who will never vote for him because of it.

Kerry started to make the same arguments, with his sly "regime change at home" comments, but when the same shitstorm of brownshirt, flag-waving jingoistic criticism came down on him, he wussed out and went back to being "happy that Saddam was out of power", etc. etc.

For Dean to slam Kerry on IWR may not be technically correct, but by supporting the actual invasion Kerry didn't distance himself from that vote enough for the difference to matter to anyone except staunch Kerry loyalists. Kerry ended up supporting both the theoretical invasion AND the actual invasion, and that is turning out to be a bad situation for him and if he wants to win he needs to get himself out of it. Even Eric Alterman, who is head-over-heels for Kerry, acknowledges this as his biggest problem. See http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp#031205

I think IWR is poor shorthand for supporting the actual invasion. Neither the media, Dean, the other candidates, or Kerry himself have done a good job of definining the distinctions. We've been over the technical differences over and over again. In the end, it was the symbolism of the vote that left a bad taste in the mouths of many of Kerry's constituents and would-be supporters, and his actual support for the invasion that turned many off even more.

And the media has gotten out Kerry's defense for his vote - but his defense of the vote tends to piss people off even more. He needs to do something about it if he wants to make himself a more palatable candidate.

[blm]

61. He has explained it. The press won't listen.

Only a handful have conceded that Kerry was showing prescience when he was making the arguments against Bush going to war before he had exhausted diplomacy and was consistent also with his longheld belief that Saddam needed to go for other reasons dealing with the region as far back as 1998. I think it was Oliphant who actually apolgized for joining the crowd of journalists who berated him cynically.

You may be proud of what Dean did but it was still deceptive and Dean knew it. To attack another for the exact same provisions you supported was dishonest and he couldn't have gotten away with it if the press had acted like a real press corps. But, I guess that those who bitch about the press going easy on Bush have no qualms whatsoever that Dean escaped scrutiny for so long on this issue. While the rest of us who see the disconnect wonder why the media allowed it.......for now.

[ProfessorPlum]

68. blm, they weren't the "exact same provisions"

there are major important differences between Biden-Lugar and IWR. That's not deceptive. And he never said that he wouldn't support a _justified_ invasion, even a unilateral one.

The truth is, Kerry's positions on IWR and the invasion make him hard for many of the base to support enthusiastically. Because Dean's positions on IWR and the invasion were different than Kerry's, he points this out. That makes him neither an angel or a devil, nor deceptive - just a good campaigner who plays to his strengths and opponents' weaknesses.

[deutsey]

69. *Drawing in deeeeep breath of fresh air*

Thanks, Prof.

[blm]

70. Certain key provisions were the same. The bill wasn't

but the ATTACKS from Dean were on the provisions in the bills that WERE the same.

He criticized giving Bush final say on force and especially if it was unilateral. BOTH aspects that Dean accepted in Biden-Lugar. Your attempt at claiming that the two bills weren't exactly the same so that lets Dean off is disingenuous. Because that's not the argument is it?

[ProfessorPlum]

79. blm, we're not getting very far with this debate.

But I would note this: You always claim that Dean gained his lead in the Democratic field by being against the war and badmouthing the IWR.

You might gain a different perspective if you look at it this way: Kerry lost his lead by supporting the invasion.

I would say, in the absence of other evidence, that both conclusions are equally valid. My suspicion, based on conversations with other Dean supporters, is that the second case is closer to the truth. Blaming Dean for Kerry's misfortunes in the second case is off base.

[LuminousX]

60. Eloquently stated, I do believe this is the definitive response

[jadesfire]

78. Drama anyone????

Please, no one thinks Dean wanted the mass death that is being inflicted on the citizens of Iraq.

If you can't handle people asking legitimate questions, and questioning your candidates position on a topic he built his entire campaign on, then maybe you should just go back to the Dean blog drink some more Kool-Aid.

[killbotfactory]

82. Irony, hypocricy and kool-aid, oh my!

This topic gets reposted, and reposted, and reposted every goddamn day. Cut us some slack for getting sick of it.

[maxr4clark]

65. Give it a rest!

This is worse than asking questions about endorsements at a "debate".

Enough with de facto censorship already; let Dean and Kerry talk about their messages!