Getting the Record Straight on Dean for or Against the War?

[CoffeePlease2004]

Yes, I know this sounds like a stupid question. But I am not so sure Dean was always against the war in Iraq. Consider the following quote from Dean:

"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."
(Feb. 2003)

Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't he saying, that if Saddam doesn't produce weapons of mass destruction and the UN doesn't go into Iraq that the US should on its own accord invade and remove Saddam by force. In effect, isn't that exactly what Bush did?

I cannot see how anyone would give anyone any credibility to a guy who claims to be and always has been against a war that drew the same conclusions and suggested the same course of action as the man he is running against and on that very issue.

It appears to me that Dean supporters seem to think that Dean is the answer because he was against the war. When in fact he was not.

They seem to think that he attended peace rallies and opposed US intervention in Iraq. He did not.

They seem to think that he is socially liberal and will stand against many of the policies of the Bush administration, when in fact as governor of Vermont, he did not.

His supporters seem to think that Dean favors Gay Marriage and would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage, he did not and would not.

His supporters think that Dean would stand for protecting Social Security, he did not and would not.

His Supporters seem to think that he would stand against the Death Penalty, he did not, and would not.

His Supporters seem to think that he would make education more affordable, he did not and would not.

His Supporters seem to think that he would protect the environment, he did not and would not.

His Supporters seem to think that he would expand social services and programs, he did not and would not.

His supporters seem to think that he would stand against the NRA and lack of gun laws to protect our children living on the streets. He did not and will not.

So what is it that makes "Liberals" support Howard Dean for President? He is not the most liberal in the least. You could choose from a wide array of candidates and have one more supportive of Liberal Policies.
If it is electablity, then why not choose a more electable candidate? If it is a combination of electablity and liberalism, there is other candidates that fit this as well.

Do Liberals and Democrats no longer care about Social Security, Welfare, Guns, Gay Equality, and social programs? Seems highly unlikely.

The only reason I can see that liberals are backing Dean is for one basic reason. HATE. Hatred for Bush. Hatred for his administration. Hatred for his action against Iraq. Hatred for Bush polices and anything related or connected to the Bush administration.

Dean has in some way, some how, channeled the majority of people that hate Bush into one campaign, and has become the symbol of hatred and disgust.

It matters not what Dean has said or done as Governor, or for that matter what he will say or do as President. What matters is that he is not Bush. It is like a giant mob, angry at the oppressors, not caring for who or what they replace the current regime with. We can see this mistake with the Russians, replacing Royalty with the Communist Party, or with Germans in the overthrow of there oppressive government in the 1930's. The world saw it in France for Napoleon, they saw it in Cuba with Castro.

Is this what the Party wants? To become a mad mob, unstoppable brainless mob, with the only goal, the only hope, the only cause being the hatred and destruction of the Bush Administration. Is this what it wants. Is it willing to bare any cost, endure any burden, destroy its' long term future for the sole purpose of removing Bush from office four years earlier?

Has the Party, and members of the party content with nominating a character that is fueled by negative energy directed at one man? Is this the image it wishes to project to the world?

What then if it success in its' goal of removing Bush with Dean?

Will the troops come home the next day? NO

Will education be more affordable and accessible? NO

Will the Automatic Machine Guns be off our Streets? NO

Will Gays have the Right to Marry? NO

Nothing, other than the explicit removal of one man, George W. Bush, will occur. That is the only change that will happen. Nothing else will change, not laws, not appointments to the Supreme Court, nothing will change. Not one Soldier will come home one hour sooner, nor will one drop of blood be prevented from being spilled on foreign soil.

If you are fighting for Dean because you honestly believe in Dean's stances on the issues and have fully taken the time to research all of Dean's past and current comments and believe they are closest to yours, than I salute you for your work.

One the other hand, if your are Backing Dean because you hate Bush, and are about hate, then you are bringing negative energy to the White House, the party, and the country. People all across the world will see a nation only driven by hate, malice, and destruction. That is the only thing I can think of that is worse than Bush in the White House in 2005.

[eileen_d]

1. Can of worms, meet can opener.

Geez, even I'm tired of seeing that old Feb. 2003 quote being dragged out. And I think I even cited it in a post, way back when...

Dean supporters are not "about hate" as you suggest. Supporters of all candidates are about getting Bush out of the White House. And your conclusion that a Dean White House would bring about no changes from Bush policies is just plain ridiculous.

[dkf]

2. The man was a lone voice (yeah Kucinich was being muffled) against

the war in Iraq when everyone else was quiet.

He should get props for fighting the tide which demanded blind support for Bush. That is why people credit him with being anti-war, because he was pretty much the only one with any press who was speaking out (other than Byrd).

[Raya]

46. Really. Didn't see Dean at marches. Did You? Sharpton, Kucinich Yes.

[JNelson6563]

80. I saw Conyers there

an he just endorsed Dean, didn't seem to bother him Dean wasn't there.

Julie

[mikehiggins]

3. I disagree. At the very worst, Dean would bring us back to a world

in which questions like those you raise can be negotiated and compromised and dealt with.

I don't think your post really deals with what we face here. This isn't just a partisan spat. The future of this country, this time out, literally depends upon defeating George Bush. The record of the last three years demonstrates that more clearly than any rhetoric.

Sure, Dean is a fake, pandering to an angry and mobilised public. He isn't a great leader, or a great liberal, or even very truthful. He is still wildly preferable to the clear and present danger we face in this nation from the radical and rudderless administration now running roughshod over the rights of our citizens and the lives of Afghani's, Iraqi's and God knows who's next.

I was born in 1945 and there has never been as harmful an adminsitration in office than this one. Even LBJ and Nixon had to pay lipservice to the concept that there were limits on the power of the Presidency. This office holder operates as if he truly believe, as some have reported he has claimed, that he was placed in office by the power of God Himself.

How bad do things have to get for liberals and progressives to rally around a four-star general in hopes that his liberalism and resume will appeal to enough voters to put him into office instead of the incumbent? At any other time, against any other candidate, given the choice between someone like John Kerry and a guy like Wes Clark, who do you think would be heading the Democratic race?

Things are what they are. Howard Dean has managed to attract the support of a huge, and generous, surge of political unrest. Politically it was a genius move for someone who had literally nothing to lose by taking a strident and belligerent stance against the President. He did it and so far he has been successful, so he may well be the guy who carries our banner in 2004.

And, again, for all of his many shortcomings, if he is the nominee we have to support him as at least the lesser of two evils. In the real world, in the world we have to live in, we are often called upon to make decisions on a basis like that. So we swallow hard and step up to bat. This is the fourth game of the world series and we're already three down. We have to win it all in November, or we lose it all and maybe we'll never get into the game again.

Clark in 2004 but if not, ABB!

[sandnsea]

4. I agree

Some of the voices I heard against the war back in the summer of 2002 were Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd, Brent Scowcroft, Jimmy Carter, and yes, even John Kerry. Howard who? Never heard of him. I really don't know what is going on with this Dean campaign, but your explanation expresses exactly what I've seen and experienced.

We Still Have A Choice on Iraq
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5596.xml

[mouse7]

10. You know better - 9/30/02 Face The Nation transcript

Do you really want me to link drop that FTN Transcript all over you again like I did last Sunday?

Dean said on Face the Nation that the only reason for going into Iraq was if they refused inspectors or if live nukes were found. Said the US w/ the UN and/or NATO should demand inspectors be let in Iraq. If inspectors weren't let in, then the clock would start ticking on a possible US/UN military action.

sandnsea.. you repeatitively deny the 9/30/02 Face The Nation transcript exists. I know better because I've personally had you on a thread with over 100 references to that transcript as well as the entire text of said appearance on the thread.... LAST SUNDAY.

[liberalnurse]

13. You are very proactive.

I like your zest. :yourock:

[diamondsoul]

29. Ok this is probably going to tick you off,

and I'm sorry, but let me pose it to you from my perspective. (this is not a slam or an accusation that Dean=Bush, just a comparison on THIS single subject)

As I see it-

Howard Dean- favored war with Iraq ON HIS TERMS (far more sensible than the terms of G.W. Bush, without a doubt)
Opposed war with Iraq on Bush's terms.(we don't know if he'd have accepted the proposals say of Kucinich)

G.W. Bush- favored war with Iraq ON HIS TERMS (and to hell with everyone else.)
Opposed anyone else's views except his own.

Now, other than the fact that Howard Dean's terms were more rational, how much difference is there in the POSITIONS, NOT THE MEN?

**all caps for emphasis only.

[diamondsoul]

40. And the answer is.....

Crickets. Whodathunkit.*sigh*

[worldgonekrazy]

113. You know, when people don't respond to a post of yours

it may be because it is too asinine to warrant such a response. I think equating Dean and Bush as the same person falls under such a heading.

[killbotfactory]

41. If Iraq was an imminent threat, Dean would support military action

Since they weren't. He didn't.

This is the same as Kucinich.

Kucinich Salon.com interview

Are there any conditions under which you would support military action against anyone?

There are two conditions. After an attack on our country or an imminent threat backed by incontrovertible evidence. Those would be my foundations of principle. But no such evidence exists in case of Iraq, and Iraq has not attacked our country

The only difference between Dean and Kucinich is that Dean outlines what, in his view, would be an imminent threat.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Dean would have said anything that would help his campaign. Period.

The man has absolutely no principles whatsover. It's all about naked ambition and lust for power.

[killbotfactory]

52. Oh okay

You completely changed my mind!

[mouse7]

135. Your right. Dean is evil incarnate. Exorcize him!

Get the priest. Tie Him down. We must cast out the demons!

[redqueen]

53. Two things:

First: This question is not the same as the one Dean responded to. The answer Dean gave was about unilateral action. He said he'd support it under what circumstances again? Did he say 'incontrovertible evidence'?

I know he said he didn't think Powell's dog-n-pony show didn't cut muster, but did he specify what would? That was my main sticking point in this whole 30 to 60 day deal. He said he'd get behind unilateral

It seems in this question, Kucinich is being asked about military action in general, not unilateral invasion.

Oh, and I like the Kooch's use of 'incontrovertible evidence'. He's not going to be played. No, sir! :D

[killbotfactory]

57. Here's what Dean said he would consider an imminent threat

And keep in mind he would only act unilaterally if the UN failed to do anything about it.

1. Saddam would have to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
2. Saddam would have to be supplying Al-Qaeda or other international terrorist groups with chemical or biological weapons.

Two conditions he repeatedly stated had not been met.

And he consistantly recommended working through the UN.

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively. (...)

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

[redqueen]

59. Very well and good

And yes, he laid out his requirements, but the decision of whether or not Bush had made his case is a subjective one. Bush's case was one which the vast majority of evolved beings disagreed, but it is subjective. Most hawks thought, and still think, that we had a right to invade.

So for Dean to lay out the same requirements that Bush had, and just say that they hadn't been proven to the specifications he'd require... can just be chalked up to not being specific.

He wasn't fooled by Powell, so that's fine by me. But the last comment is I think what alarms a lot of people.

"I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here."

Here he seems to back up the assertion that 'Saddam isn't cooperating'.

How was he not cooperating? IIRC, he was... so I'm confused now.


I think a large part of the problem with this issue (and probably many others) is that Dean talks quickly, and thinks later. He knows what he knows, so he doesn't bother really fleshing out what he means, and ends up having to clarify later. That makes some people view him as less than trustworthy. Whether that's accurate or not is not the issue. It's the impression he gives, and that's obvious based on how many people really do have serious problems happily supporting the man.

[TLM]

63. Of course saddam was not cooperating...

However not cooperating with the UN is a far cry from being an imminent threat to the US.

[redqueen]

67. Well...

Again I'm not arguing, I just don't remember the specifics of exactly how he was not cooperating with the UN.

From what I remember, he allowed inspectors in. And he didn't kick them out this time, either... IIRC, we pulled them so we could attack.

All I can suppose is that he didn't allow unfettered or unannounced access... so maybe that's it.

Regardless, as you say, that has nothing to do with being an imminent threat to us, so...

[TLM]

71. He was, as i recall moving the techs and hiding labs

and lying about locations of equipment etc.

But the fact is also that our side was playing up every little thing too... like those missles he had.

Remember all the crap about the missles that can go too far beyond the UN limits. Well first off they could only go that far WITHOUT a payload, because once the payload was added, the weight made the range smaller and within the rules.

Also, the messles were nothing more than rusted out hulls in the desert. I remember watching fox news and when they first broek the story about finding weapons in Iraq... we found these missles thay said and they showed video of these rusty nasty bent up old missles in the desert. Then 5 minutes later they redid the report and instead of showing the video, they showed a picture of the missles from like some tech manual that showed a picture of a missle right out of the factor all nice and shiny.

So both sides were bullshitting, but the point is that the inspectors were back in... and that's what Dean supported.

[redqueen]

76. Exactly, the inspectors were the key

And Dean's position, mind you, isn't something I'm fraught with anxiety over. I have a teeensy weeeensy bit of apprehension over what he could be convinced was enough evidence to attack unilaterally, but not much. :)

[TLM]

84. He said the only thing that would justify unilateral attack...

Was solid proof of an imminent threat to the US, either by Iraq having WMD and the ability to deliver them, or having WMD and sharing them with terrorists.

Since neither was shown to be the case, Dean did not support the war.

[redqueen]

90. Yes, but...

"Since neither was shown to be the case, Dean did not support the war."

This is subjective. Bush and his backers consider that the case was made. They were wrong, and I know this and you know this and just about everyone else in the world knows this, but it's still subjective. Until and unless someone takes Bush to court about his 'evidence' for this war, it will remain subjective.

Because it is based on perception and not some objectively defined criteria by which we can declare that Saddam either a) had WMD's, b) a way to deliver them, or c) had shared them with terrorists, we can't know what kind of proof Dean would consider convincing.

Kucinich made a nice use of the word 'incontrovertible'. It doesn't really prove anything but it does put one's mind at ease about how susceptible he is to lies and hype.

The reason I brought up Saddam's not cooperating, is that if Dean believes this, but it was not true, then this does not give one a lot of confidence about how susceptible he is to lies and hype.

Viewed in this context, it's quite easy to see why people are suspicious of Dean. Some are not sure how susceptible he was to the lies and hype. I view his ability to discern Powell's bluster as just that to be very encouraging, and don't have a problem with him on this issue.

Many do, and I can't act as if they have no reason to be guarded about trusting him on this issue.

[TLM]

93. Wow talk abotu lies and hype...

"Because it is based on perception and not some objectively defined criteria by which we can declare that Saddam either a) had WMD's, b) a way to deliver them, or c) had shared them with terrorists, we can't know what kind of proof Dean would consider convincing."


Well we know that the "proof" that Powell gave at the UN wasn't enough... see that was in the part of the salon story you cut out. So we do have a good watermark for the level of proof Dean would require.

Thanks for playing... next?

[redqueen]

98. Your tone is almost enough to make me give up

That's the point, isn't it? Just abuse and rant at the other person so you don't have to continue debating or bother thinking about the issue at hand?

We do not have "have a good watermark for the level of proof Dean would require". What we do have is a good watermark of what would not serve as proof.

The lack of evidence letting us know what he would accept as proof is the whole problem.

And the issue about Saddam cooperating or not cooperating, and how Dean read that, is key to understanding why people may or may not believe that he's either easy to fool or not easy to fool.

Knowing that he has been fooled by the right wing in the past (deregulation is good, for example), isn't helpful information to have on hand if you're trying to convince people Dean isn't easy to fool.

[TLM]

100. Dean wasn't fooed by powell....

So again we have a good indication of the fact Dean is hard to fool... since powell was able to fool, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman.

[redqueen]

103. Doesn't work for me, sorry

It's easy for dean to say what he would have done, but without him being in the hot seat, and knowing he's been dishonest in the past, I don't take him at his word.

In fact, he's done the 'politically expedient' thing rather than what was right in the past, so why would I think he'd have voted any differently than the people you mentioned?

And you think he's hard to fool, fine. That's an opinion.

It's one I don't share. He was gullible enough to believe privatized energy companies were the way to go, so I really do have my doubts about his susceptibility to either a) money / power / favors, or b) bullsauce. (more than likely it's the former)

[TLM]

107. As expected...

Some folks simply are not looking for debate, but rather excuses to attack Dean. So anything that doesn't fit into that attack mindset is rejected.


"He was gullible enough to believe privatized energy companies were the way to go,"

Yeah well before we heard of Enron or their scams, back when Dean;s goal was to get alternative providers on the grid. But hey never mind those pesky facts if they get in the way of a good bash.

you know I'm worried that Kucinich was gullible enough to be anti-choice and to suddenly flip flop on the issue before the run for president... yet he still brags about getting republicans to vote for him, as if they'll still vote for him now that he's done a sudden 180 on abortion rights.

So I find it amusing hen Kucinih supporters try to raise a fuss about ANY other candidate's consistency on any issue... what with Kucinich's giant elephant sitting at the dinner table.

I mean how can you call yourself a progressive and have a worse record on abortion than Lieberman?

[redqueen]

110. Aha a real test

Sorry, but many, many progressives did not need to experience the massive fraud that was Enron to know privatization was a bad idea. Do you really not know that? If not, please tell me, and I'll dig up whatever I can to let you know it was in fact common knowledge well before Dean's 'evolution' on the issue. (Way waaaaay before... Kucinich seemed to have been able to understand what the problems were with respect to deregulation / privatization in the 70's... remember?) :D

Kucinich was raised Catholic, and did not change those beliefs, until last year. Are you seriously comparing something Kucinich believed all his life to Dean's belief in privatization? So, maybe privatization was like a religious thing in Dean's household growing up, and he had to be dissuaded from that view later, by progressives?

I mean, really... abortion is a very personal, and moral issue. Privatization? Please... the fact that you try to compare the two... it's just laughable. It really is.

[TLM]

117. Do you understand the difference between deregulation and privatization?

Most of the energy industry is already privatized. Although they were highly regulated. Some folks in Vermont thought it would be a good idea to loosen some of the regulations to allow alternative energy providers to get into the system.

Some energy companies pushed to have energy traded as a commodity in the late 90's and as a result of that we got the abuses by companies like enron manipulating the markets.

You are confusing three different things, deregulation, privatization, and energy trading market manipulation. Now I do not know if your confusion is intentional or not, but it makes holding a reasoned discussion on the issue very difficult.

As for Kucinich's flip flop on abortion, the point was not to draw a moral equivalence between deregulation and abortion, rather between switching positions on an issue.

Dean switched positions on deregulation after seeing the abuses that took place in other states.

Kucincih switched positions on abortion after seeing that he wanted to run for president.

So again I'm very amused to see kucinich supporters attacking Dean for switching positions based on observations of problems in other states that resulted from deregulation, while they support Kucinich who simply flip flopped on an issue of so much more importance like a woman's right to control her own body because he knew the anti-choice position he held in his heart would hurt his run for the nomination.

[redqueen]

119. Such unnecessary verbage - and ugh...

You know as well as I do that what Dean did in VT was 'privatization' (selling Yankee to Koch - you think that was 'deregulation')? Dean loved Enron (liked deregulation / trading of energy). So where again is Dean in the right on ANY of these issues? Oh, that's right, he's 'evolved' since then. :eyes:

You can be dismissive and act as if I've confused you by using more than one term to describe how easily Dean seems to be fooled by rightwing malarkey, but his record is clear.

Why Dean or Kucinich switched is not the issue (and you're wrong about Kucinich, but I assume you want to be, because just as many are 'confused' about what dean's stance is on any given day - minute? hour?, I will grant that you're 'confused' about the truth wrt Kucinich's stance on abortion).

The issue is what the issue was that they switched on:

Kucinich - lifelong belief based on religious upbringing (very deeply held and not easily reconsidered by many)

Dean - fiscal policy, widely known to be stupid (by progressives, that is, which he's not, so duh)

[TLM]

124. Who owned the yankee before Koch?

Again you're mixing issues. Selling the Yankee wasn't the problem.

You were attacking deregulation that Dean supported and now does not support.

Now you've switched to privatization regarding selling the operations of the Yankee. Having a private company run a power plant under state supervision isn’t the problem.

The problem with Enron came from allowing energy to be traded as a commodity at the same time that the oversight on doing so was removed and the trading system deregulated.

Now Dean supported deregulation as a way to let off grid energy producers sell their energy onto the grid... but then Enron abused the system, and Dean saw the risk was too great for abuse in Vermont and changed his position.

Dean changed his position based on new information and observation.

Kucinich changed his position based on political expediency.

[redqueen]

127. Not mixing issues

Selling Yankee was a problem (if you don't subscribe to right wing fiscal ideals, that is)

Supporting Enron was a problem (again, many knew this before, why didn't Dean? oh yeah, he's a 'centrist')

I don't need you to educate me about Enron. I thought that was clear. :eyes:

Dean changed his position based on political expediency. Ask yourself this: did he ever GOVERN with these 'new and evolved' ideals he just found out he had? Or did he serve out his term enforcing and backing his right wing ideals, and only change his tune for the campaign trail?

Kucinich changed his position based on a heartfelt re-evaluation of what was involved in the issue. He did not vote on one bill while he reconsidered his stance, and never gave one speech on the House floor until AFTER he had reconsidered and changed his position.

Once more for emphasis:

Dean - had to be 'convinced' of something most progressives already knew. changed in time to abdicate his responsibilities as Gov so he could campaign for a year while still on the job.

Kucinich - had to be 'convinced' of something he was raised to be against, by people he was close to, and made this journey long before he hit the campaign trail. (They didn't all start out lusting after the top job in February 2002, you know.)

[TLM]

129. You did not answer my question... WHO OWNED THE YANKEE

before koch?

"Selling Yankee was a problem (if you don't subscribe to right wing fiscal ideals, that is)"

I do not think everything has to be owned by the state, no. And that's hardly a right wing position.

"Supporting Enron was a problem "

How did Dean support Enron? The tax breaks and laws in Vermont Enron liked were passed before Dean came into office. And at the time Enron had not been breaking laws left and right and were not a problem.

Enron did not get over the line until about 98-99 when the Gramm's legislation to remove the energy trading from SEC oversight passed.

Simply branding Dean with the label Enron is a very uninfomred tactic.

[diamondsoul]

87. And I didn't write the post

as an effort to slam Dean. I'm not entirely convinced I disagree with him. What does disturb me is his wilingness to play up his opposition to Bush's invasion as being more opposition than it seems to be. Let me say I don't know that this perception of Dean's tactics isn't wholly manufactured by someone other than Howard Dean, which is yet another reason I'm inclined to rethink my previous outrage over the alleged flyer incidents.

We've all seen some serious lengths gone to by the current administration and its supporters to make others look bad or be too fearful to speak up. Who am I to say for certain this isn't something similar?

I'm reaching the point where I put NOTHING past the BFEE machine, including efforts to discredit Howard Dean...hell, I'm not convinced they won't kill just to keep a secret!

On edit- Thanks very much for the response. I was beginning to think I'd made the mass-ignore list for Dean supporters, and I freely admit there might be reason for it.

[dsc]

130. I favlor jailing people for life for murder

John Smith favors it for jaywalking. We both favor life in prision the only difference is the reasonableness of the terms.

[mouse7]

134. No, Dean clearly said he saw no imminent threat on 9/30

People who wanted war were pounding the desk screaming the imminent threat was there, but not seen yet.

I think its fair to say Kucinch would have gone to greater lengths to avoid war. If some real imminent threat had been found or the inspectors had been refused by Iraq, I think Kucinich would have worked harder for a diplomatic solution. However, I think it's unfair to say Dean was more willing to go to war. I think it's clear the Dean and Kuchinich were both trying hard to avoid going to war.

Jimmy Carter has evidentally been advising Dean since early in Dean's campaign. Carter is evidentally Dean's role model in politics. I think Jimmy Carter advised Dean what a mess an occupation of Iraq would have been. I believe Dean listened to that advice. You can see a lot of Jimmy Carter's influence on Dean foreign policy.

By the way, I'm not here all the time. I have things to do away from the computer, too.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. Kerry

Millions of democrats know that Kerry wimped out over the IRW. That is why he is not getting support from the base. You can try to ignore this but it won't go away and you can't imagine it away either. Kerry's problems are of his own doing.

[sandnsea]

24. Doesn't change Dean

Dean still supported war in 30-60 days and says he didn't. Dean is still running a campaign of hate and distortions. Dean still can't go 3 days without sticking his foot in his mouth. And Dean still can't beat Kerry unless he keeps people angry about the war vote. That's all anybody really has to throw at him. That's why it's posted 1,000 times a day.

[cryofan]

5. Umm...you're gonna need a compass and a map if you wanna...

...track down Dean's position now compared with any of his previous past positions, especially his Vermont governor positions....cuz it can get a little confusing, what with all the backflips, 180 degree turns, etc. Good Luck! Send up a flare if you get lost!

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[cryofan]

141. Dean is NOT a populist! he is a FauX Populist

Populists reflect the attitudes of the people, as opposed to the elite. Dean does the opposite of that.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[cryofan]

142. And just what is wrong with my sig line?

hmmmm?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[CoffeePlease2004]

7. Well, I think a thinking Democrat would at least try to either

explain where I am wrong before responding. Or he/she would agree in part or in whole to my argument.

You must realize that when you are talking to people, that is the middle 33% of the American population who is undecided, and they ask questions like, "If Dean is against the war why did he say this?(insert quote. . .", your attacking response will NOT work in your attempt to make them vote for Dean.

If you cannot even get Democrats to see your point of view, what real hope or chance do you have of winning over right leaning moderates that can determine the election.

If anything, your responses convince me that you don't know. And that any questioning of the positions or reasons for supporting will be met with negative hostility, smart Alec responses, and condescending remarks.

DO you think I started off disliking Dean? Well, newsflash, I didn't. I got to the point of kind of liking Dean to swearing never to vote for him and to actively preventing him from get votes for the nomination or President precisely because of the negative, defensive, and unwillingness of Dean supporters to give a sound logical and direct response to legitimate questions posed by Democrats.

Your, Attack number 12233344 Is arrogant. And further got you no where with me. Some of the other responses here are very intelligent and may have lead me to think differently about Dean. But rest assured, when ever I start to think maybe Dean might not be that bad of guy in comparison to Bush. Along comes some idiot assuming someone of being a freeper or throws in a red herring to assure that I will again reaffirm my vow to never support Dean in the prenomination or post nomination elections.

You have added one more nail to the coffin of Dean.

All you had to say was, "That is incorrect" Or "that is in part true but. . ." Nope, you have to instead show your angry fueled energy. Well please go away, I don't want a candidate who is powered by hatred.

[edzontar]

8. What I objected to, again, was the "hatred" part of your argument...

Which comes directly form the GOP pundits who write about Dean in this way--David Brooks, etc.


And I must say that the venom that you display in your response makes your decision to employ the "Dean's support is from Bush-haters" rhetoric all the less compelling.

When you go on to say that the hatred and destruction promoted by Dean and his supporters is "Worse" than four more years of Bush. well, what can I say to that?

You chose these words, not me.

As to the rest of your post, I think that discussions of Dean's war positions are valid and relevant.

Indeed, I would say that of all the candidates, only Kucinich and Lieberman have taken totally consistent positions--all of the others have tended to shift around a bit and modify their previosuly stated views--Clark, Kerry, and Edwards in particular have been all over the map.

But to veer from this issue to a blanket attack on Dean and his supporters as "Haters and destroyers" not only does your argument no good, but can only be taken by anyone who supports our front-running canddiate as an affront.

In other words, your post worked....so why are you complaining?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

9. You forgot about the part where Dean eats Christian babies.

Vote for Clark. He eats only heathen babies.

[mouse7]

11. You forgot the blonde haired blue eyed baby girl part

Dean eats only Baptist blonde-haired, blue-eyed baby girls.

Vote for Clark. He finished eating for the day.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. "vote for Clark, he finished eating for the day"

Oh the irony. Thanks for the rueful laugh.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

55. heh

so true, so true...

Easier to just rattle off ad hominems, though, isn't it?

I simply cannot wait to see how Dean's supporters deal with the GE if he gets the nod. This is sparring. When it's time for the real competition, and the gloves come off -- then it's getting ugly for real.

[worldgonekrazy]

115. This coming from a Kucinich supporter

Hey, don't get me wrong, I like the guy. But if you think Dean is going to have problems in the General Election just imagine how utterly steamrolled Kucinich would be.

[redqueen]

123. Kucinich would have problems, they all would

However, Kucinich's 'issues' would be much less important than Dean's.

In other words, the only ways they will successfully smear Kucinich is with appearance and isolated issues (space weapons ban, abortion).

They will successfully smear Dean with his conservative record, his many, many 'waffles', his hidden records (not like Bush's hidden records), his secret energy meetings (not like Cheney's secret energy meetings), etc. etc. etc.

And you also have to consider that he doesn't exactly let up in the 'misspeaking' department. He'll keep his defenders VERY busy if he gets the nod.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

12. Hep lets out another long, exasperated sigh

This is a wonderful forum, but I wonder if sometimes when people go to bed all memory of everything ever talked about here vanishes.

Dean was always against the war in Iraq. Dean is not anti war in general, and there was a time when, before all the facts were in, that he speculated that war might be necessary.

Maybe we should all print out daily posts to this forum so we forget no more.

[FubarFly]

39. Not a bad idea Hep.

Perhaps we should bookmark threads and simply post the link the next time an identical theme comes up. Instead of redebating the same tired topics we can simply link to post #'s. If they still persist, THEN we type poop.

It's amazing that people still confuse speculation with participation. IF Saddam was a PROVEN threat, then we CONSIDER military action", is different than the "bomb the hell out of them and let Halliburton sort it out" disaster we ended up getting.

Dean was speaking out against the Iraq war when it mattered. No amount of cheap spin or dishonest revisionism will change that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. Just saying it, doesn't make it so.

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


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


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



You state "Dean was always against the war in Iraq" however the quotes above show that to be a gross oversimplification that essentially obscures the truth.

Dean is a career politician and as such he did a great job of straddling the fence on this issue.

[last1standing]

61. Can you distort this issue any more?

#1. Dean said we must act unilaterally if the UN did not enforce it's resolutions.

This is true, he did say that and you have the quote to back it up. Unfortunately, you want us to forget that the UN DID back up it's resolutions and that bush* acted unilaterally anway. THAT is what Dean did not support.


#2. Dean would go in without the UN if it was clear that Iraq posed an "imminent" threat that "could neither be contained nor deterred."

True again, but since they didn't he did not support going in.


#3. Dean thought that Hussein was evil and that any WMDs should be removed.

Three truths in a row! Can you tell me anyone who did not feel that way? I know I did and I did not support the war so long as inspectors were in Iraq.


What you've done is try to use distortion to claim that Dean is lying. Based upon your own words I think any "thinking Democrat" can tell who's lying.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. Quoting Dean is distorting him?

It isn't distortion to point out what someone said.


Your post is without meaning.

[last1standing]

77. It is when you try to imply an incorrect meaning to their statements.

Why don't you adress my post instead of posting more distortions?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. Dean's words speak for themselves.

He has been all over the map on this issue, and I couldn't care less whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not.

Dean, who acknowledges that his outspoken manner often gets him in trouble, has made conflicting statements about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and the conditions under which he would support going to war.

In a Dec. 10 news conference in Concord, N.H., Dean insisted that he "never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever." But in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sept. 29, 2002, Dean said, "There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies."

On the campaign trail, he frequently argues that he is the only major Democratic candidate who opposed the war. But Dean voiced support for legislation in the fall of 2002 that, had it passed, would have ultimately given Bush authorization to invade Iraq unilaterally.

<snip>

Aides to both Biden and Lugar said that despite its emphasis on multilateralism, the proposal would have ultimately allowed the United States to invade Iraq on its own, because Bush did make an attempt to get a Security Council resolution.

"Without a question, Biden-Lugar would have granted the president the authorization to use force, with some conditions," said Norm Kurz, Biden's communications director.

Andy Fisher, communications director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said one of the reasons the amendment failed was that more liberal Democrats would not go along with it.

"Biden wasn't sure he could deliver many Democrats for this resolution because it was an act of war," said Fisher, a Lugar aide. "This would have been all the president needed."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-dean18dec18,1,1829567.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[last1standing]

131. Now you're talking about a different subject.

I won't follow you clearing up the quotes you take out of context when you won't respond clearly to corrections. You have no desire to find the truth just to spread anger and misinformation. This is exactly what Democrats don't need.

[mouse7]

145. You have nothing here in Dean words that says he supported Biden-Luger

All you have is the LA Times analysisithat Dean supported it. Considering how bad the LA Times analysys of the whole CA Recall Election was, I want to see a quote where Dean says he supported Biden-Lugar or a press release from his staff that says Dean supported Biden-Lugar.

[TLM]

86. Quoting out of context, yes that's distorting him...

Do you understand the difference between a quote in context and a quote taken out of context?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. Except the context is right there.

I haven't provided any quotes without links. There is no 'context' that makes the quotes mean something other than what they appear to mean. Follow the link and read the entire articles if you want.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

99. And that does not negate the point about the material you cut out

of the quote in order to misrepresent the meaning.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

112. I forgot about the one day pass function...

Doesn't change the fact that you cut material out of context in order to misrepresent Dean's position, nor does it change the fact you presented a paraphrase as an actual quote.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

126. I've made no false charges

Here's the quote from teh post in this very thread...

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



Not only is that statement removed from context... it is a paraphrase and not a direct quote from Dean as it is presented.

[retyred]

14. dean says a lot of things

that appear true on the surface yet aren't in reality.

What dean was against, was war the way he "says" bush did it, but in reality the way bush did it, was exactly the way dean wanted it done.

dean says he wouldn't have signed IWR, yet he didn't have the opportunity to sign it or not, given his statements on his approval of when Iraq should be attacked, it is mindless to think he wouldn't have signed IWR if given the chance.

Everything he says now, contradicts what he said before the war, why? Because it is a talking point of difference between himself and the others that he feels makes him the clear choice of difference to bush.

dean was not against the war in Iraq (until it appeared to be highly unpopular), anymore then he was against war with Afghanistan, he says now that there was no proof against Saddam, before he said there appeared to be proof, he said he was in favor of Afghanistan, yet now says Osama should be tried to determine if he was behind 9/11. If he was in favor of Afghanistan w/out proof of Osama, why would Iraq w/out proof be different?

No the only real proven candidate against the war in Iraq was and is Dennis K.

Then again reality isn't what dean is pushing. It depends on what the meaning of the word against is, or at least what you perceive the meaning of the word against is. (not you per se' but you as in believers of the push)


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[mouse7]

18. Sorry to disagree witjh another Wellstone guy, but...

I can paste that 9/30/02 Face the Nation Transcript up here for you as well.

Dean said military action only if Iraq refused to allow UN Inspectors in or live nukes found and only with UN or NATO Allies.

The way Bush did it was NOT the way wanted it done. Dean said all through that 9/30/02 FTN that Iraq didn't appear to be an imminent threat, and had not been proven to be an imminent threat.

[redqueen]

56. Might be a good idea to save a link to that for just this purpose

I'd be interested to see that, as my recollection is that Dean suported unilateral invasion (not just 'military action') if Iraq had WMD's and the UN didn't give us the green light within 60 to 90 days.

[TLM]

64. Dean supported unilateral invasion ??? Um BULLSHIT!

Here is the quote in context. Dean only supported military action to the end of disarming Saddam, and he only supported that action IF there was evidence Saddam posed an imminent threat to theh US, which is never did, AND the UN refused to act, which they did not.

Why is this idea so hard to comprehend? If certain criteria existed, Dean supported a certain course of action, and since that criteria did not exist, Dean did not support that course of action.

What is so confusing?


Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

[redqueen]

68. "unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice"

The quote is right there in front of you.

Why are you hammering me?

The reason this is so confusing is because Dean's so horribly bad at articulating what his opinions are.

[TLM]

78. "Dean suported unilateral invasion (not just 'military action') "

Who said that?

Dean did not support the invasion and take over of Iraq, and the quote shows that. He supported action to the end of neutralizing any threat to the US, and since there was no such threat, this whole argument is nothing but a BS handjob to attack Dean.

Do you understand what a conditional response is?

There is nothing confusing about Dean's position, which is why folks who want to attack him have to parse his words and snip them out of context to spin them as something they are not.

Here it is in a nutshell...

IF

Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US, which it did not...

AND IF

there was proof of said threat but the UN refused to act, which is did not...

AND IF

Saddam had weapons and refused to destroy them, which he did not... then and only then would Dean support unilateral pre-emptive military action to the end of neutralizing that threat to the US.

That seems very clear and simple to me. What part is it that you find so confusing?

[redqueen]

85. Oh please, let's not be so dramatic!

He said unilateral action is the ... regrettable choice. He put conditions on it, but there it is. If he had been more careful about saying what he thought, then there wouldn't be this confusion. As it is, we have to fish around and read and re-read to find out what exactly he thought.

It shouldn't be so hard to determine a candidate's stand. It really, really shouldn't. I know a lot of Dean's supporters like to say he's a great campaigner, but I disagree. I think the media has helped him immensely, and I think a testament to that fact is the way he has such trouble communicating what he means.

One has to be very careful to clearly state what one's views are in order to avoid being misunderstood in this way. He's not careful, so he's very frequently misunderstood. At least that's what one hopes. ;)

Honestly, it's not that I, personally, find this confusing. It's that many people, when given a lot of nuanced, vaguely worded positions, won't be able to sort out the real core meaning without help and debate. Again, this is NOT the way to conduct yourself as a candidate (unless you're bush 2000... not even going there). However, it worked for Bush, and it's working for Dean. We could diverge into a discussion of how the media helps vague candidates along but let's not.

The simple fact is that Dean supported unilateral military action with conditions. For all I know, Kucinich does too. I haven't seen him say it, and haven't seen anyone else present a quote of him saying it, but that doesn't mean it's not true. I think any candidate should support unilateral military action as a pre-emptive means of avoiding attack. It's part of the goldurned oath of office!

The real problem here is that Dean said this during this particular buildup, which we all know was fraught with lies and hype. Knowing, as he should have, that the war was planned years before, and the evidence mostly lies and hype, I don't think it's irrational to have expected him to be more circumspect about saying he'd approve of unilaterally invading Iraq; or otherwise for him to have been more forthright about what conditions would preclude that use of military force (he did mention three things, but again, those were the three thigns bush considered himself to already have seen proof of, so there you have that subjectivity thing to deal with once again).

*sigh*

[TLM]

89. First off, that's not even a direct quote... it is a paraphrase.

Secondly even now you have to snip and cut to misrepresent the meaning and distort the context.

I love the way folks who attack Dean like to twist and distort his statements by removing context and even cutting sentences in half to misrepresent Dean's positions. Then when called out on the bullshit and distortions, they try to blame Dean.

Sorry but Dean is not responsable for your being unwilling to read quote in context. Dean's statements were very specific and very clear and very consistant.

Which is why you folks are you so afraid of the WHOLE quote in context. Is it because Dean flat out says that, "It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat," and his later statement is regarding what course of action he would support IF there were an iminant threat.

Dean is clear in that he did not support the war because there was no imminant threat, yet you folks take a statement he made about what action he would support IF there were an imminant threat and dishonestly try to act is that was his position based on the existing circumstances.

Why would you do that?



Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

[redqueen]

96. Again, cut the drama

It's really not helping...

I didn't 'snip and cut' to make my point, I did it for brevity. And again, I, personally, do not find this confusing. However, many do, and it's not hard to see why.

[TLM]

104. You cut out the context.... whatever excuse you use, that's what you did.

And you cut out the context then tried to argue that the quote supported a position which is did not and the fact it did not support that position was made clear in the full context of the statement.

And yes it is easy to see how, with so many dishonest people working so hard to twist and spin and misrepresent Dean's positions, that some folks might be confused.

So why don't you agree now to make sure and only quote Dean in CONTEXT to help avoid such confusion instead of contributing to it?

[redqueen]

108. The context itself is not clear, though.

You can nail me to a cross for not including the context, but it doesn't matter, because you still have to be a detective to figure out what the hell Dean meant.

You can blame people for Dean being unclear, but the obvious fact is that there is no one to blame but Dean. Unlike Kucinich, who put up a page on his site to explain his intentions with respect to pulling out of Iraq to clear that up; Dean just gives a few interviews, and that's that. He doesn't care to clear the air, he lets you guys in the trenches do it. Nice, eh? :eyes:

That's the crux of the issue. We have to become amatuer investigative journalists to figure out what exactly Dean's position really is (or was, or will be tomorrow -- $87 billion, anyone?) This isn't the only issue he's been accused of being unclear on, you know. That should tell you something.

[worldgonekrazy]

116. Ah, taking a line out of context. How Republican of you

Dean said that if Saddam did not preduce WMDs OR the weapons inspectors were not let back in that unilateral action MAY be a "regrettable, but unavoidable choice." Its called a qualifier, and without that in mind you aren't getting a word Dean says.

[redqueen]

121. Apparently you haven't read my other posts

I get it, I surely do.

[mouse7]

137. I posted it further down thread. n/t

[rucky]

15. Who needs troops...

when you have an army of angry unmarried gays packing machine guns to protect us from all the haters?

[Capn Sunshine]

35. To quote my armed gay friends

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, MARY

[HFishbine]

16. When offering a quote

How about also providing a link, so that we can read it in context.

[mouse7]

22. Here's the DU thread with all links and transcripts mentioned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=33638

[mzmolly]

128. where are the links and transcripts?

which post contains them? The OP does not.

Additionally, I've read the transcripts and Dean was consistant.

[mouse7]

139. Post #11 on that link :) n/t

[arewethereyet]

21. I'm glad someone else is actually listening to what Dr Dean says

his popularity baffles me given what he says and does.

[maha]

23. Policies for Idiots

I am so, so tired of these arguments about which candidate is most ideologically pure. Fact is, I hate ideologues, left and right. Give me pragmatists any day.

"Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't he saying, that if Saddam doesn't produce weapons of mass destruction and the UN doesn't go into Iraq that the US should on its own accord invade and remove Saddam by force. In effect, isn't that exactly what Bush did?"

No, sweetums. First off, Dean was speaking in February, 2003. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq November 2002.

If you bothered to read the entire Jake Tapper Salon article, which of course you haven't, and take in the context, which of course you won't, you would see that Dean was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The quote you took out of context is simply bowing to conventional wisdom of the day, which was that Saddam Hussein probably did have WMDs somewhere and possibly did pose a threat. But it is clear that Dean favored inspection over invasion.

Fact is, last February we outsiders didn't know to what degree the Bushies were bluffing about WMDs and what degree of threat Saddam posed. We knew they were bullshitting about a nuclear threat, because the International Atomic Energy Agency said so, but at that time most of the world's intelligence community still believed SH probably had SOMETHING biochemical stashed SOMEWHERE. And most of the world's intelligence community believed vigorous inspections were prudent.

If last February a Dem candidate was saying that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Saddam Hussein be engaged militarily, that candidate would have been an idiot. There was too much we did not know at the time. That's one of the several reasons I don't care for Dennis Kucinich, for example.

[sandnsea]

25. Dean said that in Sept 2002

When he was also supporting Biden-Lugar, a resolution that authorized war.

[maha]

26. Got links?

I'm not primarily a Dean supporter, but I just hate the way the man is being picked to death right now. It's not going to get Kerry the nomination.

CONTEXT, people. LINKS. On what conditions would Dean have authorized war? If it turns out that, as I suspect, Dean would have authorized war IF there was solid proof Saddam had WMDs and IF Saddam refused to disarm and IF the UN authorized it, then everybody should shut up. It'a all just water over the bridge now.

[sandnsea]

31. He supported Biden-Lugar

It's been posted 100 times at least. Shouldn't have to go over it again.

Joe supported war. Dennis was against war. The rest supported war if Saddam had WMD and refused to disarm, preferably with the UN but without them if there was an imminent threat. That's every other candidates' position. Everybody should shut up about it and elect a candidate who has been consistent on their position and can beat Bush on security, foreign policy, and domestic policy.

[Hep]

34. You are a long way, baby!

A long way from where you need to be. Simply put, you have no evidence that Dean supported Biden Lugar as early as september 2002. Will you take it back? Will you correct yourself?

[Hep]

27. This should be so easy for you

Please show me any quote from Dean in 9/2002 saying he supported Biden Lugar.

Thanks!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Are you actually trying to claim

that Dean didn't support Biden-Lugar? Even the Dean campaign hasn't taken revisionist history to this level...

[TLM]

66. Why do those who attack Dean have to make stuff up

like trying to claim that BL was the same thing as the IWR?



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

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

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

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

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

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

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. You must have meant to respond to some other post.

Because you are trying to refute a point I didn't make.

[TLM]

65. The desperate attempts to say BL was the same as IWR because

they both authorized war is the same as saying a spanking is the same as infanticide because they both use force.


BL did not authorize invasion and take over of Iraq, it was not a blank check, and it had requierments for real threats to the US.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. You are misinformed about Biden-Lugar.

"It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option," Dean told reporters before the state Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines.

It was there that Dean said he supported a proposal co-sponsored by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). An alternative resolution, it narrowed the rationale for war to the need to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction instead of justifying an attack on the basis of Hussein's human rights violations or other arguments for regime change.

The measure would have required the Bush administration to make another effort to get the U.N. Security Council to support using force to destroy Iraq's weapons program, although it still reserved the right for the United States to act unilaterally. The proposal also asked the president to provide congressional leaders with a written determination that the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was so grave that the United States had to attack.

But as the White House secured support for a broader war resolution, support for the Biden-Lugar alternative stalled, and the measure was never formally introduced.

Kerry, who ultimately voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, also said at the time that he preferred the Biden-Lugar proposal.

"I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority," he said on the floor of Congress on Oct. 9, 2002, a day before he and other legislators granted Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Aides to both Biden and Lugar said that despite its emphasis on multilateralism, the proposal would have ultimately allowed the United States to invade Iraq on its own, because Bush did make an attempt to get a Security Council resolution.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-dean18dec18,1,1829567.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

[TLM]

81. Sorry I trust the ACLU more than I trust the word of those who attack Dean

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

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

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

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

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

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

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[mouse7]

140. Write you a check for $100 if Biden-Luger support in 9/30 quote

sandnsea, this is the only way I can prove there is no Biden-Luger support in that 9/30 Face The Nation quote.

I'm gonna make you prove it to get that check from me.

I'm tired of you repeating this nonsense on all these threads, sandnsea. I'm handling it different this time.

You better prove it, sandnsea. You're gonna look awful silly having to walk away with empty pockets after all the yellin' you've done sandnsea.

[redqueen]

58. why are you so insulting maha?

"Sweetums"? "Idiots"? tsk tsk tsk...

And it's even worse because you're so wrong!

"Fact is, last February we outsiders didn't know to what degree the Bushies were bluffing about WMDs and what degree of threat Saddam posed. We knew they were bullshitting about a nuclear threat, because the International Atomic Energy Agency said so, but at that time most of the world's intelligence community still believed SH probably had SOMETHING biochemical stashed SOMEWHERE. And most of the world's intelligence community believed vigorous inspections were prudent."

Exactly, maha. INSPECTIONS. Which WE ended, so we could attack.

Dean said Powell's presentation didn't convince him, but he didn't say what would, either.

Kucinich did NOT say that 'under no circumstances' blah blah blah (are you misinformed or lying?) He simply knew, as the vast majority of informed people on the planet did, that there was no imminent threat. Period.

Without 'incontrovertible evidence' (Kucinich's words -- quite clear, aren't they? if only all candidates could be as forthritght), there is no cause for invasion. With evidence, The Kooch would go to the UN, build a coalition, and attack.

Get your facts straight, maha, please. You're not a neophyte so you really have no excuse for such sloppiness.

And stop being so smug and insulting, please.

[Lefta Dissenter]

28. Despite what Dean's supporters seem to believe, I think Dean is leading

the "Stop Dean Movement." I think that there are many of us who wanted to like Dean, who wanted to learn what he is all about. But the more I hear from him, the less I trust or like him. That doesn't come from the people who are non-Dean supporters, that comes from Dean, himself.

I can't fault Kerry for doing what he thought was right, not knowing that his decision was based on lies spewing out of the White House. I respect Dennis Kucinich for standing firm on what he believes in. Both of those men stand up for their decisions and are men I'd be proud to vote for, if they get the nomination.

Dean has based his candidacy on misrepresenting his own and others' positions. I would vote for him if he would get the nomination, but I wouldn't be bragging about it, and I'd be holding my nose.

[Democrats unite]

30. I agree with you.

eom

[windansea]

33. dare I say "ditto"

Dean is a flim flam man...who couldn't bother with attending anti war rallies cuz he "wasn't invited"

[Capn Sunshine]

36. ?Ditto?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[windansea]

92. "detto"

Early 17th century. Via a Tuscan dialect variant of Italian detto “said,” from the Latin past participle dictus . Originally used to avoid repeating the name of a month.]

:shrug:

[mouse7]

136. You say Kerry hasn't misrepresented and Dean has?

You're kidding right?

Kerry has missed 60% of his votes in the Senate this Congress and has refused to vote on controversial position after controversial position so that he won't have to go on the record for anything more controversial than resolutions of mourning for the shuttle astronauts.

[robbedvoter]

32. Some anti-war voices in 2002 per Mark Fiore (Hint:last guy ain't HD)

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html

[poskonig]

37. Dean defended liberals when few would.

That alone commands respect. I also like the fact that Dean doesn't act like a wuss and lube up for the conservatives all of the time. I approve of his ground-based campaign strategy.

On the issues, I'm generally center-right on foreign policy issues, center-left on economics, and somewhat libertarian on social issues. Dean ideologically is a decent fit for me. I would have supported an Iraq war, unilaterally or not, if the weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq.

[killbotfactory]

38. First of all, that is a paraphrase of Dean's position, not a quote.

Secondly, the UN was enforcing their own resolutions at the time of the artilce.

And just for posterity, here a timeline of quotes with sources where Dean lays out his position on Iraq.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence." (...)

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

"He needs to first make the case and he has not done that," Dean said. "He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him." (...)

"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean. (...)

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 2002

"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 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.

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 think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way." (...)

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"It’s not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people we’re going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. (...)

"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 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 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."

January 29, 2003

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq." (...)

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

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

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

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

February 20th, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 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.

February 27, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.

March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively. (...)

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

[dkf]

42. Dean makes so much sense... why are people so intent on distorting

what he says?

[FubarFly]

45. At least we still have fighters in the Democratic Party

They may fight dirty and are attacking the wrong party, but at least they're throwing punches. Not landing many yet, but energetic swinging must count for something, right?

[TLM]

70. Too bad they only work up the guts to fight...

when attacking democrats who have been attacking Bush.

[killbotfactory]

47. Beats me...

It's not like after Saddama Bin Laden was caught he went and said "Invading Iraq was the right thing to do and has made America safer" or anything.

[TLM]

69. Simple, because they support folks who are losing

and they are losing as a direct result of their support for this war... Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards and Clark all supported the war and are now losing because of it.

Since their supporters can not defend their actions, their only option left is to attack Dean.

But you have to love how they lie and spin Dean's positions with half quotes and BS, then when the facts are pointed out to them in context, they accuse Dean of flipfloping, when his position has not changed.

[CivilRightsNow]

43. I really thought that was a typo, and you had meant to say Clark

Since his flip flops on the war issue are notorious.

[adadem]

44. Because there is

no "official" record for those candidates not currently serving in the Senate or House, they can say whatever they want after the fact.

It's far too easy to change or distort their commentary prior to or even after the IWR vote to suit the current events or fancy of the electorate.

IMHO...they didn't actually cast a deciding vote on IWR so there is no "truthful" record.

[edzontar]

51. I will say it again--this post serves our enemies!

I have struggled vainly to render to this thread the fate that it deserves, since it is a collective insult to all progressive supporters of Gov. Dean, and represents yet another low in the poisoning of the discourse in these forums.

The terminology is familiar: We (Dean supporters) are "brainless" members of a "mob," motivated by "hate." We are like the French revolutionaries and communists, or (even better) the Germans who supported Hitler in the 1930s (did you notice that one?). We want "only destruction."

But why make the point over and over?

Apaprently this is the sort of garbage that gets posted on DU these days.

Let us ponder, once again, some of the more choice phrases:

"The only reason I can see that liberals are backing Dean is for one basic reason. HATE. Hatred for Bush. Hatred for his administration. Hatred for his action against Iraq. Hatred for Bush polices and anything related or connected to the Bush administration."


"Dean has . . . become the symbol of hatred and disgust. . . . It is like a giant mob, angry at the oppressors, not caring for who or what they replace the current regime with. We can see this mistake with the Russians, replacing Royalty with the Communist Party, or with Germans in the overthrow of there oppressive government in the 1930's. The world saw it in France for Napoleon, they saw it in Cuba with Castro. "

Is this what the Party wants? To become a mad mob, unstoppable brainless mob, with the only goal, the only hope, the only cause being the hatred and destruction of the Bush Administration. Is this what it wants. Is it willing to bare any cost, endure any burden, destroy its' long term future for the sole purpose of removing Bush from office four years earlier?"



"... if your are Backing Dean because you hate Bush, and are about hate, then you are bringing negative energy to the White House, the party, and the country. People all across the world will see a nation only driven by hate, malice, and destruction. That is the only thing I can think of that is worse than Bush in the White House in 2005."

So it has come to this, my friends.

Happy New Year, and welcome to the "New" Democratic Party.

Where up is down, down is up, and pigs live in trees.

[robbedvoter]

60. As in Kerry, Gephardt, Terry McAulife, the democrats, the supporters

of other candidates, the campaign finance reform, the Freedom of Information act, the truth? Because HD's enemy list gets bigger every time!

Deanism - a statement made and put forth as truth that will be referred to as 'just a joke' the minute someone questions it. 

[TLM]

62. Same sad desperate crap again... Dean must be breaking fundraising records

We once again see this Salon half quote being tossed around to try and claim Dean supported the Iraq war with a 30-60 day deadline, then flip flopped.

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

Now first of all notice the quotes… the underlined part is not an exact quote, but a paraphrase. Although some would love to try and trick people into thinking it is an exact quote, because this is what they try to use to claim Dean waffled on his position on the war in Iraq.

The problem is Dean never waffled… his position has been consistently against the war because there was no imminent threat posed by Iraq, and thus no justification for unilateral pre-emptive war. What Dean did support was continuation of the inspection and disarming process, through the UN. And IF weapons were found and if there was a real imminent threat to America, AND the UN refused to take action… then and only then, would Dean reluctantly support such action.

Now what the Dean opponents do is cut this little bit out of the story and present it as if Dean was saying 30-60 days period… with no prerequisite of an imminent threat. But once again, if you read the few paragraphs before that quote, you see this that the quote has been taken out of context to hide the fact that Dean specifically notes before that statement that there is no imminent threat, and they hadn’t made the case for war.

Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.



So you see not only did Dean say that Powell didn’t make the case… in the paragraph just prior they reiterate Dean’s opposition to the war and ho unpopular of a position that was at the time. It s no wonder the Dean opponents cut that out.

And that begs the question… why do they have to put all this energy into making things up about Dean, finding quotes to spin out of context, and attacking folks who support Dean? Don’t let them fool you, because they’ll try very very hard to do so.

[last1standing]

74. Where is CoffeePlease2004 to defend this thread?

At 24 posts, Coffee Please2004 starts a peice of flamebait like this, leaves one responce, then leaves. I think we're allowing ourselved to be manipulated into hating each other's candidates too easily.

Again, we have nine good people running to replace the Caligula of the 21st century. I will support ANY of them to bring this country back to its former glory. Will you?

[redqueen]

79. Um, duh!

Yes, I will support any of them!

However, I disagree that this kind of thread makes us 'hate' each other's preferred candidates.

Maybe a verrrrry small minority can be moved to hatred so easily, but not many. I have more confidence in DUers than that!

As for me, I think this issue is a non-starter. Dean didn't articulate his views well, and so there's still a lot of confusion. That's my take. :)

[last1standing]

82. Um, duh, back!

I think you're right. ;)

It still seems a shame that thise kind of post can bring out so much anger and distortion.

[redqueen]

106. Feh. Nothing to sweat, IMO.

I chalk it up as part of the process. And trust me, this is going to get oh so much worse next year. (yikes!)

Admittedly, the process has indeed become much more cutthroat over the past couple elections, but it's still just the same game, only turned up a notch.

However much we push our buttons over what someone types, I think we all manage to chill, think calmly about the issues, and come back refreshed to do it all again! (and again, and again...)
:)

[worldgonekrazy]

122. A good question

The low post count indicates he could be a troll.

Either that or he won't back up his words when they are criticized.

Neither option looks very good for his credibility.

[genius]

102. Dean cannot be trusted. He acts like a Republican. He does what

Republicans do. If we don't want the Republicans to win, why nominate one?

[worldgonekrazy]

118. Yeah I am also disturbed that he believes in the "Rule of Law"

And the notion that the Democrats ought to reach out to Southern voters.

Throw in his belief that affirmative action could be reworked to be more effective, his total opposition to the Iraq War, his proposal to repeal tax cuts for the rich, his plan for expanded health care coverage, and his unwavering belief in the power of the American people and he REALLY does look like a Republican.

Thanks for opening up my eyes.

[cryofan]

144. Hey, you ARE a genius!

Very well put!

[mzmolly]

132. Did you say setting the record "STRAIGHT"?!

:eyes:

One the other hand, if your are Backing Dean because you hate Bush, and are about hate, then you are bringing negative energy to the White House, the party, and the country. People all across the world will see a nation only driven by hate, malice, and destruction. That is the only thing I can think of that is worse than Bush in the White House in 2005.

I highlited this right wing talking point because I think it speaks for itself. *Unlike your cherry picked quotes and parsed words from Dean above*

[quinnox]

133. Yes, Dean's campaign is about anger

That is one reason his numbers will continue to dive as more people start paying attention.

People like optimistic visions, and the candidates with that are Clark, Edwards, and to a lesser degree Gephardt.

Watch for Dean's candidacy to fade, slowly but surely.

[mouse7]

143. Yeah... Dive through records.

Another alltime primary fundraising record today.

Yep, Dean's in freefall.

[quaker bill]

138. If you listen to Kerry

He was both!

Per the good Senator, Dean was for the war when it was going badly and against it when Saddam was caught.

Actually he was against it earlier than most. And some have never quite gotten there.

[Moderator]

146. Locking.........

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.



DU Moderator