A Primary Betrayal

[H2O Man]

"By the end of September, the president’s war resolution was no sure thing. The White House had trimmed it back, dumping the language that authorized Bush to go to war to achieve stability in the region. Still, the White House faced a threat. Senator Joe Biden and two Republican senators on his foreign relations committee – Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel – were pushing for an alternative that would narrow the president’s authority further. Under their proposal, Bush would be able to attack Iraq only for the purpose of destroying Iraq’s WMDs and only after seeking UN approval. If the United Nations said no, Bush would have to come back to Congress and demonstrate that the Iraqi weapons threat was so ‘grave’ that only military action could eliminate it. The Biden-Lugar measure was attracting support from both democrats and Republicans. And, according to Biden, he and his allies were getting backdoor advice and encouragement from the administration’s reluctant warriors: Powell and Armitage. The White House was worried about Biden’s endeavor, and Bush was furious. ‘I don’t want a resolution such as this that ties my hands,’ he told Senator Trent Lott. The president, according to Lott, gave him an emphatic order: ‘Derail the Biden legislation and make sure its language never sees the light of day.’

"But it was Dick Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House and past and future presidential candidate, who derailed the bipartisan effort. …. Gephardt’s thinking had been shaped by the former Clinton national security aides, including Holbrooke, Pollack, and James Steinberg, who were arguing Saddam had to be confronted. But Biden and other Democrats wondered if another factor was influencing Gephardt: presidential politics. …. Gephardt had been urged by his political advisers to be by tBush’s side at the White House that day. …Standing right next to Bush, along with Hastert and Lott, was Gephardt. …"
--Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War; Isikoff & Corn; pages 127-128

When we think about the connection between the Bush administration’s lies that resulted in the war of occupation in Iraq, it is fair to evaluate what role democrats in the congress played. That is especially true in regard to those democrats who are running for the nomination of our party.

Looking back, I have to say that there were things I liked about Rep. Gephardt. He was often good on labor issues. But he serves as an unfortunate example of someone who betrayed our country, because he was hungry for power. I think it is fair to say that he bears more responsibility for helping Bush and Cheney get us stuck in Iraq than Biden.

This summer, in response to some of my DU friends saying they would not vote for certain democrats if they became the nominee in ’08, I asked that people not make any such decision this early. I said that events in the Middle East – likely in Iran – could change the political landscape to such an extent, that it would be evident that any democrat was better than the republican alternative.

The assassination in Pakistan, and the possibility of it serving as the fuse which ignites the Middle Eastern powder keg, is a good example of the reasons why we need to step back, ignore some of the emotional nonsense being posted, and take a very close look at each of our candidates. I’m not sure that any one of them alone is The Answer. But I am confident that if we remove any selfish Gephardt motivations, we will find our best options for 2008.

Thank you.

[gateley]

1. K&R -- Thanks!! nt

[Me.]

2. Words Fail Me

It was also Gephardt who colluded to derail Dean. This certainly is one more notch on the belt of putting country before party. If there's nothing else we've learned all these years on DU, it's that. My problem is if you strip away the rhetoric we may find its all been rhetoric,

[H2O Man]

4. Well ....

I think if you strip away all of my rhetoric, there's still some substance as well as Freudian slips.

[robertpaulsen]

9. Wow! I haven't heard the Dean story.

I didn't vote for him in the 04 primaries, but I admired his campaign. Could you give me more info on how Gephardt derailed Dean?

[Me.]

22. If Memory Serves

After he was out of the 2004 race Gephardt teamed up with others, notably Kerry to do Dean in. Now in a campaign that is usually normal fare but dems ganging up the way they ganged up on Dean was not standard fare then. And as I remember it, some of it was pretty underhanded, though the indictment against Gephardt above is worse than anything. Some background.

“Kerry went on to win the Iowa caucuses. Torricelli's role in financing the ads was first reported by the Web site PoliticsNJ.com. David Jones, executive director of the group, last night released the entire list of contributors, which showed that the "stop Dean" effort had support from donors to rivals of the former Vermont governor, especially Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and Kerry.

Several unions then aligned with Gephardt pitched in, as did one of retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's top fundraisers, Alan Patricof. Bernard Schwartz, chairman of Loral Corp., gave $15,000. Slim-Fast Foods tycoon S. Daniel Abraham contributed $100,000 to the effort after giving Dean $2,000 earlier in the campaign. Another small donor to the group had also contributed to Dean.” Cont...

A top Democratic strategist said the group was widely viewed as a shadow campaign for Gephardt and Kerry, who shared a goal then of derailing Dean.,,cont…

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/29720/view?viewtype

The DNC Hated the Deaniacs, But Wanted Their Money
How Beltway Democrats Sank Dean for America

“Evidently, Howard Dean's movement scared the money-hungry Democrats right out of their thousand-dollar suits. McAuliffe, Reed, Kerry, Gephardt, and the Clintons were terrified of what he could do to the party they worked so hard to build during the 1990s. It didn't matter that Dean was ideologically aligned with these centrist Democrats -- his grassroots cash was a genuine threat to party brass.” Cont…

Al Gore and later Bill Bradley grasped their chances of taking on the Clinton-controlled DLC to which they once belonged, hoping to turn power over to the new iconic liberalism represented by the pro-Dean movement. To reassert the centrality of the party line, David Jones was brought on, albeit at a comfortable distance from the Kerry and Gephardt camps, to crush Dean's rebellious candidacy. Cont…

The rest of the Iowa pack, particularly Kerry and Edwards, avoided the brutal attacks against one another, focusing their energy instead on the Bush administration and allowing the Jones crew and Gephardt to make Dean the target of Democratic attacks. This degree of infighting so early in the race was unprecedented in the Democratic Party. And since these ads aired in Iowa, no Democrat cast other candidates in a negative light in any TV spot. Why would they? Dean and Gephardt came in a distant third and forth, as the smooth-talking DLC-backed Kerry-Edwards duo moved to number one and two respectively, proving the effectiveness of negative advertising.” Cont…

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank06042005.html

“Nasty Little Men Of Dark Renoun : Yes, I'm referring to Democratic Presidential hopefuls Kerry, Leiberman and Gephardt who have in recent days all decided to hype their own weak flagging political campaigns by a series of attacks on Howard Dean. This set of wishy washy professional politicians have all decided that the capture of Sadam Hussein, the result of the actions of the Bush administration, is proof that their pro-war votes were justiufied (although both Kerry and Gephardt were claiming until a few weeks ago that they regretted their votes because they were lied to in order to get them). They take this as a sign that Dean, who opposed the war and the way it was waged (without a major international coalition or real approval of the UN or proof that the reasons it was fought for were real), is somehow unelectable.

These are the mainstream professional pols showing their true colors - they hate the concept that Dean, a relative outsider, has managed to be as far ahead as he is. They also ignore the fact that his campaign is NOT a one-issue candidacy. And, in the case of Kerry and Gephardt, they are again showing that they will do anything to win a few votes, get some press coverage or imrpove their chances for power, including supporting their rival in the White House. Shame upon them for their wishy washy ways.: “

http://www.fantasylibrary.com/synthesis&synchronicity043.htm

[burythehatchet]

3. That picture of a grinning Gephardt is seared in my brain

[jpgray]

5. To me the Rose Garden Democrats are the hardest to forgive

While Biden/Lugar wasn't that great (in fact it was very bad), it was still superior to the IWR.

[TwilightGardener]

6. So...4 Republicans acted with Biden to derail Chimpy's war plans, and Gephart

schemed to stop them, for personal political advantage? Fucking sick.

[H2O Man]

11. A number of

people, from both parties, were concerned that the administration was in a hurry to start the war before the UN inspections were completed. (This, of course, was what Karl Rove was lying about on a talk show last month.) Biden's effort would not have resolved the issues in and of itself -- his goal was to slow the momentum of the administration, in order to give people an opportunity to consider options. Gephardt betrayed our party, the congress, and the country. I do not mean to say that others do not share in any of the responsibility. But this was an ugly chapter, and shows that we should consider every candidate's motivations.

[jpgray]

13. Biden/Lugar would not have stopped the war

It would have provided only the smallest fig leaf of accountability. The most important aspect of the amendment was that it limited the scope of the authorization more specifically to Iraq--that was the major selling point in my view.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Well, I knew that Biden and Hagel had objected to language in the IWR

that implied that Chimpy would be authorized to strike anywhere in the region (Iran and Syria, in other words)--was the Biden-Lugar amendment about that, or was it about limiting what Chimpy could do (just taking out WMD's), and possibly preventing him from war because of the UN requirement? To me, that is almost a derailing of the war plan--upsets me that a DEMOCRAT would interfere with its passage.

[jpgray]

17. If I recall (been a while since I read it), accountability consisted of reports to Congress

It didn't put forth a strong injunction that required additional Congressional action before invasion, for example. It did however remove some of the non-specific language as you said, and that to me was the major selling point and made it a far better choice than the IWR.

It's funny how selective or confused memories are on that war vote--I still see people here praising Graham for voting against IWR, despite his saying at the time his reason for voting "no" was that the resolution was too weak and limiting in scope.

[karynnj]

23. I think it would have had another impact - it would have been

harder for Republicans and the media to claim that Bush had Congress's backing to go to war. It would have been much clearer that Bush violated the spirit and words of Biden/Lugar. (I think he violated the IWR - because I doubt a fair person would consider that conditions were met, but it was just Bush who got to make that judgment.)

I do think Bush would have written the same signing statement and invaded anyway. So same war, less ability to claim the Democrats agreed.

[jpgray]

24. Yes, he would have flouted slightly more conditions than under IWR

But as for stopping the war, I don't think that would have had much of an effect.

[karynnj]

30. I agree completely - in fact had the Congress

filibustered and produced NO resolution - he would likely have manufactured a cause celebre and attacked as was suggested in the Downing Street Memos.

[HughMoran]

7. Good post

I was wondering where you were a week ago - glad to see you posting.

"step back, ignore some of the emotional nonsense being posted, and take a very close look at each of our candidates"

...was what I extracted from your post - thanks.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. I think, have always thought Biden an honorable man: a wise man.

Obviously, he's got nothing other than a chance in hell of being the nominee. However, I have and always will imagine him as VP.

His character and record are impeccable.

He is a true, through and through, democratic man.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Thank you, Water Man

I will support Biden if he is nominated, and if not, I hope he is at least made Secretary of State.

[Yuugal]

19. Best Pic Ever nt

[spanone]

20. great one swamp rat !!!!

:bounce:

[Mike03]

12. Your posts are consistently excellent, informative and fascinating.

Thank you. Rec.

[DemReadingDU]

14. Thank you, I learn so much from reading your essays

[Patsy Stone]

15. I wish they could all be president

and govern as a group. At the very least I'd love to see them in cabinet positions. There are too many good brains in there to choose just one.

[H2O Man]

18. There are huge differences

in the manner that the US elects leaders, and the way that the Iroquois select leaders. There is a lot to be said for cooperation, rather than competition, especially in times of crisis. The Iroquois have a greater appreciation for the Power of Ideas .... I think it would be great if more people at the grass roots level became invested in urging the candidates to stop the nonsense that their campaigns are spreading, and to concentrate on the important tasks at hand.

[Patsy Stone]

32. I think this method of governance

is worth trying. I've often wondered why prior candidates just disappeared into the background. America has little tolerance for failure. Because of that, we often cheat ourselves out of great people with innovative plans and important ideas.

[rosesaylavee]

21. I am surprised at myself

in how I am liking Biden... and Dodd more and more. Glad to read this. It confirms to me that Biden does have an overview that many of the others do not enjoy. He is not perfect.

[madfloridian]

25. Picture of the Rose Garden that day

[madfloridian]

26. Lieberman was there.

And in the first picture I see Jane Harman in the background behind Bush.



"What became unmistakably clear in the days before the vote, however, was the degree to which the Democratic congressional leadership, by falling into the trap so artfully laid for them months ago by Karl Rove and the rest of Bush's political cabal, had connived in undercutting their own party's chances of advancement.

When Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman raced to the White House to stand shoulder to shoulder with Dubya in the Rose Garden to announce their co-sponsorship of the administration's war resolution, they did more than simply give Bush the beautiful picture he wanted for November (as George Will gleefully crowed on ABC's This Week). Their dastardly deal with Bush also guaranteed that Iraq will continue to dominate the news right through Election Day, and thus suck the oxygen out of the bread-and-butter issues (the economy, Social Security, Medicare and the like) on which the Democrats had hoped to take back the House and preserve the Senate. Just as Rove had wanted.

Tom Daschle, too, fell neatly into the White House's pocket when he decided to fast-track the war resolution, instead of waiting until after Election Day. The country was not clamoring for an immediate decision. In fact, all the polls showed growing discomfort with the notion of a war whose purposes—as described by Bush—seemed to change every week. Those same polls also showed that a majority of voters believed Congress, not the president, should play the deciding role in committing the country to war, as indeed the Constitution demands."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/206.html

[H2O Man]

27. Yikes!

That is a pretty sad way to remember Gephardt. But he did it to himself. I think the paper in his hand might read, "Mission Accomplished."

Thank you for posting it.

[madfloridian]

28. Do you see Jane Harman?

And there is a woman right behind Bush, can you tell who she is?

[H2O Man]

29. I see Jane.

I'm not sure who the other lady is.

It is not surprising to see Jane there. The difference between her and Gephardt is that I can think of some things I liked about him.

[Joanne98]

31. grrrrrrrrrrr