Biden for Kerry...Dean is too far left.

If any of you punished yourself by listening to Imus this morning, you could have heard Biden repeating the DLC mantra. Interestingly, he feels that Kerry would be the best choice because of course the war in Iraq was "the right thing to do."

Either I have been drawn far to the left, or these assholes don't know what they're talking about. Fully 40% of the public opposed this preemptive war, even though the press hoodwinked the public by touting the lying propaganda as fact.

I'm not one to want to give Kerry advice, but if he really wants to be competitive, he should come right out and say that we we're all mislead on this war and IT WAS WRONG! It's sickening that a great nation such as our own would START a preemptive war based on faulty intelligence.

I'm glad that Biden isn't running in this round and I'll certainly remember this for the next time that he does.

So is Imus, for that matter.

Dean is a winner so they resent him for it.

Since Dean is a right-winger on the economy, we need a candidate that is super-right wing? I don't get it.

No chance of the Democrats nominating a liberal candidate?

dean is economic conservative. i wouldnt have thought the people here at du would support his candidacy

How 'bout a link? 'Cause the last time I heard him, with BIll Press moderating, he was very busy defending his vote and the war.

So, please, if he has disavowed the war, as one of his harshest critics, I'd certainly want to know about his change of heart so I don't mistakenly criticize him in the future.

Link, please.

Eloriel

Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans on War 
    By Ron Fournier
    Associated Press

    Wednesday 18 June 2003

    LEBANON, N.H. (AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq"s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

    "He misled every one of us," Kerry said. "That"s one reason why I"m running to be president of the United States."

    Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam"s regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

    Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

    "I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America"s credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally," he said.

  >>>>

    As for the question about U.S. intelligence, Kerry said he has led the call for a congressional investigation and pledged, "We will get to the bottom of this."
>>>>>>>
http://truthout.org/docs_03/061903A.shtml

He hasn't let up on UN involvement, either. There are many stories about that, including on Bush's "credibility gap."
www.johnkerry.com

With Biden supporting Kerry because conquering Iraq was the "right thing to do," we just cannot trust John Kerry.

Why even bother supporting that piece of trash when there are good candidates like Dean and Clark around?

Is clinton a piece of trash? What in Kerry's record leads you to believe that he will turn totally prowar after the primary? What in Dean's conservative centrist 11 year long governing style tells you that he wouldn't have voted for the IWR when ALL the Sharon supporting, proIsrael lawmakers did? Including Henry Waxman?

Doesn't Dean want to send more troops? Has he called for a US withdrawl? I'm still shocked and awed at how many people buy Dean's political stump speeches - they are all politicians, running for Commander-in-Chief of the military, for God's sake!

turn pro war. He has said now that we are there we need it to come out right. Pro war, Dean never!

who can't distinguish between "Supporting the war" (and btw Eloriel, it was an "invasion", not a "war") and "defending their own actions".

that if the Iraqi resolution had been voted down, Bush* would not have invaded Iraq?

Regardless if Bush went to war or not, Kerry cannot be trusted on this issue.

I'm not surprised

This is precisely what your argument is. Bush did it, so Kerry is supposedly off the hook. Bullshit! Kerry could have voted with the 23 other Democrats who did *not* vote for the Bush resolution, but Kerry stabbed them in the back.

Given Clark is coming in the race, Kerry's candidacy has no reason for being.

I'm not surprised

You just don't like the answer.

You wrote:

" that if the Iraqi resolution had been voted down, Bush* would not have invaded Iraq?"

The awnser is categorically yes. The administration claimed Biden-Lugar, which would have made an UN resolution a pre-requisite for invading, would have "tied his hands."

Kerry supported Bush instead. And thousands died because of it.

The administration claimed Biden-Lugar, which would have made an UN resolution a pre-requisite for invading, would have "tied his hands."

I distinctly remember Bush* saying he neither wanted, nor needed, UN approval. Furthermore, Bush* never got his UN resolution, so obviously, he didn't think he needed one.

More the better for the Congress to do this since Bush said he didn't require one.

Instead of voting with the 23 senators who opposed the blank check, Kerry voted with Bush.

and if Biden-Lugar requires a UN resolution, then the vote in Congress did not give Bush* a "blank check" because a Congressional Resolution is not a UN Resolution.

Bush can act against the wishes of the UN, but he cannot act against the US Congress.

Biden-Lugar was the bill Dean supported, not the authorization that Kerry supported and 23 Democratic Senators opposed.

then what good is a Congressional Resolution?

eom

which Bush* did not get but he invaded anyway

Hence the need for Biden-Lugar.

I'm doing my best to be patient, but this isn't that difficult to understand.

haven't read the resolution.

.

read this and reply.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=24284&mesg_id=24451

That illustrates my point. None of the candidates called Bush* a liar before the vote, and yet, people who support them say "Kerry should have known. Everyone knew!"

I can't find a link for Dennis Kucinich directly stating * was lying.

But he gave a speech in Febuary 2002(yes 2002)
Let me post a bit of it.

"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy."

the rest can be found at:
http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

Kucinich also voted against the war.
So he knew and he responded to his knowledge and the will of the people. Sounds like the right guy to me.


TWL

Am I supposed to believe that DK knew Bush* was lying even though he never actually said it?

So he knew and he responded to his knowledge and the will of the people

Maybe he knew, and maybe he responded, but the one thing he definitely didn't do was say that Bush* was lying.

He wasn't "misled" as he now whines. Hell, most of the world knew that the fratboy was going to invade no matter what. For Kerry to now try and cover his pathetic and cynical vote by claiming to be "misled" just adds to the reasons why he should skulk off with the other opportunists who thought wrapping themselves in the flag would get the "centrists" to vote for them.

He and his handlers miscalculated.

how come none of the Dem candidates, including Dean, Kucinich, etc, said that?

And I thank you for answering the question. I agree that Bush* was going to invade with or without the resolution.

All one had to do was turn on the TV at the time. Even the bushmedia was convering the massive demonstrations and reporting the anti-war polling numbers around the world. Apparantly, Kerry & the other 3 who voted for the war inhabiting the same cave as Cheney if they deny "knowing" that the invasion was going to happen no matter what.

Kerry and the others' now playing stupid is downright embarassing. What amazes me is that there are people who actually buy his excuse making and would vote for him.

Senators often know how their colleagues are going to vote. In this case, the media was reporting that many Dems were going to vote for the resolution. Also the polls you refer to also indicated that a majority supported the war. Given these well-known facts about support for an invasion, it seems unlikely that EVERY SINGLE DEM WHO OPPOSED THE INVASION thought "everyone knew"

it would not have required extraordinary courage or insight for Kerry (or Edwards, Gephardt) to have joined them.

Bandera made the ridiculous claim that none of the Dems said "Bush* is lying" because they thought that their Dem colleagues already knew. The fact that many Dems were going to vote for the res. should have tipped them off that there were many Dems who did not seem to know this.

So how come none of the candidates said "Bush* is lying"?

Why did Dean say that he "believed Bush*" and that he would be surprised if Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's? Why don't you criticize the other candidates for lacking "extraordinary courage or insight" when they were claiming that Saddam probably had WMD's?

Why is Kerry the ONLY candidate that's expected to have known before the vote that Bush* was lying?

The only countries in which the polls showed support for the war were the USA and Israel. Everywhere else, the anti-war feeling was overwhelmingly agaisnt it. Could Kerry and his VichyDem pals have missed it?

"it seems unlikely that EVERY SINGLE DEM WHO OPPOSED THE INVASION thought "everyone knew" - OK. I'll compromise on 99%.

One hardly needed to be a political genius or soothsayer to notice that bushcorp was going to invade Iraq no matter what the UN decided. It tried to legitimize the aggression by getting UN backing. To it's credit, the UN didn't buy that load of stinking fish.

I don't believe Kerry is stupid. He voted for the invasion because he was afraid of being labeled "soft on defense", not "supporting our troops" and the other flagwaving drivel that the moderates fear. An act of political expediency that has returned to bite his sorry ass.

At no point was there even a majority in the US opposed to the invasion.

I don't believe Kerry is stupid.

What about Dean? Do you believe that Dean is stupid, because before the vote, Dean said he would shocked if Saddam did NOT have WMD's.

You keep ignoring the polls outside of the US. Does the rest of the world and it's people not exist? Kerry apparantly thought so.

Dean and others may have believed that Iraq had WMD. Did they also believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US? If Kerry didn't believe that Iraq posed such a threat, which is what he said, then why did he vote for the invasion? Bush was giving every indication that he was going to bypass the UN if necessary. You even acknowledge that in your previous posts. 23 of his fellow senators voted against the invasion. Why weren't they "misled"? Are they smarter than Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards? I'm leaving Lieberman off the list because he has made no attempt to backtrack and cover his ass like the others.

Beyond the morality of the vote (if it's possible to move beyond that) I don't believe that Kerry is electable if nominated. Besides alienating much of the left, his vote for the war diminishes (at best) his ability to attack bush's most vulnerable point. A simple, "But, you voted for it senator.", would suffice to pull the rug from under him. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is THE issue. At present, it's the only thing propping bush up. If the democratic candidate can't attack the invasion, the "war on terror", from an position untainted by his previous support, then bush will escape unharmed.

Kerry was "misled". But, it was by the (American) polls and his handlers, not by the idiot child.

Foriegners don't vote in the US and are not represented in Congress.

thousands of them killed.

was justified.

Hardly sounds like Kerry is saying the war was wrong, is it !?!?!?

I probably would never vote for Kerry but if he want's a sliver of a chance he better change his tune.

When it comes to an invasion of Iraq, Kerry has always talked of it as a "last resort"

his war on!

And, now let's forget the fact that Bush was a madman, Kerry still authorized the war (cough!!!). In other words, Kerry believed that there was a reason to go to war. That's where he was wrong.

The day he voted, Kerry repeated his belief that an invasion s/b the last resort.

He stated very bluntly that he supported Bush disarming Saddam.

as saying he supported Bush*'s invasion

I like Kerry, but he still seems like he's trying to cut it both ways on the war. What I gather his position to be is that the war may have been justified, but it's wrong as things stand now because Bush mislead us, but some future developments may show that the war was indeed justifiable even if Bush lied, although the lying itself was not justifiable. Is that about it?

For years, Kerry has taken the position that Saddam is a threat, and needs to be dealt with. Kerry has stated that the way to deal with Saddam is through diplomacy and negotiation, however Kerry has never ruled out the use of military force, but only as a "last resort"

He did say (according to the AP):

"Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified."

Sounds to me like he's pissed at Bush because it was not a last resort, yet is saying that it may somehow yet be proven to have been justified even though it was not a last resort.

Kennedy.



www.adaction.org

however the difference I see is that Dean is fighting and outspoken against this stupid Iraqi occupation and Kerry is not. If being outspoken makes him a liberal then let's nominate (and elect) a liberal!

he is wrong about dean being left. but thanks for the support since i assume he is endorsing kerry.

Since 40% of the population opposed the war, this translates into 80% of the Democratic Party which Biden's stupid-ass represents.

Secondly, Kerry is more liberal than Dean on the issues. Everyone knows this.

Third, saying crap like Kerry supports the war isn't scoring his establishment friend any points.

a Liberal Repuke or Conservative Dem.

and they will need each other to testify at the war crimes tribunal.

He said he would have voted for Biden's version of the Iraq resolution if he was in the Senate. Not that much different from the Iraq War Resolution that did pass, minus removing Saddam.

And, what did that bill say?????

Is that the one that authorized Smirks' war??????

It would have forced Bush to work through the UN and prove Iraq was a threat before any unilateral invasion and only for the purpose of disarmament. Kerry wanted to vote for it. Bush said it would have "tied his hands". Yeah, not much different.

It required a UN resolution to go to war, i.e., if and only if international consensus existed.

As I said before, Kerry didn't trust the international community. Kerry trusted Bush.

Kerry did not vote with the 23 Senators who did not support giving Bush a blankcheck for war. With Biden supporting Kerry because the war was the right thing to do, Kerry cannot be trusted.

who cut the legs out from Biden-Lugar by rushing to the Rose Garden to pose with President Junior.

Why in the hell would any Congressman or Senator do this to their own party?

Is there *any* reason for this treachery?

And Kerry talks about foreign policy "learning curves." Go figure.

the day went really well minus the fact that a bus load of nuns drowned. Removing Saddam is the principle reason Bush invaded.

a Biden-Lugar bill. And everyone knows that, too.

Only "Give 'em Hell Howard" can energize the left, but his policies are solidly centrist.

I nearly vomited as he gave a vigorous defense of it last October. Kerry can have him.

His complete support of this illegal war prohibits him from commenting on matters of principal...

Both Joe's should go blow...

TB

Wonder why Dean escapes all wrath? Maybe because he won't talk about it now that he collects all those liberal antiwar $$$$$$.

Dean asks the potential contributor to join him in the 'fight for univeral health care, a balanced budget and the civil rights of all Americans."

Not a word about Iraq or foreign policy.


:kick:

Joe I-ve-got-my-nose-up-Bush's-ass Biden says He takes Keryr over Dean cause Dean is too liberal??????

Bwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!<snort>

I am delighted to see something my Kerry supporter friends and I (a Dean supporter) can share a thigh-slapper over!!!!

*still chuckling*

Julie

If he gets enough rednecks to vote for him because of this hes a smart guy..



Even if he thinks the war was wrong.. why say it? hell get all democratic votes except the green wanabees plus some additional rednecks who think hes a "patriotic" american

Kerry is on the right side of this as far as the general voting public is concerned. But that subject isn't as fun (among some on DU) as talking about impurity or one-issue voting (Iraq war vote).

n/t

i dont know what youre referring to, i wouldnt say the "rednecks" (sorry for using this word but i hope everyone knows what i mean)
are duped public, they are ignorant sheep.

Unfortunately we got a bunch of them in this country and even more sad is that they get to vote. So whoever get their votes has a big chance of winning.

And some guy shouting about gun control, and socialism sure as hell wont get their votes

He voted YES on the war, I vote NO on him.

Like Dean said he would have voted for if he was in the Senate.

If the international community found consensus to support the war, then there was probably good reason to go.

Kerry, in contrast, didn't trust the international community.

Kerry trusted Bush.

Unless of course, you WANTED Bush to invade Iran and Syria, too. And NOT go to the UN at all. And not put weapons inspectors back in first. If he did nOT negotiate for those things, he would have been derlict of duty, because SOME lawmakers HAVE TO NEGOTIATE, whether you like it or not, or whether they losre votes or not.

Dean uses the hot lefty rhetoric and masks his centrism early on, then, a real liberal like Kerry gets marked as the moderate alternative...Kerry gets the nomination, wins as a moderate and VOILA...we have a liberal in the White House.

He won't even get the nomination.

Sorry.

While I am laughing my ass off at your bitterness.

and the people in Delaware LOVE him!!!!

For the good of the country, it is imperative to get Kerry in the White House.

He goes both ways.

right now he's energizing the democratic base. he won't run left against bush.

if he gets the bid, he'll take as many populist, utter b.s. campaign issues away from bush as he can.

guns being #1. once confiscating guns is out of the picture (and i know it never really was IN the picture), plenty of otherwise blinkered americans will vote their class. i hope.

What you "I'm not voting for Kerry" folks are really saying is "I'm voting for Bush."

That's okay, you still have a few more months to get serious about this whole thing.

Deal with it.

to do that.

Dean sided with Bush on Yucca Mt. and Sierra Blanca and insisted that Bush governed as a moderate in Texas. That is BEFORE he noticed the millions of antiwar liberal $$$$.

I've seen a TREMENDOUS amount of posts suggesting that Dean supporters were basically nasty thugs that only attacked the other candidates. I, personally haven't seen this, but I will admit that I wasn't an early Dean supporter.

What does your post have to do with the topic in this thread?

it's in response to a post that criticizes Kerry for trusting Bush*. Dean also trusted Bush* but isn't criticized for it. It's a double-standard.

Even though none of the Dems said that "Bush* is lying", it's only Kerry that gets criticized for trusting Bush*. That's a double-standard

Thankyou.

Kerry is a loser and other comments have been flying out of Dean supporters mouths. I truly hope this madness will stop soon and we all unite to remove Bush.

Is that for real?

For real.

That's got to be the funniest thing that I've EVER read on this board!! Surely you jest!

only because you misread it...wilfully, perhaps.

It seems pretty straight forward to me, you're suggesting that Kerry is the ONLY one that can beat Bush. That is HILARIOUS!!!!

It's Kerry v. Bush, meaning it's a national election, not a primary that we're talking about. If there were Kerry people here stomping their feet, holding their breaths and pouting that they're not voting for Dean, I'd be saying the same thing: if you're not voting for Dean, you're voting for Bush (although it's strange how you hardly ever find any Kerry supporters spouting such nonsense).

I know that this logic escapes some people on this board whose oddly evolved sense of morality dictates that they give Bush four more years to tear down the separation between church and state, run the economy into the ground, and conduct even more pre-emptive wars, rather than vote for a reasonable alternative...like Kerry or Edwards or Gephart. If that helps them get their chests puffed out there, so be it. But don't try to fool the rest of us by saying you did it for the good of your conscience, the party, or the country because the only real beneficiaries of your act are George W. Bush and all who stand totally united by his side.

Biden and Kerry both voted FOR bush's invasion of Iraq. Now that it's gone sour they are trying to weasel out of their vote by whining that they were "misled". Where were they when most of the world knew what Bush was going to do, and what would happen if he did? My guess is they were busily listening to their handlers and reading the polls.

"Misled" my ass. They voted for the sake of political expediency and are now calling the people who didn't "too liberal". Pathetic.

His record is a mouse click away on Google, and nobody with one brain cell who has done this has come to the conclusion Dean is anything but a moderate.

are blowing steam out their asses.

I support Dean, even though he's one of the most moderate candidates out there. Kerry is certainly more liberal than Dean, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

But the thing I won't compromise is organized killing in an unjust and illegal war to steal oil. Kerry sold out and sat when ordered to, just like the Lapdog Democrat he is.

which killed more Iraqis, particularly children.

But that's OK with you. You'll compromise on the death of Iraqi children.

Kerry didn't want to liberate Kuwait, but the current occupation is such a smart idea.

I don't understand you people.

which killed thousands of children.

Instead of addressing the point I raised, you try to distract.

Kerry didn't support the liberation of Kuwait, and there were UN sanctions against Iraq, therefore this makes the war authorization okay?

Sorry, but nobody is going to buy that. Why didn't Kerry vote with the 23 Senators who opposed the war authorization? How many times must I ask this?

both of which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Instead of defending Dean for his support for the murder of thousands of innocent children, you try to distract from Dean's failure of principle and attack Kerry.

Why didnt Dean oppose the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi children?

How many times must I ask this?

The liberation of Kuwait was just. The sanctions for Hussein's resolution violations were a far better alternative than occupying Iraq and turning Americans into targets. Which Kerry authorized Bush to do, of course.

The killing of thousands of innocent children was "just"?

The use of depleted uranium was "just"?

Burying tens of thousands of soldiers who were surrendering was "just"?

Depriving Iraqi children of medicine is "just"?

According to the Geneva conventions, that's not "just"; those are war crimes.

And Dean supports them

Defending a sovereign nation against foreign aggression IS just.

Kerry doesn't think so. Iraq can conquer Kuwait, and the US can conquer Iraq. Kerry has some *twisted* views on foreign policy, though even *he* understands that nations cannot be allowed to violate ceasefire agreements and UN resolutions without impunity.

You do realize that Kuwait is a creation of the US and W Europe? There wasn't any nation known as Kuwait before we got involved in the region.

And are you aware of how Kuwait came to be invaded? Do you know about April Glaspie, and slant drilling?

even *he* understands that nations cannot be allowed to violate ceasefire agreements and UN resolutions without impunity

and which is why he voted for the resolution

Voting to internationally liberate Kuwait is wrong, but voting to unilaterally conquer Iraq for no reason is right?

Reasonable people will not support this. Kerry has a lot of explaining to do if he doesn't want to lose all of his votes to Clark.

As I said in the other thread, there are 6 million ways to die, more ways to kill people and inflict pain and grief.

Death sucks whether you starve, whether you are bombed, whether you are murdered by the state, etc. etc. etc.

which caused the death of thousands of Iraqi children, but Walt will compromise on *That* because they weren't killed for oil (even though they were)

I mean "ok" yes it was most likely oil but still we helped kuwait , and iraq had actually Invaded kuwait. it was a legal intervention.

Hill and Knowlton, Kuwaiti incubators, Nayirah, and St Petersburg Times satellite photos of the Saudi-Iraqi border. Then see how you feel about Gulf War I. It was a GHWB production, engineered with the help of an extraordinarily stupid tyrant and a gullible US public.

Kerry didn't fall for it, but Dean did.

is mind boggling -- Biden is suffering cognitive dissonance and his ego just can't let him admit he was wrong. Biden is a has been loser.

Tweet... :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Biden isn't interested in selling the positive agenda of John Kerry, but in tearing Democrats like Dean and Kucinich down! And he doesn't give a shit if he alienates every primary supporter that they win in the process, because in his DINO view shrub has already won the next election.

Is this the beginning of a one party state?

It is said that the Nazis won power because the Social Democrats surrendered their principles to a bunch of corrupt business interests, causing the liberals to turn toward the weaker Communist party as their only remaining political outlet. This allowed the Nazis to divide the moderates and the liberals, then once in power, to create Hitler's one party Nazi state.

and calling them, "Bushlite." I didn't see that as being much different from what Nader did in 2000. Except that Nader had a record as a leftist activist. Dean had a record of a centrist. Go figure.

and that is far left enough to lose. Overall Dean is a centrist aside from that issue.

I've always loved Biden and I agree with him 100% that Kerry is the right choice for America. Biden and Kerry are both dedicated, experienced liberals with outstanding national security credentials.

,strengthening domestic security at the state level,and an overhaul of US policy abroad contributing to terrorism,with a strong policy of support for a Palestinian state---- HOW is this "weak on terrorism?"

I guess you're here to repeat Rovisms instead of reading up on Howard Deans actual positions.