Deleted message

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

With a multilateral coalition. Not the way bush did it, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of our Soldiers!

It was WRONG!

1. If he was warning for years, he was warning against a threat that has not existed for a while now, thus adding to the cacaphony. If there was data available to contradict those warnings, his credibility would be less at stake than it is now if he had followed that data.

2. His campaign should not be, "I was fooled." It should be "I was lied to."

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

(about WMD) then he lied to me personally."

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to decide whether the nation goes to war. The founding fathers did not want any one individual to have that power because of the potential for abuse.

Kerry should not have "empowered" the president. That's not consistent with Constitutional principles. It's Congress that must have the final say. Kerry could have empowered the president by saying simply, "When the president asks for a vote, I'll take that request seriously. Saddam should know this is his last chance." Instead, he jumped to the vote. And he was wrong. So it goes.

We can spin Kerry night and day, but the sad truth is he voted to give Smirk the authority to invade Iraq. I got his emails from last fall justifying his vote. Many of us faxed emailed and phoned Kerry and others to try to give them the counter-vailing view.

He was watching his political barometer and it was wrong.

based on your writings regarding the illegal, immoral Iraq war-which i agree with 110 %, i cant see how you support Kerry ?........Kerry lost me on that issue.

I can only guess its because you think Kerry has the best chance to win the general election. Im a Dean supporter, but im starting to give Kerry a second look. Kerry is an internationalist, which is a pretty good thing right about now......Howard needs to articulate his middle east/I-P policy, its making me a little nervous.

IMHO, that's the deal.

"Kerry is an internationalist, which is a pretty good thing right about now" is also important.

im starting to give Kerry a second look, i dont necessarily agree he gives us the best chance to win, Dean has energized the base about 100 times more, Kerry also can be painted/smeared as a northeastern liberal, just as easily as Dean.

Im starting to be concerned Gorossman, the former head of AIPAC, is influencing Dean's foreign policy views quite a bit. Thats not going to get America back on the right track, Kerry on the other hand is much more likely to follow international law and go through the UN.........ie) he is a known commodity. Dean got my support because he went after Junior and the neo-con cabal when all of the other Dems(other than DK) were too chicken shit to say a peep. It paid off big time for Dean, which is the real "poll". I think its useful to question murky -unstated stances by Dean, to flesh them out..........if we question it, he is much more likely to address this issue.

How does a Senator decide that. There *was* intelligence indicating Saddam was continuing with behavior that would indicate he was building weapons. Manufacturing huge amounts of chlorine for instance. Rebuilding sites that had traditionally only been used for weapons development. Seeking uranium from an African country (keep reading). Senator Kerry clearly believed this intelligence and supported confronting Saddam because of it. He did not support war because of imminent threat, war for the purpose of regime change, or anything else along those lines. He only support the threat of force in order to get inspectors back into Iraq and enforce UN disarmament resolutions.

On the point of the uranium, he was lied to. To what extent other claims that he believed were actually lies, only he can state. It is unfortunate that the campaign rhetoric by some is making the lies difficult to investigate.

On the other hand, there is the rest of the intelligence which appears to be just plain wrong. What it said and how it was interpreted to and by Congress is critical. Was Kerry and the rest of Congress fooled by it and if so why? And does he care enough about the country to put the investigation of the intelligence before his Presidential campaign?

I've read all of his statements and believe that his views are the most coherent and consistent of anyone's. To just dismiss Saddam Hussein is actually a bit ridiculous. But allowing the Administration to launch a war on lies and manufactured intelligence is more dangerous than not dealing with Saddam Hussein. I really hope he decides to take this on the way he has other investigations in the past. No matter what it does to his Presidential campaign.

have blood on their hands...

...(and their tutu's)

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

Im sure we all have some kind of blood on our hands in some way shape or form. Heck its our tax money being used to fund this war. Kerry's vote was the best vote to make for him, for the party, and for the left. The world isnt good an evil. I thought only republicans were silly enough to push that kind of a simplistic view.

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

vote for the War Resolution?

I heard his speech on October 10, 2002. I heard his vote on October 11, 2002.

KERRY VOTE FOR THE WAR RESOLUTION!

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

have happened and what did happen as a consequence of the War Resolution vote.

Use whichever word makes you feel better. Kerry vote YES for the War Resolution.

He most certainly did have a choice. No one was holding a gun to his head. His constinuents begged him to vote NO.

Kerry voted YES for the War Resolution. No pretty words are going to change that fact.

like "resolution = slaughter"

he did not know that the war he voted for would result in the slaughter of Iraqis?

WTF, did he think those bombs were filled with, jello?


The fact is Kerry voted for the war for one reason, to cover his ass in the election so republicans couldn’t accuse him of being unpatriotic. He didn’t care one bit about the people who would die or the power his frat brother would abuse... he cared only about his own career.

but if you want to know who I think is stupid, PM me, and I'll tell you.

Re-read my post.

And they shall forever be conscience free!


The truth is there was a "slaughter" and it was voted on in the House and the Senate!

And most of us participated in the Protests of that vote and that Attack! And we shall never forget being ignored for bush.

Don't you understand that those stuck doing the negotiating to prevent the real blank check that Bush wanted HAD to support the resolution? The other Senators know this and will not blame those doing the negotiating. They know how government works and know that those Dem lawmakers were getting the better bill for ALL of us....and the rest of the world.

Is he a fool?

I have heard this from him as well. Well if thats the case why give
did he give bush a blank check to wage war ? Does he not know better???

There was no UN mandate in the bill he voted for!!!

Is he a just damn fool? Is that his lame excuse??

As a constituent of his I begged and pleaded for him to vote no as well as many others. He knew damn well what that vote was about.

What he did'nt know was how wrong he was to vote for it. Now he is paying for it and I am quite happy to see him squirm and slither.

IMHO Kerry is nothing but another political hack that holds his finger to what he thinks is the wind and makes strategic decisions based on what direction he thinks it will blow. There is no personal integrity here. No standing up for what is RIGHT OR JUST!!!! Iraq was not a threat and the whole friggin world knew it ..How could he not?

Whatever the reason for his vote it highlights his cluelessness.

Ill be damned if I ever vote for him a again.





---------------------------------
2. His current explanation of the vote is not "I was fooled". It's "I voted to give the president backbone to give Saddam an ultimatum and to use the U.N. as a vehicle to disarm the Iraqi regime, but the president bungled the diplomacy." (My paraphrase)

according to Scott Ritter, Iraq was not a threat after 1991 including all the years up to 1998. Even then, after the inspectors were kicked out....AH, AH,....just kidding..after they LEFT before Operation Desert Fox, Ritter claimed that Saddam was not the threat PNAC made him out to be...So there were open sources that these Senators could have gone to that were counter-balancing what PNAC was claiming. I mean I'd take Scott Ritter's knowledge over a hellbent-on-war organization planning an Iraq invasion before the election machines were put away.....

Kerry is doing nothing more than CYA at this point and I ain't buying his "excuses"

It turns out Saddam was the paper tiger PNAC always knew he was but claimed otherwise to advance their imperialist-fascist agenda. End of story.

Right on the nose - You're a winner!

Ding ding ding...

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

?

trust it just because it's in the NYT!

My take on it is that Saddam was seen by the Clinton administration to be a stabilizing force within Iraq itself and a buffer to the still potentially dangerous Islamic state of Iran....Iraq was to be disarmed but not completely. A kick-ass-and-take-names kind of guy like Ritter was nice to have in a war, but maybe a pain in the ass when it came to the give and take geo-political post-war Middle East situation. A Marine tasked with disarming Iraq rightfully believed that THAT meant DISARMING Iraq, this may have flown in the face at various times as to the shifting policy towards Iraq that was the 1990's.

I believe Ritter, after leaving UNSCOM must have had an epiphany, as many of us do once we leave the military and begin to read and see things that you normally are not exposed to. I can't say for sure but maybe he put 2 and 2 together. He seen the effect the sanctions had on the people for all those years and the recurring bombing campaigns in the "NO-FLY ZONES" and the radical turn in policy with the incoming administration.

They were on the same page then.

Sept 3 1998
http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

SEN. BROWNBACK: And yet you were stopped on two occasions. In your opinion, in the absence of a robust inspection regime, how quickly could Iraq restart its weapons of mass destruction program?

MR. RITTER: Iraq has -- in my opinion, within a period of six months, simply put. Six months.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Do you have any information as to whether they are continuing with it to even today?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. BROWNBACK: You do?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. BROWNBACK: What's your opinion about that continuation of their weapons-of-mass-destruction program today?

MR. RITTER: They're -- Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.

Iraq obviously, as we see with our own eyes now, did not have the capability to reconstitute a damn thing.

Is Scott Ritter an 'open source(s) that these Senators could have gone to that were counter-balancing what PNAC was claiming' Did you mean it when you said 'I mean I'd take Scott Ritter's knowledge over a hellbent-on-war organization planning an Iraq invasion before the election machines were put away.'

Just what were you trying to say about Scott Ritter and the available information in October of 2002? I really don't understand.

If Kerry was wrong for that, so was Dean.

so Dean can say anything he wants now.

The fact that Kerry had to vote didn’t mean he had to vote FOR the war.

and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it

wanted him to vote yes?



Dean was on the right side of this issue without regard for polls... are you saying that Kerry simply voted based on what direction the political winds were blowing that day?


You're making my point for me that Kerry has no spine and voted to cover his ass, not to do what was right.

Instead of responding to what I said, you cover your ass and keep trying to put words in my mouth

as a way of defending Kerry voting for war while Dean openly opposed it.


SO I want to know are you saying Kerry only voted for war because he did have to answer to his constituents?

Keep trying.

"Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it"



And Kerry did have to answer to his constituents... so is that why he voted for war?

IF that's not what you are saying, then tell me what you are saying when you claim that "Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it"

Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it.

Which word are you having trouble with?

Dean's position was clear and consistant and based on objecting to what was clearly an unjust war.

How does Dean or Kerry's constituents change the war being right or wrong?

the question was, to whom and how much of an immanent threat.

Dean has been clear that we need to take actions to disarm Iraq, but that we need to do so through the UN and robust inspections because the threat that Saddam posed was to his neighbors and it wasn’t immanent.

Kerry on the other hand sound like one of those PNAC jerks claiming that Saddam is 30 seconds from dropping a nuke on Manhattan.

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

And Dean has stayed consistant with his statement, while Kerry voted for a war based on the claim that saddam was an immanent threat.

including 23 Democratic Senators Kerry wouldn't stand with, why couldn't Kerry, the dude who claims we don't need a foreign policy "learning curve," figure it out?

A: Political whoring. I bet Kerry likes watching the White Sox at US Sell-Your-Soul Field.

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

That's the point. Other folks in congress knew it and stood up to vote against W's war. But Kerry did not.

So either Kerry supported this war or he voted for it to cover his ass.

Don't forget, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply." They didn't do that for kicks. The world did not think Bush was lying in October 2002.

Oct 8 2002 - Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, to the National Assembly

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2002/raffarin101002.asp

First point: Iraq indisputably presents a potential threat to the region’s security. Admittedly, she’s not the only country where the issue of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction arises. But she’s the one on which, because of her past conduct – especially since the Gulf War – the international community has imposed the most restrictive obligations. We can’t forget that Iraq didn’t hesitate to use chemical weapons against her own people, and also against Iran, when use of these weapons is prohibited by the international conventions. The investigations carried out by the United Nations after the liberation of Kuwait revealed previously unsuspected nuclear and biological programmes. They exposed flagrant concealment of these activities.

The nearly four-year absence of the United Nations inspectors has intensified the uncertainties regarding the actual state of the programmes for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So our concern is legitimate. With her delaying tactics and evasion, Iraq has too long defied the will of the Security Council. In addition to the risks of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction this entails, the authority of the Security Council, keystone of the international security system, is at stake. This situation can’t go on.

Dean said that he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt". To this day, Dean has still NOT said that Bush* was lying. If Kerry is wrong on this, then so was Dean.

And assume you just had bad intelligence, and were not lying when you said that Dean has not called bush on his lying.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7147&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

DEAN TO PRESIDENT BUSH: "IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH."
Friday July 25, 2003
By: Press Office

"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent."

And at the same time, Dean was saying that we should find out who "misled Bush*".

that W had not mode the case for war.



And obviously someone misled Bush... bush is a fucking moron. You don't think he doctored the intel himself, do you? No he just said what he keepers told him to say.

Now spin that

before we accuse Bush of lying, we need to make sure he knew the info was false.

When we knew Bush knew the info was false, then DEan accused him of lying to the US.

and if he had thought that, then he was being dishonest.

When we knew Bush knew the info was false, then DEan accused him of lying to the US.

You mean AFTER Kerry publicly stated that "Bush* misled", Dean played catch-up.

when Kerry was voting for the war as if Bush had.


SO please cite the date Kerry changed his position and accused Bush of lying.

and he didn't say that Bush* was lying.

LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.



Clearly Dean is holding back on accusing the president of outright dishonesty until there was proof that W did know the info was false.

giving whistle-ass carte-blanche, didn't he? i'm hard pressed to care what his reasons were. does he lie awake in bed at night thinking about all the dead?

c'mon! either our sons should be dying in iraq or they shouldn't.

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

Nice editing out of context

The quote again

"There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case."

People here have criticized Kery because he believed that Saddam was a threat because Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's. Both Kerry and Dean believed that Saddam was a threat, but they only criticize Kerry for it, and not Dean.

If their criticism was based on Kerry's thinking that the threat was "immediate" (which Kerry never said) while Dean did not, then the part about the immediacy of the threat would be relevant. Because the criticism is based on Kerry's believing that Saddam was a threat, and that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's, comments about the immedidacy of the threat are not pertinent.

The bottom line is that that's what happens when you rely on propoganda like "voted for war" and "blank check", etc. When you resort to slogans and rhetoric, you lose the ability to make subtle distinctions. Though there are differences between Dean and Kerry's Iraq stance, they are not as incomparable as some would make it out to be.

Dean was clear over and over again that he did not see Saddam as an immediate threat to the US, or to his neighbors.

Kerry said pretty much the same thing.

Then Kerry voted for this war that was prefaced on the lie that Saddam was an immediate threat.

Dean did not.

See the difference?

Both agreed Saddam was a bad man who did have to be dealth with. But Dean felt we could contain him and disarm him through the UN. Kerry felt we needed to invade and take over right now.

Kerry's actions were not consistant with his words...

He just sat on his ass and said what he wanted to do, but couldn't, because he never had to.

since when is one only allowed an opinion if they have a vote?


And Dean was far from sitting on his ass... he was all over the place speaking out against the war and saying Bush had not made the case for war.

How does Dean not having to vote change anything?

and was saying that "Saddam is a threat"

Dean said Saddam was a threat to the region, not to the US and as such the UN needed to deal with Saddam, and the US had no business attacking unilaterially?


Do you think the posters here are too stupid to see you are editing quotes and lying about Dean's stated positions?

and did not say Bush* was lying. He wouldn't say that until after Kerry showed him how it's done.

until then nothing you say has any credibilty at all. You just keep repeating the same lies and edited quotes.

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

.

proves how dishonest your position is. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, but not the US. We had no business invading Iraq.

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

You left out the part where Dean says "Right now, in my view, SADDAM IS A THREAT"

Then I quoted the whole thing in the body of the post.

Why are you lying and saying i did not post this?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=239647&mesg_id=242886&page=

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

That's what Dean said

This is what DEan said, and the fact you have to edit out the part about THE REGION proves you know your position is weak and dishoenst.


"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

and at the end of the day, i hope he agonizes as much as the mothers of the dead. pro-war/anti-war is indeed black and white for me. i am a mother of only sons, and a buddhist.

i'm not a deany-baby by a long shot. in fact, the followers of dean scare me! but unless kerry can step up to the plate and offer some kind of real apology... :shrug:

We have a passion for our candidate because we believe he is the
best one to lead us out of this mess that the bushitistas have gotten us into.

I'm not a ABB person! I don't want just anybody! I want a real person to be our President in 2005! :kick:

You can be a little scarey :evilgrin:

Its that Dean Kool-aid.

didn't mean i was skeered 'o you! i admire your passion, and your commitment, and i wish you the best. i'm just not all that on dean's boat...y'know?

a "Bushlike" mentality? I know many of these posters here are a lot wiser than that. As for me, I'm seeing lots of gray to work with on the question of Kerry's vote, but then, I've been an open minded Dem for a long time now.

meant by "black and white"!

You either drop the bomb or you don't!

You either strike with those cluster bombs or ya don't.

You either lie or you don't!

I was refering to that particular post. Kerry made a difficult decision after careful consideration. If it was up to Kerry, Hans Blix would stiil be in Iraq looking for WMD instead to the "Bush Doctrine" invasion.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Bush is the one who lied. His minions pressure the sheeple to think in terms of "black and white".

"You're either with us or with the terrorist" I was never for this invasion or occupation but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

is that other senators and congresspersons voted against the resolution. They were just as concerned for the safety of their country as was Kerry. He looked at the evidence, weighed the politics and decided to vote in favor of the resolution. Others did the same thing and voted "no". Now, Kerry has to say that he was correct in his vote, here's why, and that's that; or he has to say that he was wrong and he regrets the vote and her's why. It's one of the two.

Every politician is not right all the time. If he has changed his views between then and now, he needs to articulate it better than he has. If he was right back in Oct. 2002, he needs to state that and move on.

Kerry had warned of the danger from Saddam for many years. He was on record in the late 90's advocating for the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. Short of using his vote to send a purely political message to Bush, how could he maintain his credibility and vote AGAINST the resolution?

when lives are at stake, let alone the future of our nation, how dare any decision-maker think for even one second about something petty like his personal "credibility" ??? any senator who'd put his "credibility" above the national good, is not worthy of the title. and certainly not someone i'd trust with greater power.

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

they would all make horrible political mistakes and lose elections and not be there to fight the battles.

We seriously have to stop villianizing our politicians for doing their jobs. I would love as much as the next guy to live in a utopia where politicians didnt worry about getting elected and the electorate voted intelligently and rationally. But we dont. If we want things to change we need to let our politicians play the game and not get on thier backs when they do.

Published on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes
by Stephen Zunes

In a cynical effort to take advantage of Americans’ post-9/11 fears, Kerry went on to claim that “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.”

Despite repeated calls to his Senate office, no one on Kerry’s staff has been able to answer my questions as to what happened to all these alleged Iraqi weapons and delivery systems that supposedly threatened our national security.

In the months prior to the U.S. invasion, rather than challenging the lies of the Bush Administration, Senator Kerry rushed to its defense, claiming that “The President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.”

The reality, however, was that President Bush’s case was incredibly weak and was repeatedly challenged by leading arms control experts, including current and former UN inspectors.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

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

or hear...I would have to investigate it further.

Then giving Bush the authority to invade whenever he felt like it was innappropriate. Bush didn't need that authority to get Iraq to allow inspectors.

And five months after the vote Kerry supported the war, even though Bush cut short inspections (which were working and had turned up nothing!), and despite the UAV claim being discredited by inspectors, and the niger documents being exposed as forgeries, and no evidence of a nuclear program, and Bush being scared to get a final UN vote, and Powell's lame evidnece (using OBL condemning Saddam as proof tht they were working together, for one instance), Kerry was apparently convinced that an invasion was okay, as he clearly stated during the SC debates, even though he didn't like the way Bush went about it. To me, that is unacceptable.

Kerry screwed up, that's all there is to it. All his attempts at justification for his position just end up infuriating me.

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

It clearly works against the argument that Dean is comparable to Kerry, and the argument that "Kerry voted for war". Like the religious fundamentalist, they will ignore that which contradicts their doctrines.

Seems to be their positions we not the same, since Kerry clearly felt there was a good reason to let BUsh kill Iraqi civilians and take over iraq, while Dean did not.

Dean said Iraq was a threat to the region, but not an immanent threat, and not a threat to the US.

Kerry seemed to beleive otherwise.

They can't address the issues you raise, so they repeat their slogans

However Kerry voted for a war that was prefaced on the lie that iraq WAS an immanent threat to the US... even after saying he did not think Iraq was an immanent threat to the US.


Dean was consistant, and Kerry was not.

but then didn't want to do anything about it. Dean has been inconsistent.

As for not wanting to do anything... he also said clearly that we need to work with the UN and not simply make a unilaterial attack.

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. "


Why are you lying like this...

If he did not believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

The claim that he did it only to give Bush the muscle to enforce the UN resolutions is nonsense since the resolution allowed Bush to go to war at any time.

and i do not mean individuals ..i mean the party as a whole..maybe we are an anti-war party..we do not believe in pre-emptive strikes and we will use our huge military and economic force in the interests of world peace and the UN is the vehicle will use..is this a possibility?

Bush is too strong, get Iraq off the table ASAP, and then focus on social programs, don't rock the boat.

Genius, wasn't it?

You can rationalize and exceptionalize all you want, but in the end Kerry had a choice. He could vote for or against authorizing what was an illegal and unnecessary war. He voted for it. This was a test of leadership, political courage and commitment to progressive principles. Kerry failed the test. It's that simple.

for the better bill? BOMBING SYRIA AND IRAN RIGHT AFTER THEY TOOK BAGHDAD.

Where would Bush's credibility be if no Dem bothered to negotiate the presentation of evidence to the UN? That requirement forced Bush to over reach and his credibility took a major hit.

And introduce a parade of horribles all you want. The choice was there. And Kerry chose wrong.

THAT was the ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

NO negotiations = A REAL blank check.

Only those completely ignorant of the way government works would demand that NO Dem lawmaker negotiate for the better option.

and still vote against the final product. Speaking of ignorance!

If Kerry was so concerned about including the international community, he could have voted against it on the grounds that the language in the resolution wasn't explicit enough.

Your attempted rationalizations are lame. Either he was in favor of granting congressional "authorization" for war, or he wasn't.

The way to get the better deal is to promise to vote for the final product. Speaking of ignorance.

and it is supposed to mean something. That's why they are the ones in a position to say that they were lied to. Why do you think Bushies are frantic to make Iran and Syria APPEAR to need invading? Notice that the American people are so far not accepting that characterization.

You really think John Kerry voting for the resolution would stop the Bush junta from invading Iran or Syria? Please!

The resolution DID stop an invasion of Iran AND (not or) Syria.

You just don't understand the true nature of this administration if you think a piece of paper would stop them from doing what they want.

You admit that a No vote on the resolution wouldn't have stopped anything, and yet you insist the vote was important.

if there are more yes than no votes, it won't "stop" it. But it doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote no. If that were that case, you'd have unanimous votes on most proposals.

But it doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote no.

It also doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote yes.

So the Bush junta just melted because John Kerry said he would vote for the resolution? Ah, I don't think so.

The Bush* junta's plan to invade Iran and Syria was stopped by the resolution, which originally included approval for Bush* to invade ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS. If Dems like Kerry and Daschle hadn't been willing to compromise and vote for a resolution, then the original resolution, the one that included approval for Bush* to invade ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS, would've been passed by the Republican majority, resulting in our soldiers being killed in several Arab nations, and not just one.

YOU want to make it black and white. That kind of thinking is what KILLS real progressivism.

In the end, it was an either/or proposition. Is that not the truth?

There is always a third option.

I do not.

And Kerry folded and voted for war to cover his own ass.

Kerry voted for war in Iraq. He voted to turn over congress' authority to Bush.

There is no excuse. There is no rationalization.


Are you actually trying to defend his actions by saying that Kerry voted to only let bush kill Iraqi civilians and take over Iraq?

That's like saying that if I want to kill your whole family, and some cop bargains me down to just killing your mother by offering to let me use his gun to do it, that the cop's actions were responsible and honorable.

for your understanding and concern.

The dissolved UN would have thanked you as well.

So the UN would have been dissolved if Kerry stood up and voted NO on this war?

LOL! Now you're just desperate BLM.

full court press the rightwing was playing against the UN and its "relevance" at the time?

Sorry to hear you're having memory problems. To refresh...the right has been working to dissolve the UN for over a decade. Every move they were making during the Iraq talk was meant to undermine the UN.

Remember all those polls on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox asking if the UN has lost its relevance? Do you think those polls were written in a vacuum with no intent of purpose?

it wasnt even a vote for war. You people who are demonizing him for this vote are the ones who are failing progressive principles. You are furthering the republican control of this country with simplistic black and white views, unfair judgements based on hindsight, and a complete inability to recognize that to work towards our ideals we have to work with the system and our fellow Americans. But I suppose some people relish the opportunity to sit with thier pure ideals and pass judgement on people who actually have done something to make this country more progressive.

And many of us haven't heard satisfactory answers...or good campaigning answers either...

I completely agree with Will, that if Kerry's point of view is genuinely that he was fooled...he should be saying he was lied to...who wants a President that can be fooled so easily?

And it seems to me if it wasn't a vote to go to war...Kerry should have been front and center screaming when we actually went to war...I didn't vote for this! This war is wrong!!

Did he?

Kerry's job is not to be an outspoken progressive voice. There is a reason Dennis Kucinich is a long shot. While there is a strong progressive faction in the party, an extreme left winger is not going to win the general election. Not only that but an extreme left winger can not win many other national elections.

The party needs people like kucinich and the progressive caucus. The fact that he is in this race is excellent, but as extreme liberals we have to recognize that in order to advance our ideas we have to work with the rest of the country. We also need people like Kerry who dont go out screaming about things. Who the non progressives in this country can relate to.

Even now after its been clearly shown that this war was a complete farce, how many people still think we did the right thing? An aweful lot. We need democrats who are good politicians. Who compromise and act in moderation. If every democratic politician was an extreme leftist, we would have no party. Kerry is a politician. He is a liberal, but he is a smart and experienced politician. We need smart and experienced politician who can hold offices and win presidencies. Every single one of the current contenders took the same route pre-war, even dean. It was really the only viable political stance to take.

We have to face the facts that calling Bush a liar is going to put people off our candidate. We have to let our guys be free to be politicians. The country is currently entirely conservatively controlled. Right now we need to win elections. Lets get democrats in office, then we can work in the party to push more progressiveness. The only way we can work to improve this country is by working with the system, not cursing the system and abandoning democrats because they work in it.

Kerry's personal feelings are not an issue. It doesnt matter if he thought Bush was lying. He has to make decisions based on waht is going to result in the best outcome for himself, his constituancy, and the democratic party. I think he did and continued to make the right decision. He is now in a great position to pounce on Bush. He has positioned himself on the war issue exactly with the voters we need to get to win this election. The people who trusted our president, bought into the propaganda, supported the war, but now are slowly coming around. These people will not relate to someone who is screaming about lies and a wrong war. They will relate to someone who can say "I, like you trusted our president, but like you I now know that I was mislead" Thats who swing voters are going to vote for.

The strong anti-war people need to realize that moral indignation isnt going to accomplish anything. Lets put the man who is most likely to win the general election in office, and make this country a whole lot better.

"Kerry's personal feelings are not an issue. It doesnt matter if he thought Bush was lying. He has to make decisions based on waht is going to result in the best outcome for himself, his constituancy, and the democratic party."


And what about his obligation to the dead solders and dead civilians that he helped to kill?

and last time I checked there was not a single dead soldier when he cast this vote.

I dont know how this rumor started but let me set the record straight. JOHN KERRY IS NOT A PSYCHIC AND CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE.

I hope that clears things up for you. But im sure youd rather just use 20/20 hindsight to irrationally and unfairly judge his actions.

And being extremely against the war was an extreme position. A large majority of this country was not ardently anti-war. And the resolution he voted for called for what most americans wanted.

If Kerry did not know his vote for war would result in the deaths of US solders and Iraqi people, he is too damn stupid to serve as janitor in the capital building, let alone any elected office.

It is amazing the lengths his supporters will go to in order to defend this war monger.

and the take over of IRaq make this nation more progressive?


You want to excuse a man who voted for war, who helped his frat borther take over another nation.

Yours is the mentaility that will not hold men like Kerry responsable for their actions... and that is what helps republicans.

Bullshit. Those that opposed this unnecessary war made the same points before the war that they are making now. No "hindsight" was involved.

You may have been 100% sure before the war that saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, that he had no ties to al queda, and that after the war things would get messy and americans would start to question the war.

John Kerry had to make a decisions based on the information he had and the situation at the time. At the time he had every reason to think there was a good chance wed find weapons in Iraq. At the time there seemed a reasonable chance that this war would be popular. At the time most americans thought saddam had weapons.

there was no reason for the war. The inspection process was continuing, and there was no credible evidence that any such weapons posed a threat to the U.S.

Are you supposed to send people to die in a war on a hunch?

Bush did. I was anti-war as well. But I recognize that the war was going to happen whether the democrats voted for it or not. If kerry could have stopped the war by voting no, I would be screaming louder than any of you. But he couldnt have, he did the best thing he could in the situation, he compromised a little and maneuvered himself into a good position to defend his seat and now to battle Bush for control of this country. He did the best thing for us.

Why did Kerry vote AGAINST the first Gulf War and then vote with Bush this time?

It seems to me if he believed Saddam Hussein was a real danger (part of his reasoning for the most recent vote)...wouldn't he have voted for the first Gulf War?

This is where I sense political expediency rather than "I was fooled." It sounds to me like he was calculating both times...the first time seeking hardcore liberal support in Mass. (so voting against the war was a safe political bet)...and the second time seeking national support (so voting in favor of Bush was a safer bet)

Do I have this all wrong?

The first vote was out of principle. The second out of political expediency.

The reason he voted against the first war is not because he didn't think Saddam should be brought down, but, because Bush1 did not make the case to the American people.

I'm still lost...

The American people were more willing to give Bush2 the benefit of the doubt.

I echo posts 67 and 69. No case was made when a sovereign country was invaded. But a case was made on disputed and, as it turns out, falsified intelligence.

Give me a break!

exactly. Votes No on first Gulf War where there was enough reason at the time to believe Saddam had invaded Kuwait (now there is evidence that maybe even that war was based on false info.) but votes no for that on and then votes yes for this one when even we here thought the information was "sexed up" or false. And, Robert Byrd day after day on the Senate floor was tell ing them.........He didn't listen. And, if Graham had problems with the intelligence leading up to "Invasion" why didn't Kerry?

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

If he truly voted his conscience both times...I think I disagreed with him twice on very important issues...and a lot of us here did as well.

It sounds like Kerry is trying to excuse the second vote in his campaign.

I will give him points for having the guts to do it if he stands up and says voting with Bush was a vote of conscience, but I will vehemently disagree with his decision.

Prompted by your post, I went back to read more closely Kerry's speech from last October...and was particularly interested in this section:

"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. "



I disagree with John Kerry's decision that speaking with "one voice" was more important than continuing to oppose a Bush administration about which he admittedly had grave concerns.

I disagree that he was "the first to speak out" when the Bush administration failed much of what Kerry said they should be held to...even his final part about acting with allies at our side...are Australia, the UK, and Spain good enough as allies for John Kerry? I disagree.

For me, a close reading of his statement even more firmly puts me in Howard Dean's camp.

the first to speak out about what's now gone wrong in Iraq. And, speaking with "one voice" made us Dems and those who didn't vote with him look like they were "traitors to their party." Byrd was a "traitor" to his party because he raised questions and tried to amend the vote......Levin was a "traitor" because he tried to amend the resolution prior to the vote......the party didn't speak with one voice but,Kerry's vote yes made it look like he wanted that one voice for himself as a road to the Presidency.

Some of us cannot accept his reasoning. And, so it's our consciences that have made us seek a candidate who will address what we felt when we were being called traitors as we held our signs in protest against this "Invasion."

Go on record and state that YOU would prefer NO Democrat negotiate for any option.

State that you prefer Bush not include the UN at all. And that Bush NOT be prevented from invading Iran and Syria, too.

Go ahead. Because THAT was the reality faced by those lawmakers stuck doing the negotiating with the White House.

.

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

1). The evidence was to the contrary and he chose to ignore it. Not wise.
2). He trusted the president and the president "fooled him". Not wise.
3). Except Dean said the case wasn't made and wouldn't endorse the vote. It doesn't matter what kerry said, it is what he did.


What more do you want?

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

1).The "evidence" was a load of manure, remember? Bush wanted his 911 fifteen minutes extended and there were agendas that coincided--It was Kerry's responsibility to make a reality check and do the job he was elected to do instead of letting the old man, Byrd plea out there alone. In addition, and I don't know how many times I've repeated this, Kerry was given the opportunity to redeem himself and sign on the Kennedy-Byrd second resolution- when it was UNDENIABLE that it was all going wrong and Bush stayed on right on his intended schedule. Kerry refused.

2). Who didn't know the president was a bungler?

3). Whoopieedo, he warned the president not to abuse his authority.

LOL. That's pathetic, Pete. And no, I don't want some aging war hero harking back to his glory days and dreaming of heroic battles for a rise to be Commander.

No thanks.

1) Dean believed the evidence. See the Dean quotes in the initial post.

2) Dean didn't. Dean said he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

3) Dean didn't even do that

"1) Dean believed the evidence. See the Dean quotes in the initial post."

You mean the quote where he says that Saddam is not an immanent threat to the US as W was saying?


"2) Dean didn't. Dean said he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"


"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent. "

Bush said he gives Bush* "the benefit of the doubt" The only thing your quotes prove is that Dean is all over the map trying to pander and be all things to all people.

Wait until Bush* starts talking about Iran and NK. Then we'll see if you can keep defending Dean

He couldn't exactly come out of the box with a reckless charge, without setting a diplomatic tone. His subsequent comment noted that were the president lying it would indeed be very serious. Of course you took a partial quote out of context and attempted to apply it as conclusive. Deceptive.

Kerry came out and said that Bush* "misled" weeks before Dean did.

Dean wasn't fooled and neither were we.

The case was never made and Bush should be strung out to dry for it, instead of tip-toeing around it because some of the Dems have found their cynical political calculations coming back to roost.

If Dean thought Bush* was lying, he never mentioned it to anyone. He concealed what he thought, and that's lying.

Dean was very clear that Bush had not made the case for war. Then when it came out that Bush knew the intel was false, he called bush on having misled the US.

I guess you were just holding that trump card 'til last. As if it means anything. Dean is constantly challenging Bush on every level, loudly, consistantly. How many times has he repeated how each argument used as evidence in Iraq was a crock? But, I must write myself a note to contact the Dean campaign and express how Sangy would surely be one happy camper were the Doctor to actually utter the word "lie".

On military spending?
On criminal justice?
On Capital Punishment?
On right-wing judges?
School vouchers?
AA?
Gay marriage?
Palestine?

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

Dean said that saddam was a threat TO THE REGION, NOT TO THE US.


THe fact you have to edit that part out proves you know how weak and dishonest your position defending Kerry's war mongering is.

Dean said "Right now....Saddam is a threat"

You left that part out, and that proves you know how weak and dishonest your position defending Dean's pandering is.

as I said I posted the part of the statement you edited out in the subject line, then I posted the whole quote in the body of the text.

Here is the link that proves you are lying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=239647&mesg_id=242886&page=

I posted the part I wanted, just like you. The full quote is in the first post for anyone who wants to read.

This is much better than editing out the context of the events surrounding Iraq and the resolution and instead focusing on the vote only, as you dishonestly do.

then I posted the whole quote in the body of the post.

You continue to try and lie and misrepresent DEan;s position by editing out the fact he was talking about saddam being a threat to the region, not the US.

But then, lying is the only way one can defend Kerry voting to support Bush's oil war.

to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction" the day that the war started?

had been given the opportunity to complete their....mission....

HAHAH. You can't change his carefully worded statement.

first one must build the case that he has them. Inspectors--REMEMBER?????
You know, the ones Bush claimed Saddam wouldn't allow in and there was NOT A WORD in the media or from the congress about that or when Bush claimed we found the WMDs--the balloon trucks. Not. A. Word.

Given how much you and other Kerry supporters have been editing quotes and lying about what was said, i simply can;t trust you are providing an accurate quote.

I googled "dean" and "never doubted the need to disarm Saddam" and got nothing.

SO please provide a link to this quote.

Go to his statement from the day the war started. Plenty of people here posted it at the time.

please cite a link.


I searched the site for "never doubted the need" and found nothing at all. SO where can i find this exact carefully worded quote you are listing?

The closest thing I found was this... which seems to show you are lying about Dean's position.

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. "


"We need... well, I disagree with unilateral war. At this point, I don't think it's justified and I don't think the case has been made. I don't disagree with disarming Saddam. I support that. I think the proper folks to do that are the United Nations, and we should be part of that. "

He issued it the night Bush started bombing.

I doubt he said what you claim. You bashers have been lying your asses off about things Dean said, edit quotes, and outright lying.

So I want to see a link.

I can't find that quote on Dean's site or google.

If he said it and people quoted it all over as you claim, then where did it go?

Cite the quote. I think you are misquoting him and that's why it is not showing up in a term serch.

I have made about Dean.

still waiting.

Why is it removed?

I believe it was March 17, wasn't it? This is from Dean's own page of released statements articles. Nothing from March 10 to April 9?????
..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

just claim that it was removed.


If Dean said that, the quote qould not be limited to his site.

So WHERE IS IT?

Dean did not say what you claimed and your quote was wrong.

Here is Dean's statement.

Once again we see that bashers have to twist quotes and lie about context. Dean clearly says that he favors the UN disarming Saddam and that Bush's actions were wrong.

_____________________________________________________________
By Gov. Dean from deanforamerica.org March 17, 2003

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

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

Sincerely, Governor Howard Dean M.D.
________________________________________________________________

"have never been in doubt....the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

Why does that mean something different to you?

Why did the campaign take almost a month of statements and articles from that period off their site?

""have never been in doubt....the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

FOLLOWED BY... "Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war"

You tried to make is sound like Dean was supporting Bush's claims of the threat Saddam posed and supporting the war... after Dean clearly said Bush had not made the case for war, and in the part of his statement you edited out for effect, in fact had supported disarming saddam through the UN without war.

Not only did you lie about the quote, you turned around and made a point of saying how Dean carefuly choose that phrasing, when the fact is you had edited it.

And now you're lying again about this...

"Why did the campaign take almost a month of statements and articles from that period off their site?"


Here is the link to the correct statement on Dean's site. When you search for a quote that is not edited, it is easy to find.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363

I shortened it. The whole sentence was available, I connected it for the major point, but the meaning did NOT change.

This is from the archives, eh? Why isn't it with his other statements and articles? Why does Dean's page look like this:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

I was close on the quote from the top of my head, but, then shouldn't a knowledgeable Dean supporter like you have known it by heart?

You might ask yourself why Dean's campaign thought it important to remove almost a month of statements and articles from that time.

btw....I really had to dig to find it on a gay political site.

http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/March%202003/Statement%20by%20Gov.%20Howard%20Dean%20on%20the%20President's%20decision.htm

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

"I was close on the quote from the top of my head"

No you were not. You were way off, and acting as if the quote was saying that the war was justified, which is did not.

And even above you purposfully cut out the second paragraph where dean points out that he is supporting the UN disarming Saddam without war... as well as ignoring the parts about the abuse of international law and the mistreatment of alliesm.


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

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."
_______________________________________________________________


Let me know when you can defend Kerry's war support without lying about Howard Dean.

I said that he stated that he never doubted the need to remove the weapons of mass destruction.

You are trying to change the point to fit YOUR point and cover for your own ignorance. Hell...you're supposed to know everything about Dean, and you didn't even remember this statement.

And you have NO answer why the campaign scrubbed almost a MONTH of statements and articles from his site.

"I said that he stated that he never doubted the need to remove the weapons of mass destruction."


No, what you said was "Then why did Dean assert that he "never doubted the need to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction" the day that the war started?" In response to someone pointing out that bush's evidence was junk.

You cut the quote apart, removed half the sentence, and ignored the whole part about the UN, to present the quote as if Dean was agreeing with Bush's claims about WMD and supporting the war.

When what Dean was saying is that the UN needed to be in there to disarm saddam, INSTEAD of going to war.





"You are trying to change the point to fit YOUR point and cover for your own ignorance."

No, I'm calling you out for once again misrepresenting the truth to try and spin a Dean quote as sayign something it did not say.



"Hell...you're supposed to know everything about Dean, and you didn't even remember this statement."


Because what you quoted, was not what he said. Can't find a quote in a quote search when the quote is wrong.


"And you have NO answer why the campaign scrubbed almost a MONTH of statements and articles from his site."


As a matter of fact I do have an answer... YOU'RE LYING. And here's proof. Here is the link to that statement on Dean's site... the one you claim was scrubed.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363



Why are you lying like this?

I copied it exactly the way it was on the page. The statements go from March 10 to April 9.

Did they archive it so it wasn't easily accessed? Why?

And my paraphrase was the same meaning as Dean's exact words. No matter how you spin it. Dean said he was never in doubt about the need to disarm Saddam.

and wrt #3, Dean did nothing. He sat out the vote.

you first must be able to vote in the first place.


Dean was not in congress to vote, but he was clear about his objection to the vote from the get go.

I'm glad you admit that.

when you are not a member of the voting body.

and pandered

Since DEan is not in congress, he can not sit out a congressional vote.


You are again lying because you have no substantive argument to defend Kerry's war support.

and pandered

and ignore the fact that what you claim is a bold faced lie?

Dean is a hawk. He sure won't mind supporting Sharon if Sharon wants Iran and Syria invaded.

However what Dean supported was UN backed action prefaced on there being an immanent threat.

2. His current explanation of the vote is not "I was fooled". It's "I voted to give the president backbone to give Saddam an ultimatum and to use the U.N. as a vehicle to disarm the Iraqi regime, but the president bungled the diplomacy." (My paraphrase)


Kerry had to have known--because most of us at DU knew--that the Military Force Authorization was essentially a blank check from the Congress to the White House to wage whatever war in whatever way it wanted. True, there is a section mentioning "support" for the "pres"'s diplomatic actions, but the authorization essentially says, do what you will, Bush. We wash our hands of it. How could Kerry not see that that was what he was voting for. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the legislation:

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001152.html


Here is the text of H. J. RES. 114 JOINT RESOLUTION passed by the House October 10:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Source: Thomas, Federal Legislation Server.

At least his supporters should be honest about that.

People at DU and elsewhere (Bob Byrd), were screaming that Bush was fabricating the evidence, and there was not sufficient reason to go to war.

A REAL blank check would have meant NO presentation of evidence to the UN which forced Bush to overreach and made a huge dent in his credibility as president.

If that is what you prefer, than be honest about it.

Following the lead of Sens. Byrd and Levin

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

Warriors are not heros to me.

Those who wage peace are.

Kerry fought in a war he didn't have to...he was not drafted, he enlisted.

He opposed a war when a sovereign nation was invaded.

He supported a war against a sovereign nation with no proof of threat against us.

Why do I have to say someone who willingly picks up a gun to kill other people is a hero?