Gary Hart, posted one more time

for those who keep claiming they never saw it, even though it has been posted many times.

When Hart decided not to run, he was asked about the candidates, but he only mentioned two who lacked the right stuff on foreign policy - Dean and Lieberman.


>>>>>

While resisting a request to handicap the remaining contenders for the White House, the former Colorado senator offered these observations about some still in the field:
>>>.
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, lacks crucial defense or foreign policy experience.
Joe Lieberman, U.S. senator and former vice presidential candidate, is making a futile appeal to the "amorphous middle" by parroting Bush policies.
>>>>>
Dean, the former Vermont governor, is so inexperienced on defense and foreign relations that before his first trip to Israel in January, he called Hart and said, "Gary, what do I do?" Hart said.
>>>>
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E64%257E1373786,00.html

This was the original link, but, the story is now available for purchase at the Denver Post website.

is talking about. I like the guy, but not sure if he should have thought this out a little first.

Few people on this planet have a greater grasp of foreign policy than Gary Hart.

Ignore Hart's warnings if it suits you. Bush and Cheney certainly did.

is automatically an idiot? Elliot Spitzer, Tom Vilsack, Joe Biden, 9 out of 10 strategists and pollsters..

they don't know jack shit about elections

Getting the better deal costs your vote. Who was willing to pay that price?

either Hart's description should be taken at face value, or not.

It happens - I've been "got" more than a few times myself.

I do know that he knows that those doing the negotiating were always going to pay with their votes. Hart is perfectly familiar with the inner workings of the Senate and the White House.

However, RIF never manages to address Hart's warning about Dean. Instead he switches the focus.

This is Hart's o-p-i-n-i-o-n. There's a long list of Governors that became President and did just fine on the FP issue. On the biggest foreign policy issue of our day, Dean got it right. Kerry got it wrong. That's a pretty good foreshadowing of things to come, imo.

Dean wasn't negotiating.

It was right for Kerry and others to force Bush to present evidence to the UN. To get further inspections. To prevent the invasion of Iran and Syria after the fall of Baghdad.

If NO Dem had bothered to do that, then you would know what a REAL blank check looks like.

btw...if you are so sanctimonious about Kerry's position then you must be supporting Kucinich, heh?

I'm not saying that Kerry didn't have an effect on the phrasing of the IWR. I know that he helped limit the scope to Iraq specifically. I'm thankful for that. However, the references to the UN are suggestions in the IWR and requirements in Biden-Lugar. Absent that requirement, Kerry should have voted "No." But I'll reiterate that Kerry was a big part in limiting the scope of the war. I just wish he had gone a step further and made the UN vote tie to the resolution. The IWR didn't really tie Chimp's hands because US forces were still weeks away from being deployable at the time of the vote. Chimp frittered that time away by going through the Dog-and-Pony show at the UN, unhindered by mandates in the IWR.

.Kerry wanted more, too. But, Gep saw no further concessions from Bush and threw in the towel. Kerry was on that team, and it cost him.

Why didn't he change his vote after he was undercut?

Besides, Powell assured them personally that war was a last resort. Kerry was still part of a team. He is more of a man of process and honor than many want to give credit.

Blast from that past. Clinton weighs in at the end of the article. He was in line with Kerry all the way through this issue. They had the same working knowledge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/27/attack/main523636.shtml
>>>>>>
Three other Democratic senators, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, told Powell the White House was asking Congress for unprecedented backing.

The senators did not question a need to get tough with Iraq for blocking U.N. weapons inspections for nearly four years and refusing to disarm.

But they said the congressional resolution the president proposed was far too broad.

For instance, Sarbanes said, it would authorize force against Iraq for refusing to return Kuwaiti prisoners held since the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91.

Kerry told Powell "you are asking for blanket authority" and Feingold said "we are hearing shifting justifications for using force in Iraq."

Powell tried to placate them, saying the Bush administration was unlikely to use force except if Iraq continued to refuse to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.
>>>>>

23 Dem Senators vote "No?" Did they not buy Powell's bullshit?


And a question for the record. Were you for or against the Iraq war?
If you were for it, I understand. If you were against it, why are you spending so much energy defending it?

In a subsequent interview with Salon, Hart elaborates on his unheeded suggestion. In discussions with Senate Democrats -- the only one he'll name is presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a potential rival for the 2004 presidential nomination -- Hart was adamant that the Democrats step to the plate.

"I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'" Hart says. "If the United States had offered that in the U.N. after Resolution 1441, the Security Council would have bought it. As an alternative to war it would have been very attractive. And it would have completely tied his hands."


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart/

while Kerry was still holding out.

So....Hart was still right, and Kerry was still right, and Kerry was still stuck paying for what they did achieve with his vote.

btw...Hart said a couple months ago that Kerry is the most qualified candidate to be president. He said so loud and clear at a Cspan forum featuring Hart, Blumenthal, Crowley and Rollins, hosted by Harold Evans. He also happens to be advising Kerry's team now.

Care to comment now on Hart's warning about Dean?

Geppy jumped the gun and undercut negotiations....in the HOUSE. How does that make the IWR vote right? Holding out? Me confused.

I'm absolutely shocked that Kerry's friend and campaign adviser supports him! Shocked, I tell you!

As for Hart's warning about Dean, who was on the right side of the Iraq issue? It speaks volumes.

Dean was on the Biden-Lugar side of the Iraq issue. Which had the SAME reasons for authorizing use of force as the IWR.

B-L did NOT have the same text.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary.–Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that-

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or

Would Chimp have tried to sidestep this, too? Probably. But it required a show of imminent threat and/or a VOTE in the security council. That's what the IWR lacked: a vote requirement. That's why they are two different beasts.

Bush would have met the minimum requirement of B-L, too.

Of course they didn't have the exact same text, they were different versions. But their reasons were the same - Use of force to disarm Iraq.

And the UN voted for a two-step resolution. Part one: inspections. Part two: If inspections are foiled, as vote to authorize force.

With the IWR, Chimp was allowed to skip the "Show their cards" vote.

With B-L, he wouldn't have been able to and would have had to negotiate further. A successful vote would probably have involved European forces and European contracts in Iraq.

See the difference?

Would the results have been different? They circumvented every way they could and had the press cheerleading their points.

But, you want to make disingenuous political points to turn it into Kerry's fault.

it has been taken over by Deaniacs.

http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/blog/archives/000023.php

.

then the world. mwa-ha-ha-ha

I bet Garys not going to be getting as many pesky calls for advice after this statement.

I am shocked that when Dean called him for advice before his first trip to Isreal he actually asked him what do I do? He was asking a respected Dem. foreign policy expert his opinion, how else should he have asked for advice? Would it have been better if he had called and said Gary, tell ya what I'm gonna do.

that Hart. I think it says a lot that Dean asked the opinion of someone he respected only to get stabbed in the back by someone who went on to "advise" someone else's campaign. Bad form, Gary.

Bush and Cheney thought the same thing.

Hart should go away and not do the right thing for his country.

Also, I'm almost positive that the actual quote is: "Gary, what do you think I should do?" Not "Gary, what do I do?"

btw...You have a link for the quote you THINK happened?

Do you have a link as to whether Hart was paraphrasing or directly quoting?

Besides, what do you care? You only have eyes for Dean, so surely Hart must be an amateur mind to anyone who serves at the altar of Howie.

I don't see any major news in Hart's statement, we all know Dean lacks experience in foreign policy. I still happen to believe that a man who has the proper approach to it but lacks polish will be far better than one who "knows the ropes" but has plain old bad policy ideas.

I'm not a "Deanie-weenie" or whatever the phrase du jour is but he'll do. All he needs to do is surround himself with people who are strong in that area and let's get busy.

Dean/Clark....but that's just my opinion....If I have to take Clark as a VP......I guess I could deal.

I wish Hart had run......why not? The more the merrier!