Am I the only one who thought Kerry blew the Iran question big time?

Perhaps other people heard the question differently, but I thought Woodruff asked the following: What if you had PROOF that Iran was about to begin building NUCLEAR WEAPONS and you tried to work through the UN but the UN refused to do anything about it, would you be willing to act alone?

Ok, there were a few immediate tip offs there: First, actual PROOF. Second, NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Third, you've EXHAUSTED the diplomatic options.

So the obvious answer should have been "Yes Judy, I would. I believe in the UN as an institution, and I'd certainly expore every diplomatic option I could before taking unilateral military action. But the bottom line is, we cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. It's not in the interests of the United States, and it's not in the interests of the international community. So yes, in those circumstances, I would have no problem whatsoever acting alone.

And then you could easily go on to explain that those circumstances WEREN'T present with respect to Iraq. Bush didn't have actual proof that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. Bush didn't exhaust the diplomatic possibilities. Etc.

But what did Kerry do? Be gave the kind of answer only a bloodless technocrat could love. He disputed the premise of the question.

you may have heard, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) imposed an October 31 deadline on Iran to prove it is not secretly developing atomic weapons.

It seems that the world has mistakenly interpreted Iran's recent calm and moderate behavior on the international scene as a sign of weakness or fear. In this day and age moderation and reason no longer seem to carry any weight among international community and the only language that is respected appears to be that of force and belligerence. Countries like Israel, and N. Korea are being respectfully rewarded for their continuous breach of international norms and rules while those who have been pinning their hopes on UN and reason prevailing have either been obliterated or continue to suffer more and more day by day.

In the past couple of years countries like Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey have been receiving billions of dollars and unlimited political support for their minimal support in the fight against terrorism while Iran has been providing most of the crucial help in this regard. From supporting the Northern alliance and the new interim government in Afghanistan, to putting a leash on Lebanon's Hezbollah, to staying out of Iraq and keeping the Iraqi Shiites calm, to withholding support for Russian Chechens and Turkish Kurds, to starting a detente with the Persian Gulf countries Iran has done more than any country in the world to keep the middle east quiet and stable in the past few years. Not only Iran has not received any monitory or political recognition for its immense work in stabilizing the region and thus the price of oil and world economy, it has instead been continuously attacked and mislabeled. And now this bogus deadline to disprove a negative.

It is time for Iran to stop playing nice with these bullies. Clearly the only language that Bush Administration understands is the use of force.

IMO, Iran should give U.S., IAEA and the rest of the world an October 31 deadline to either prove beyond reasonable doubt that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or back the f.. off and apologize for their stupid move. Otherwise, Iran should pull out of IAEA and immediately cease all the political influence that it has been spending in keeping all the different volatile groups in that region quiet and thus give the world a taste of what it would be like when Iran is destabilized.

I do not want to see nuclear bombs in the hands of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas.

I don't want to see nuclear bombs in the hands of the Likud party.

I'd hate to see Los Angeles or Tel Aviv look like this: :nuke:

Of course, those evil Jews deserve it. :eyes:

Not even Bush has tried to link Iran with 9-11.

While there is much diplomatic work we can do on our part, allowing Iran to go nuclear is not an option. Millions of lives are at stake.

Ever wonder why so many people hate Israel so much?

It ain't the food.

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

And, finally, Dean's foreign policy speech at Drake. Note how one-sided it is.

When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption.

But none of this will happen naturally. The United States is the only country with the ability to give both sides the confidence to move toward a future of coexistence. Appearances matter, and if we are not engaged, it looks like we simply do not care and that we have condemned the entire Palestinian people because of their leadership. In my view, this hurts the United States, it hurts Israel, and it makes it less likely the violence and the terrorism will end.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

---

To sum up: Dean says we shouldn't "take sides" - despite promising a leader of another country unconditional financial aid (more than even Paul Wolfowitz would concede). That's 4x the military aid ($1 billion to $4 billion) and 4x the guaranteed loans ($2 billion to $8 billion). He also supports unilateral concessions from the Palestinians, and a "separation" wall that even George W. Bush has reservations about.

Now let's compare to Kerry's foreign policy speech at Georgetown:

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

n/t

A different kind of evil.

For the record, I am not a huge Palestinian sympathizer. I think both sides take horrible actions.

Israel is flying bombers into other nations and attacking them without supplying proof of the activities going on there, and rolling dozens of tanks into Gaza and indiscriminately firing machine guns into residences. That's not terrorism, though, since they all had uniforms on.

And 4x the loans, to free up their resources to buy more weapons.

Remember Pakistan? A Majority Muslim country controled by a dictator that already has the bomb.

Personally, I doubt that any country, Pakistan, Iran, etc, would allow these "terrorist" groups to have the bomb. The bomb is not a box of TNT, it is a far more dangerous and distructive thing to allow into the hands of people you cannot control, and who may either screw up, lose it, or use it against you. If a terrorist group were ever going to get a bomb, they already would have had plenty of ability to buy one or obtain the materials. Some of these groups have a great deal of funding, and the former soviet states have or had a number of these devices, as does North Korea and Pakistan. But in 20 years they have yet to obtain one. Why? I think for the very reasons above.

Personaly, I think the Iranian bomb would be in safer hands than the Pakistani bomb. The Iranian Republic is more stable than the Pakistani dictatorship which is holding on precariously to it's control over the government in the face of groups such as Al-Quida and the Taliban.

And of great concern to me is what will happen to the Israeli bombs when the government can no longer sustain a government based on constant conflict and begins to implode on itself? We can already see the cracks among Israeli jews who oppose the Lukid policy of attacking and slaughtering civilians. Maybe the Lukid will sell a bomb to some right wing evangelical christian group who will use it to to bring about armageddon and the return of Christ, for it seems that their god is neither bloodthirsty or quick enough in his return for their liking. Oh, but I am going off in the field of speculation, In reality, we currently have a government controled by the Right wing evangelical christians and we have enough nuclear warheads to snuff human life many thousand times over... And is anxously awaiting and atempting to assist the return of christ through it's forgin policy (or lack thereof). And a right wing evangelical christian controlled government that has stated it is willing to use the bomb.

Please note, my comments are not about or directed to real christians, who follow the message and example of Jesus Christ (peace be unto him). I refer to the psychopaths who use his name as a rallying point form witch to spew their veminous hate.

i think bin laden mentioned thisonce when he referred to muslims having the bomb he was talking about pakistan.

to secure the nation, THEN he challenged the question.

sufficiently vague yet still implies he would attack without actually saying he would.

Kerry seems chronically unable to give a straightforward, definitive answer. He always seem to qualify his statement, or leave himself an out. Too cute by half if you ask me.

"Sufficiently vague..."


If that doesn't say it all...:shrug:

Kerry is in favour of Iran not obtaining nuclear weapons to the point that he would attack them if there were no diplomatic avenue to achieve his desired result. He, nor any plausable candidate, obviously cannot come out and say this so he had to respond that was a deflection of his actual position in real terms yet sufficiently implicit in his beliefs and the concept of being strong on "self" defence to those that view iran, and they are many, as a threat.

His response was a great response from his perspective on the issue, imo.

<<He, nor any plausable candidate, obviously cannot come out and say this>>

Are you kiddig me? No "plausbile candidate" can come right out and say he'd be willing to undertake unilateral military action if it was the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? PLEASE.

Are you kiddig me? No "plausbile candidate" can come right out and say he'd be willing to undertake unilateral military action if it was the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? PLEASE.

The reason why nobody will is because it's a definitive statement that has no out. All politicians have alot of talk about what they want to do in office, but the difference here is that if iran crosses that supposed line, they have no choice but to invade or they look like said "wuss". I mean, it's the epitomy of stupidity to make such a bold definitive claim of this magnitude when there are so many variables that could be contrived to offer a different perspective on the issue in the future. Kerry played it smart saying he would defend America which is leaving the impression in everyones mind about what he means by it but not making any claim so he isnt beholden to it.

I would be willing to undertake unilateral action. I would not want to, and I would do everything under the sun to avoid it, but I would be willing to do it.

However, you are forgetting that Kerry is the only candidate with a comprehensive plan for "draining the swamps" of terrorism by actively supporting the economic stability of an Arab middle class, promoting anti-corruption and transparency measures, and promoting inter-Arab trade of diverse products to end Middle Eastern economic isolation. Couple that with the promotion of slow reforms from within the Arab world, and you've got yourself a positive American force in the Middle East.

They should have pointed out that Bush calling them evil accellerated their drive to nuclear weapons. Same with North Korea.

He threatened them. They responded. Who's good for national security now, Bushie?

but it didn't satisfy the media jerks...

He talked in circles and never answered the question.

All process, no substance.

All I know is that everytime I've seen anyone ask him a tough question he dodges it. In this respect, I have to say at least I can respect Lieberman in that he will answer questions even if it gets him booed. He might be really out of touch with most people in his own party, but at least he's honest about where he stands. Kerry is more concerned with how he looks than doing his job. He just doesn't have anything new to say. When you combine the questions dodging with how boring he is, he's actually painful to watch and listen to.

"...This administration's preemptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."

He's still my main squeeze. :evilgrin:

He said that he would do whatever was necessary to protect the American people (good).

Then he said he would work actively to remove the climate that engenders nuclear proliferation. His comments were perfectly in keeping with Jonathan Schell - the anti-nuke guy from The Nation.

If you want to see how he would have handled North Korea the right way the first time, here is Kerry in 2001 (I'm sorry, but the link is dead):



The Bush administration must resist pressure from some conservatives in Congress to significantly alter the current course of U.S. policy toward North Korea. It is still too early to tell the real intentions and final outcome of the North’s efforts to reengage the outside world, but the United States should encourage further steps toward the normalization of relations between Pyongyang and our allies in Seoul and Tokyo.

Ending the North Korean nuclear program and stopping its development and proliferation of advanced ballistic missile technology will continue to dominate U.S. interests on the Korean Peninsula.

It is important that the Bush administration not allow the Congress to undermine the 1994 Agreed Framework, which holds real promise for verifiably freezing and eliminating the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for annual shipments of heavy fuel oil and the construction of two light-water reactors to provide a long-term energy source to North Korea.

If there are changes to be made in the framework, they must be negotiated and acceptable to all interested parties. Congress should not unilaterally alter the agreement by underfunding or injecting new conditions on the promised U.S. contributions.

Clearly, the United States—working with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo—must also continue efforts to curtail North Korea’s ballistic missile program. Congress maintains serious concerns about the wisdom of trading U.S. assistance to a North Korean space program for a halt in its missile program.

Congress should give the next administration full latitude, however, to negotiate a missile agreement that can reduce the threat to our allies and the U.S. public from North Korea’s missile programs.

From The Washington Quarterly, "Stopping at the Water's Edge."

rest of us should go along. Thanks for separating the wheat from the chaff for us!



Great post!

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

Bad answer, VERY bad answer.

(Let me note, first of all, that it was Bush groupie Candy Crowley who asked this question.)

I would have answered that the question was *moot* -- because if *I* went to the UN to make a case about uniting against Iran, I would have assembled a strong case that would have clearly been recognized as the truth, because I would ONLY go to them with the truth -- and they would have supported me because I had laid out an irrefutable case.

The reason the UN did not back the smirkistas was because they knew way back then, as I did, and others (like Amb. Wilson) that the data that smirky and Colin laid before them outlining the case were at best very shaky, and some were clearly fasle. THAT'S why the UN did not join the US -- because there was no compelling case that Iraq was a danger to the USA or its neighbors. Only a fool believes that our allies would desert us if we were truly in peril -- all the red wine that was spilt in the streets of the USA in protest to lack of French support was a farce.

"It's the lies, stupid!" And that's the crucial issue that Kerry, indeed, none of them brought up in regards to this question, and it certainly was a missed opportunity.

Your knowledge is only matched by your humility.

Why didn't Kerry think of telling people that he would always tell the truth and then everyone would automatically rise up and cheer him into the Presidency because he said he'd tell the truth.

If he had said that, you would all be bashing him as being a liar who has to actually say he'd tell the truth because we all know that's the mark of a person who doesn't tell the truth.

Liberals get the exact type of ME plan they've been harping about for years, and they reject it.

I thought it was a stupid question:
What if this happens and then this happens then that happens, will you do this?

It was basically a trick question to try and get a Democrat to say "Yes I will invade Iran like Bush invaded Iraq," probably so they can trot it out later and call Kerry (if he's the nominee) a hypocrite.

That said, Kerry, just danced around it and gave a non answer. If he "disputed the premise of the question" as you say, he should have done it better.

If the first two conditions hold true in reality, then the third almost certainly wouldn't. I'm surprised somebody as smart as you would fall for something like that. :eyes:

since it presents a best case scenario for unilateral action. It was a big fat slow pitch right over the plate. But rather than knocking it out of the park, he decided to argue with the umpire over the size of the strike zone. What a wuss.

You do not accept hypotheticals that ignore everything we know in reality. She may as well have asked him what he would do if his vice president turned out to be an Al Quaeda sleeper operative. It's ridiculous.

But even if we know that in reality the world body would be saturated enough with all levels of Western power, and would thus not allow the iranian nuke situation, the point should be that there IS NO CASE FOR UNILATERAL ACTION. The question itself attempts to construct any world body as inadequate to come to a reasonable determination. Worse, it negates the function of a world body as such. Implicitly. (Of course, as a rabid fanatic of the Israeli terrorist state apparatus, you are fine with that, deluded as you are).

More radically, it paints a nuclear Iran as untenable on its face, which is - quite frankly - a racist assumption on its face. Yes. Quote me.

Sen. Kerry said he would do whatever was in the best interests of the national security of the United States. He then went into detail as how the question really went to Iraq. Kerry proceeded to describe how it was necessary to go through the UN in order to avoid a war that could easily escalate global war, using bunker-busting type nukes. He finished by questioning the premise of the original question, which was a "either-or" type fallacy.

I can't wait for the transcript, dolstein, but that's what I remember. By the by, who are you for? If you're still backing Lieberman, you need to take another look. Joe was the one wont to ramble, a sign he had trouble speaking and thinking at the same time.

PS: Didn't you like it when Kerry said:

"They haven't found Osama. They haven't found Saddam. They can't even find the White House leaker."

That was nice.

CROWLEY: Senator Kerry, within the last 48 hours, the foreign minister of Iran has said that his country will continue to enrich uranium despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has told them to cease and desist by the 31st.

Should you become president, if you get solid evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weaponry, and you cannot get anything in the U.N. like what you would like, are you prepared to go after a factory in Iran on your own?

KERRY: I would do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States of America, but, Candy, I don't accept the premise of your question completely.

And it really comes back to the original question about Iraq also.

I spoke with the secretary general in the last 24 hours, and I know that we could be doing better in terms of pulling other countries to our side now with respect to Iraq.

If we did that with respect to Iraq, if we had a different policy with respect to North Korea so that we froze in place the current status quo, i.e. their plutonium, their enrichment and our threat so that we can take that off the table and begin to renegotiate, we would begin to change the dynamics of how countries are perceiving the United States.

But as long as this administration leaves a preemptive doctrine on the table, as long as our administration is proceeding down the road to develop nuclear bunker-busting weapons, and as long as we remain a country that will conduct a preemptive war, we're inviting people to do the very thing that we don't want them to do.

We need a president now to prevent us from the very choice that you just said could occur, and that will only happen if we go to the United Nations now and get rid of the sense of American occupation in Iraq. Take the target off American troops.

(APPLAUSE)

-----

Now check out the writings of Jonathan Schell, the anti-proliferation writer for The Nation. Kerry, a long time advocate of nuclear reduction, is firmly in line with this hardcore progressive.

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/bio.mhtml?id=80

----

If you want to see how he would have handled North Korea the right way the first time, here is Kerry in 2001 (I'm sorry, but the link is dead):


The Bush administration must resist pressure from some conservatives in Congress to significantly alter the current course of U.S. policy toward North Korea. It is still too early to tell the real intentions and final outcome of the North’s efforts to reengage the outside world, but the United States should encourage further steps toward the normalization of relations between Pyongyang and our allies in Seoul and Tokyo.

Ending the North Korean nuclear program and stopping its development and proliferation of advanced ballistic missile technology will continue to dominate U.S. interests on the Korean Peninsula.

It is important that the Bush administration not allow the Congress to undermine the 1994 Agreed Framework, which holds real promise for verifiably freezing and eliminating the North Korean nuclear program in exchange for annual shipments of heavy fuel oil and the construction of two light-water reactors to provide a long-term energy source to North Korea.

If there are changes to be made in the framework, they must be negotiated and acceptable to all interested parties. Congress should not unilaterally alter the agreement by underfunding or injecting new conditions on the promised U.S. contributions.

Clearly, the United States—working with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo—must also continue efforts to curtail North Korea’s ballistic missile program. Congress maintains serious concerns about the wisdom of trading U.S. assistance to a North Korean space program for a halt in its missile program.

Congress should give the next administration full latitude, however, to negotiate a missile agreement that can reduce the threat to our allies and the U.S. public from North Korea’s missile programs.

From The Washington Quarterly, "Stopping at the Water's Edge."

... when hearing them they require us to read them to appreciate their profundity and elegance.

The transcript really shows John Kerry's mind at work. The guy TALKS better than most people can write – including me.

Thank you, doctor, for finding all the other useful information, too.

Honestly, I don't see that big a difference between Kerry's statement and the original post by dolstein.

"dolstein: Yes Judy, I would. I believe in the UN as an institution, and I'd certainly expore every diplomatic option I could before taking unilateral military action. But the bottom line is, we cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. It's not in the interests of the United States, and it's not in the interests of the international community. So yes, in those circumstances, I would have no problem whatsoever acting alone."

--

"KERRY: I would do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States of America, but, Candy, I don't accept the premise of your question completely.

And it really comes back to the original question about Iraq also.

I spoke with the secretary general in the last 24 hours, and I know that we could be doing better in terms of pulling other countries to our side now with respect to Iraq.

If we did that with respect to Iraq, if we had a different policy with respect to North Korea so that we froze in place the current status quo, i.e. their plutonium, their enrichment and our threat so that we can take that off the table and begin to renegotiate, we would begin to change the dynamics of how countries are perceiving the United States.

But as long as this administration leaves a preemptive doctrine on the table, as long as our administration is proceeding down the road to develop nuclear bunker-busting weapons, and as long as we remain a country that will conduct a preemptive war, we're inviting people to do the very thing that we don't want them to do.

We need a president now to prevent us from the very choice that you just said could occur, and that will only happen if we go to the United Nations now and get rid of the sense of American occupation in Iraq. Take the target off American troops."

--

Kerry is a committed internationalist with a long, long record of fighting against proliferation. The guy has an amazing grasp of the situation in the former Soviet states and loose nuclear materials, as well.

The question, regarding Iran, was: "...are you prepared to go after a factory in Iran on your own?

"I would do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States of America."

For those members of the American public who really care about this issue, what Kerry passed off as an answer was no answer at all.

Then there was all the verbiage that followed. Sure, for the die-hard Kerry fan, it was "nuanced." But for the rest of the country is was a steaming heap of BS that never answered the question.

Without taking the "sure, why not" approach. Maybe I'm reading too much into his wildly vague sentiment, but perhaps he wouldn't use a bombing raid as his first option.

I don't think it was nuanced at all. I think it was a "yes." What magnificent piece of oration would you expect Dean to produce? You saw him with Kucinich over the $87 billion. I couldn't follow all the "nuances" of his talk. Kucinich said a clear "no," but Dean mumbled on with his mumbo jumbo. Why didn't he just say "yes?"

I don't see that every situation requires nothing more than a "yes" or "no" answer. I am comfortable with elaboration when it comes to the future of life as we know it.

Would it kill him to give a direct unambiguous answer for once in his life?

Until he learns to answer questions directly -- rather than give responses that need to be parsed and analyzed like an obscure work of literature -- Kerry is never going to "catch fire" with the American voting public:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0310/10/a06-294162.htm

Can the statement mean something besides "yes?"

I'm having a hard time believing that you are not just trying to spin this.

And you didn't respond to the Dean/Kucinich exchange. Why didn't Dean just say "yes?"

Where's the ambiguity in Kerry's statement? He never said whether he would or would not go after a factory in Iran, as Crowley asked him.

Instead he said "I would do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States of America."

That could mean any of the whole litany of things presidents have done or could do in the name of "national security," not necessarily going after the nuke factory.

Kerry's answer was not equivalent to a "Yes."

As far as Dean's response to Kucinich, here's what I got from the CNN transcript:

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

Is exactly what needs to be said. To answer more specifically would be wrong. Kerry acknowledges complexities in international relations. Dean makes it overly simple, then lets his aides explain what he "really" meant.

And as we know that Dean is famous for making straight-shooting comments one day, then qualifying them the next - let's take a look at his elaboration:

KUCINICH: Would you fund keep the troops in Iraq?

DEAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: You would?

DEAN: If the president was willing to pay for it.

KUCINICH: I would say bring our troops home, Governor.

DEAN: You can't do that. And I'll tell you why.

KUCINICH: We have to bring our troops home. They're targets right now.

DEAN: Can I tell why I disagree?

KUCINICH: Yes, finish.

DEAN: First of all, let me tell you what I agree with you about. And in all due respect to John and Joe and Wes and John Edwards and Dick Gephardt, maybe you thought the war was a good idea and maybe you thought it wasn't a bad idea. It wasn't a good idea. The problem is that we empowered the president to run roughshod over us in the last election because nobody stood up to him on the October vote. If you all had voted no, we could have gone out and made our case to the American people. But instead you didn't vote no.

KUCINICH: You said no, and that's not true. I led the effort. Do you want to correct that statement?

DEAN: No, no, I didn't mention you. I didn't mention you.

Now if I can explain what my position on Iraq is, it's this. Now that we're there...

WOODRUFF: Could you make it brief so we could let...

DEAN: I'll try to make it as brief as I can.

Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly. Because if we do, there are more al Qaeda, I believe, in Iraq today than there were before the president went in. If they establish a foothold in Iraq, or if a fundamentalist Shiite regime comes in, allied with Iran, that is a real security danger to the United States, when one did not exist before when Saddam Hussein was running the place.

---

I happen to agree with that, but I wouldn't without the elaboration. Why - because his "yes" is very different from a Republican "yes." You may try to pretend there is no difference, but not everything can be expressed in short, guttural breaths.

He would always do what was necessary to protect the US.

He then explains his foreign policy for Iran and the ME which is based on totally changing the dynamics of the ME. He answered the question by saying it's not necessary to get into a position like that in the first place. A candidate with solid diplomatic answers based on cultural respect, U.S. humility and nonproliferation; and people don't understand. *sigh*

...she tried to trip him up with a faulty hypothetical- he caught it, called her on it, and answered honestly.

The answers immediately morphed into responses about Iraq. I never heard anyone answer Woodruff's specific question.

Let me know if you still disagree with Kerry's position regarding proliferation. This has been his bread and butter for many a long year.

Bush's policy of pre-emption is the reason that Iran, N.Korea and whoever else is developing WMD's. We need a policy change, and we need to re-enter the national community.

I would say that if we found evidence that Iran planned to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. or our allies, we would need to take action - after we tried diplomacy. Dukakis also handled his question about the death penalty wrong, but the Iran question deserves a more specific response. To the question asked to Dukakis, I would say that I honestly don't know.