Dean on CNN: None of them asked questions BEFORE they voted on IWR

How many of you have come to believe this meme that is being spread about the Congressional candidates?

Do truth and facts even matter anymore? If it sounds vicious enough to hurt the other candidates then it's OK?

This is just ONE examplae of Kerry guiding the process to prevent Bush from getting the real blank check that he wanted, which meant NO further UN involvement, NO inspections, and a free pass to extend an invasion into Iran and Syria.

I also suggest you read both Hillary's and Kerry's floor speeches on Iraq.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
September 6, 2002
By JOHN F. KERRY

WASHINGTON - It may well be that the United States will go
to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have
to - not because we want to. For the American people to
accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their
consent to it, the Bush administration must first present
detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and then prove that all other avenues of
protecting our nation's security interests have been
exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning
the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to
war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential
to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue
statement this week that he would consult Congress is a
beginning, but the administration's strategy remains
adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change
by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a
Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein - the
ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism - should
be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the
inspection process is merely a waste of time should be
reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our
people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential
foundation of success.

>>>>>>>>
In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than
making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the
administration has complicated its own case and compromised
America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused,
overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale
for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of
invasion and regime change, the administration has
diminished its most legitimate justification of war - that
in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of
weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein
is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors
is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991
cease-fire agreement that left him in power.
The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more
difficult to manage our relations with other Arab
governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it
possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the
implications of war for themselves rather than keep the
focus where it belongs - on the danger posed by Saddam
Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration
seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his
neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his
own.

>>>>>>>>>
The question is not whether we should care if Saddam
Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards
of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is
how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and
the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have
to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an
American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue
of utilizing the procedures of international law and
community - institutions American presidents from across
the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to
global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause
and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must
seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the
evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our
allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing
cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security
Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum
to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections
without negotiation or compromise. Some in the
administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum
might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam
Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international
community's already existing order, then he will have
invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at
the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if
the Security Council fails to act. But until we have
properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow
citizens and our allies that we really have no other
choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral
decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from
Massachusetts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/06KERR.html?ex=1032312456&ei=1&en=930a8857e0bbb35c

He's a Hypocrite with a capital H.

Dean is dead on right!

This is another way that Dean lies and gets away with it because his supporters don't hold him to ANY standard of truth.

BLITZER: You may have seen this new commercial, this ad that Senator Kerry has put out showing the president landing on the aircraft carrier. But the impression he leaves is that he is someone who knows national security. He served in the military. He fought in Vietnam. He could bring the Democratic Party to victory. And it seems to be a slap at you.

DEAN: I think the principal problem with Senator Kerry's ad is, it implies that he didn't support the war in Iraq. And he did.
We wouldn't be in Iraq today if it hadn't been for people like Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, Senator Lieberman, and Richard Gephardt, because they all supported the president, when they should have been asking the tough questions last October.

BLITZER: So you're blaming them for the predicament the U.S. is in right now?

DEAN: If the Democrats had stood up to the president and said, this is not wise. Let's take our steps very carefully. Let's bring in other countries.
But they didn't do that. They gave the president a blank check. And Senator Kerry was one of those who gave the president a blank check to go into Iraq. So I find it hard to believe that their foreign policy expertise is so extensive that they would be able to get us out of it.

Dean misrepresents the other candidates' positions on this issue, especially Kerry's. And he probably will continue to do so as long as it works for him. It certainly serves as an effective distraction from Dean's lack of experience with foreign policy.

It's made me angry in the past; now I'm just trying to see what it is -- a campaign tactic, no different than the other candidates calling him out on the Confederate flag "issue" (or non-issue). Blur the facts so one's opponent looks bad in comparison.

McCain would point out something that should have devastated Bush. but, the teflon boy would act like he was being victimized by that nasty mean McCain and it really hurt and he's just have to draw the line. It was obvious then and obvious now.

Aside from the fundraising, Trippi is running the PR aspect of the campaign EXACTLY as Rove did in 2000.

It sounds like blather. Dean took the same gamble that many of us here took when we opposed this war. It didn't pass the "smell" test starting when * said there was an IAEA report that said that Saddam could have nukes within six months. THERE WAS NO REPORT. I knew it, Dean knew it, and Kerry and Gephardt likely knew it. Still, they followed along like good little sheep instead of showing real courage. It's easy to say, "yes" whenever everyone else is doing it. It takes a lot more courage to say, "no."

All that blather is just the Kerry's and the Gephardt's of this world covering their asses if things didn't go well.

Many here applauded the hard line he took against going to war without following proper procedures first. Just as he laid it out here.

Statements made in op eds would take the form of questions when you're probing the WH and the Sec. of State, as they did.

his chance at the Presidency.

And that's ALL he protected. Except that it backfired on him, and I'm damned glad of that. DAMNED glad.

Kerry put the lives of American men and women, who are still dying DAILY, below his own personal ambition. Kerry put the destruction of a sovereign nation (yeah, run by a brutal dictator as so many OTHER countries are) below his own personal ambition. Kerry put the lives of uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and military below his own personal ambition. Kerry put the further spreading of depleted uranium, the looting of Iraq's natural resources, the destabilization of an entire region, and worsening security for this country below his own personal ambition.

Kerry. Of all people, Kerry!! -- the man who was a Vietnam war hero (something he won't let any of us to ever forget) and came home to become an anti-war hero. Now he's one of those old men he once protested against, who sent young Americans to die in the jungles of Vietnam for lies and profits. Kerry has become one of them who sent young men and women to die in the desert and oases of Iraq.

There is no way in hell I want someone in the White House who is so craven in his ambition. None of the warmongers can have my vote -- in the primaries OR the general -- without having profoundly renounced their war votes. None of them.

But of ALL of them, I expected more from the war hero turned anti-war hero.

Eloriel

Kerry was on record of being for removing Saddam since 1998. I guess he predicted that Bush was going to invade Iraq in 2003 and he wanted to make sure his political calculations were in order.

You people amaze me with your declarations based on your OWN facts that you make up to fit your own political agenda.

:shrug:

Of course not. But wanting Saddam gone and voting to invade a soveriegn nation ain't the same thing. These aren't our own facts. How many emails, phone calls, and letters did the Kerry's and Gephardt's ignore from their own constituents in order to be able to play on the national stage?

back in 98. It was much further along than many apparently realize here.

Even if Clinton "planned" to invade Iraq, I would expect that he would have told the American people why and gotten allies on board ahead of time. The Kerry's and the Gephardt's gave a bunch of serial liars carte blanche and THAT is the problem.

Obviously, they didn't ask the right questions and get the right answers to them. Otherwise they'd come out and say they were lied to.

He was skewered for it in the press or don't you recall?

You never CEASE to amaze me, blm. You who are the master of "your own facts."

If you're so sure these are my own version of the "facts," why not prove to me Kerry had any other reason at all in his mind when he voted for the war.

You can't.

You can speculate, you can spin. You can drag up speeches that show him leaning one way and voting another. You can drag out his pitiful little dances of deception NOW, as he's trying to reconcile his vote with his candidacy and an electorate that ain't buyin' it.

But what you can't do is show ANY reasonable, logical, rational, believable (credible) reason for voting yes OTHER than his blind, arrogant, craven, disgusting, self-fucking-serving political ambition.

And THAT, my dear, is one of Kerry's most powerful foes: his own unwillingness to take responsibility for his vote and say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry."

You know, it's not just about the past, it's about the future too. If people can't (won't) tell the truth -- if not that his vote was politically expedient, at LEAST that the vote was wrong -- then we have little hope for the future. What this world desperately needs now is for people in positions of power in the U.S. to start telling the TRUTH. Unfortunately, we know we can't expect that of Kerry.

Eloriel

If he voted the way he spoke, he would have voted AGAINST it.

eom

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?


MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

But you still want to blame the Democrats.

None other than Scott Ritter told Kerry in a '98 hearing that Saddam had the capabilities.

Do you know how absurd it is to blame the Democrats who were negotiating for the better bill to prevent the REAL blank check that Bush wanted?

.

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

You want to blame them for what the intel they were shown and for sharing the goal of removing an unstable Saddam from an unstable region?

again since you clearly couldnt read it the first three times



MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

figure out the con. Why couldn't they?

When Clinton bombed Iraq and targeted his WMD programs, they had no way of knowing what they took out unless there were inspections. That resolution put inspectors back in, which was one of Kerry's sticking points that he forced through on the IWR. But, he as many others, thought that weapons inspections which proved NO WMDs would prevent the actual invasion from being necessary.

you say:
Dean on CNN: None of them asked questions BEFORE they voted on IWR

transcript says:

DEAN: I think the principal problem with Senator Kerry's ad is, it implies that he didn't support the war in Iraq. And he did.
We wouldn't be in Iraq today if it hadn't been for people like Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, Senator Lieberman, and Richard Gephardt, because they all supported the president, when they should have been asking the tough questions last October.

I didn't use quotes, did I?

based on your "paraphrasing". Also that Dean supporters are liars and/or liar enablers.


See subject lines of your posts #9 & #23 also "paraphrasing for space" surely.

9. He was right when he said they never asked the questions BEFORE?
This is another way that Dean lies and gets away with it because his supporters don't hold him to ANY standard of truth.

23. Did Dean lie when he said they didn't ask questions before the vote?

Did Dean lie when he said that? That is a hard question to answer since he didn't say that.

"Do truth and facts even matter anymore? If it sounds vicious enough to hurt the other candidates then it's OK?"

I did use quotes, didn't I?

taxcuts for the wealthiest when NONE of them voted for either of the taxcut bills.

When he said they were all pretending to be antiwar last Jan. when NONE of them had backed away from their votes for the IWR, but didn't approve of Bush's failed diplomacy.

When he said that Clark was a Republican 25 days before he joined the race.

When he said he made his last remark about the Con flag in an effort to start a discussion about race relations when he actually referenced the flag in an interview about his past NRA questionnaire and his current gun control position.

When he said that he was the only one to talk about race to white people.

When he said he was the only one who had an antidiscrimination bill for gays when John Kerry DRAFTED the first antidiscrimination bill that included gays in 1985.

When he said he was the only one who had an antidiscrimination bill for gays when John Kerry DRAFTED the first antidiscrimination bill that included gays in 1985.

The late Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first legislation to address sexual orientation discrimination in America back in 1975.

.

John Kerry DRAFTED the first antidiscrimination bill that included gays in 1985.

Listen, I am sorry that you are upset that John Kerry has not been embraced by many Democrats as he was expected to before he cast his fateful IWR vote. It is very likely that Kerry will not become the 2004 Democratic nominee. It is also very likely that Kerry will end up with less delegates than newcomer Wesley Clark, despite Kerry's recognized long liberal voting record.

Instead of wasting everyone's time trying to justify his bad vote on IWR, Kerry could have been better served by admitting it was all a mistake, and pledging to do all he can to bring the troops home and close this sorry chapter in our nation's history. Unless and until Kerry does that, the only thing he has to look forward to is see another Democrat take the oath of office on Inauguration Day.

"when they should have been asking the tough questions last October"

Tough. As in, what Kerry didn't ask.

It suggests they are gullible, and that very word is thrown around on this board frequently in the middle of a Kerry-IWR-vote bash.
In that same spirit, I suggest Dean supporters start asking the 'tough questions' of Dean on this subject, because he sure has had a bunch of different answers.

I think any of us can denote from Dean's comments that not enough questions were asked before the IWR vote. But of course, you sit in the grass ready to pounce on any gesture Dean makes as evidence he is a "liar" or some other type of cretin.

Do you know how old this is getting?

I can think of only one word- disruption.

Kerry are more easily suspected of disruption because BushInc. wants to keep Kerry, Joe Wilson, Rand Beers, Gary Hart and Max Cleland silent about how BCCI and IranContra brought us to 9-11 and Iraq and Bush's incompetence on antiterrorism.

The point is again though you choose not to aknowledge it. Kerry knew the inteligence was cooked. He had the report telling him of the low confidence in the propaganda put forth by bush yet he chose to repeat that propaganda even as he made his excuses for voting for what he knew was wrong.

Again

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

Yet he chose to LIE! right along with bush.

ARGHHHHH! :wtf:

How the hell can you say he now knows the inteligence was cooked.. He knew then!

all bullshit excuses about stoping bush from doing more harm aside he knew and he chose to lie right along with the rest of the PNAC pukes. In order to excuse a vote he knew was wrong to get it off the table before the 2002 election. So did Edwards so did Hillary and so especially did GHEP!

The only excuse he has is if he didnt read the report given to him and that itself disqualifies him for casting his vote on a life or death issue without even reading the inteligence report. He either read it and lied or didnt read it and cast a vote on hearsay. Either way he made the wrong decision.

The fact that those questions were allready there proves Dean exactly right in this. The dems droped the ball on this one in favor of getting it off the table before the elections.

I thought he merely caved under pressure for the IWR vote.

Thanks for pointing this out.

That is taken from the same speech BLM is qouting here at the begining of this thread.

Kerry was as much a part of pushing this garbage as bush was and it bugs me no end to listen to people come defend him as trying to stop bush.

He did nothing of the kind. Biden and lugar tried to stop bush kerry saw what they werre doing and agreed with them. But when push came to shove he towed the line like the good lapboy he is.

Kerry supporters will try to tell you that by voting for this he was stoping bush from getting more because if he hadnt voted for this bush would have put through a bill that would have given him more power and they couldnt stop him. My question with that argument is if you were a loser anyway what did you have to lose by standing up and doing what was right.

Truth is kerry wanted it off the table just like the rest of the "Democratic leadership" The elections were coming up and if they had stood in solidarity and blocked this Bill the dems would have been painted as unpatriotic in the 2002 elections. The elections were mnore important to them than our Soldiers and the lives of the Iraqi people and I will Never forgive those that voted for it because of that.

They all had the reports saying the CIA had low confidence in any of the bullshit Bush was spouting yet they chose to ignore it and get the vote out of the way.

Dont you read the posts at DU, BLM???, everybody knows that Kerry is a "closet Bush supporter" and a "murderer"- I read it right here at DU!!!!

We dont need your Skull & Bones fabricated "facts" and "quotes"

No go back to your corporate, capitalist, PNAC masters!!!!

Yes, please report back to S&B headquarters - we're having a cakewalk and silent auction to support Kerry this afternoon ;)

What I love about Dean is all the hard work he did in Congress to prevent the IWR from passing. </sarcasm>

The Vermont spinDoctor saw an opportunity to zig when everyone who still had an elected office had to either zag or be portrayed in the next election as not being behind the troops.

He stood his ground when 70% of america was against him and you call it a cheap gamble?

I call it courage!

He also claimed on March 17 that he never doubted the necessity to disarm Saddam of WMDs.

He also said we Bush should wait 30 more days before he invades.

Your idea of courage as applied to Dean is just YOUR projection of the way you WISH he stayed firm.

It required bush to come back to congress with evidence of an iminent threat before going to war.

Do you doubt the necesity to disarm Saddam of WMD? I sure as hell dont if he has em or not we need to be sure he is dissarmed.

He never said bush should just wait 30 days then invade thats wild spin on a statement he made saying that if there was evidence of WMD Sadam should be given 30-60 days to disarm and if he refused that we should then go to war. Something I agree with whole heartedly . I would much rather he had the chance to disarm voluntarily than we send troops in to do it forcibly.

Dean has been exactly on target throughout. Kerry meanwhile chose to push bushes lies even when he knew they were untrue....

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index4.html

"as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

If Dean hadn't jumped on the antiwar bandwagon, the spinDoctor from Vermont would be at 5% in the polls.

If he was wrong he wouldnt have a leg to stand on now and you wouldnt be bashing him. He would be an also ran.

The fact remains while every single candidate besides kucinich was rolling over for bush alowing this war to hapen. Dean was fighting it because he knew it was bullshit. Despite your attempt to smear him as an oportunist he was standing up doing the right thing.

While the others were busy trying to get elected.

sold their souls for.

American, British, Italian, Iraqi.

I dunno. It just seems to me that the one thing you DON'T get to be all politically expedient about is war, dammit.

And look at the taxpayer money going into this clusterfuck -- with no end in sight since we'll be there for years, yes, even with handing over "control" to the Iraqis (don't bet on it being anything but a ruse). Dear God. The billions and billions of dollars wasted ALONE are enough reason to deny the warmongers the nomination.

And we haven't even gotten to the issue of validating and approving Bush's "pre-emptive war" doctrine. That too, alone, is enough to deny any of them the nomination. Hell, IMO, that's enough to IMPEACH or recall the lot of them.

Eloriel

The fact that this cable is iontact boggles my mind.

Two whores in the corporate establishment henhouse.

I get what you are saying. And yes, it is of course not true as proven by your link. Not agreeing with a position is one thing, but misrepresentation of another's actions is quite another. Just as Dean said Clark was a R until 25 days ago. He knew that wasn't true since Arkansas does not require a party to be shown and most who live there people don't.

Saying anything to get your way is of great concern to me.

I believe that I understand your point, so did I get it?

any of his opponents. In fact, they energetically parrot his lies.

Kerry leaves many questions unanswered about his waffley position on this invasion and HIS parroting of BushCo lies (see post #20).

Parrot his lies at the peril of the whole Dem party because WE ALL are the ones who will suffer for years to come once the real scrutiny of Dean begins.

Just because Kerry's campaign is self-destructing in front of our eyes, for which Kerry has no one to blame but himself, that's no reason to go into this melodrama about the peril of the whole Dem party.

To those disappointed and disenchanted Kerry supporters, I recommend that you consider switching candidates. Wesley Clark has all of the strengths that Kerry has, in terms of military record and national security credentials, with none of the baggage i.e., Iraq War resolution.

I would rather you support Howard Dean, but I will support any of the antiwar candidates long before I consider one of the four Bush war enablers. Wesley Clark has been impressive since the Rock the Vote debate, and he deserves full consideration.

You're so wrapped up in "liar liar pants on fire" that you're fibbing yourself about your own posts. You clearly implied that Dean's supporters are liars by saying they "parrot" Dean's "lies".

Maybe you need to take a break from the Dean bashing. Focus. Center. Ommmmmmm.

They repeat what Dean says without understanding that they are lies. Comprehension 101.

Are you a mind reader now, too? (Kreskin, 101).

Or did you insert your Gucci into your mouth once again while on your never ending search for a Dean "lie"?

No matter how much you dont want to see it Kerry and hillary and ghep and Edwards all of them along with a slew of others refused to ask the hard questions refused to stand up because they feared looking weak on national defense. Thats what it comes down to in a nutshell despite all the lame excuses they have all come up with for going along with it.

Dean is right! There is only the glaring truth!

As a suporter I am damn glad hes pointing it out! Maybe next time these folks will think twice before trying to base a war vote on political expediancy.

Kerry was AHEAD of the pack criticizing Bush on his foreign policy direction, including Iraq. The papers didn't cover it according to Joe.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

New York -- The most rousing speech at the Democratic Leadership Council's New York conference--according to both journalistic consensus and the applause meter--was given by Hillary Clinton, who definitely isn't running for President. Her poise and passion on the stump have grown exponentially since her Senate campaign, and she blew the doors off the Hilton ballroom.

But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.


He demanded an increase in foreign assistance as the best guarantee against suicidal terror. "If we fail to reach the children and families wrecked by the violence of poverty and seclusion, the growing population of unemployed and unemployable kids will find in fanaticism an answer to their problems," he said.
>>>>>>>

So was Hillary, and so were a bunch of others, but that was when public opinion was more evenly split. John Kerry looked at poll numbers and determined that it was to his advantage to support the IWR in his run for president. What a spineless coward. I don't care about his war record if anyone wants to bring that up. What he did thirty years ago does not excuse this.

Yeah....name ONE other lawmaker who ever showed THAT amount of courage to go up against the entire Dem and GOP powerstructures and their media organs and the CIA and FBI.

And that was through 1992 and helped push Bush 1 out of office. Nice of you to notice and give him credit.

Kerry was part of stopping THREE wars. Vietnam, Iran-Iraq (by exposing the illegal arm deals by Reagan-Bush), and the illegal wars in Central America. Yet so many here smear him as a warmonger for a RESOLUTION vote which like ALL resolutions was first supposed to be used to coerce compliance.

Some in the Dean camp are even spreading the meme that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider." Kerry - the one lawmaker who has exposed more government corruption than anyone in modern history, and more than ALL the candidates put together.

.. what has he done lately? Wilson is supporting Kerry? The Justice Dept is stalling. Why doesn't Kerry expose something NOW?

There is a plethora of opportunity to hold current evil doers to task. That's what people really care about.

And if he plans to take on the outing of an operative ONLY if he is 'elected' .. what does that say about him?

It's hard to buy the corruption buster image you're selling when it's about 13 years old and there is plenty to expose now and he does NOTHING.

Clearly he knew what was right? Why did he lay down and take up the bush mantra?

Heres dean arround the same time


http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/52530.htm


President Bush has not justified attacking Iraq, nor has he steeled the American people for the cost of that attack, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday.

“He needs to first make the case and he has not done that,” Dean said

He had to PAY for that better bill with his vote.

That's the reality of those negotiations. If Bush reached a certin threshold of agreement, then you have to support the bill.

It's not Kerry's fault that Bush made a mockery of those efforts to get thorough weapons inspections and align our allies. It was due to Dems like Kerry that Iran and Syria were taken off the list to invade.

Sry but thats horse shit.

Who knew Bush would bungle diplomacy so badly? This was the SAME guys who put together the coalition in the first Gulf War, and they promised to do so again. They lied. Kerry has said they lied.

would have passed and he and Dean would have the same position. However, Dean gets labeled antiwar when he isn't, and Kerry gets labeled prowar when he isn't. There really wasn't that much difference, and Bush would have had his war either way. The big difference is that Dean would be labeled prowar by the simplistic fools who only see black and white and no variant degrees.

Let's see, isn't that commonly referred to as hypocrisy?

Eloriel

The two of you are just being ridiculous, in the extreme.

There is no misrepresentation or lie about the warmongers' lack of standing up to Bush or "questioning" a lot of things they should've been questioning. And for further proof, I'll refer you to ANY of Robert Byrd's impassioned please of his colleagues to get a clue and do the right thing.

The "worst" that can be said about it is not that it's not true, but that the charge is rendered in more a figure of speech than full-out exposition.

That's how good speeches are made, btw.

The out-and-out lies and misrepresentations I see (like this one, actually, only far worse) about Dean are from blm (who has been corrected again and again and again and rigidly refuses to "learn").

Eloriel

of this conflict, they needed to be deceived and bullied.

I had deep suspicions that the Bush thugs were spreading nothing but fear and misinformation before the invasion (there was a CIA report or testimony before Congress before the invasion in which the CIA said Saddam only posed a threat if we took military action).

Kerry's actions betrayed what he said in the speech that you posted.

Kerry's multi-polarity has turned his once promising campaign into a miserable failure.

Compare Kerry to Wesley Clark on Meet the Press today. The difference? Clarity! Clark was clear and unambiguous, while Kerry is still acting like a weathervane.

Yes_I think many of the Dems who voted yes were aware of the wind. I also think that Kerry felt burned by his first Iraqi no vote. That said, I do remember seeing him on CNN days before the vote, in favor of the Graham amendment which would have brought the issue back to Congress.

The night of the Iraq vote I went to see Bill Clinton speak. The house vote was announced to the audience moments before Clinton came on. Since both of our state's representatives voted no, a cheer went up. Clinton came out and started his speech by saying that although a president can't do many things without congressional approval, the one thing that they can do was take this nation to war.

Now that seems damn unconstitutional to me, but Clinton was very firm. I've wondered since then, if Clinton was trying to get us to understand something very important. I've also wondered if Clinton, or that sort of thinking within the halls of Congress, didn't account for the vote of many. Which doesn't excuse the weathervane action, but does shed some light on the shifting nature of the beast.

Still, Dean himself has made statements that conflict with his recent claim to having been absolutely steadfastly against the war. Someone has posted the links several times and I never bother to copy them, but he did say he would support bushco decision. He also called for 60 days more of inspections, but then thought that the invasion would be okay.

Clark dropped an interesting nugget today...he mentioned having talked to the Joint Cheifs in referrance to the "smoking gun." Now, I believe he talks to many people, but wow someone on the JC said no smoking gun. Damn, now the guy will be in the Hague for two days...in Europe...no tapping phone lines...I would think the General will return with much more information.

Kucinich has the least which is the only nice thing I will say about him. Dean is the next least, Clark the next least, and Kerry is the most waffly on THE most important issue of the last thirty years.

against the Constitution. BCCI and IranContra are linked to the government funding of terrorism for decades which resulted in 9-11. Those crimes against the constitution were the greatest of the last 100 years.

A resolution that would authorize use of force as a last resort was the most important issue of the last 30 years? You've got to be kidding. Just because Bush handled it deceptively and incompetently doesn't mean it was the wrong vote to make.

So, what was the question?

Congress was on their knees begging the coalition leader to ask their permission to go to war. He almost by-passed them altogether. Why were they so eager to give their endorsement to his plans?
President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

He 'asked' for a tie to "Qaeda". The admin gave them a 'connection'.
Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change
by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a
Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein - the
ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism - should
be the last step, not the first.

Is this why Kerry trusted him to do the right thing?
We are at a strange moment in history when an
American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue
of utilizing the procedures of international law and
community - institutions American presidents from across
the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to
global security.

How is this position different from the admin?
If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international
community's already existing order, then he will have
invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at
the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if
the Security Council fails to act.
btw -- the inspectors went back in

enforcement by the UN if at any time Saddam failed to comply with the resolution. That is why Clinton planned an attack on Iraq that included regime change. When allies balked he opted for the bombings and WITHOUT much support from congress. The point being that SOMEONE had to enforce the resolutions when deemed necessary.

Bush was ready to use that 1991 UN resolution to invade Iraq if the UN balked at any point.

Israel is not in compliance with many SC resolutions. Should we attack them.

Also, I didn't like Bill Clinton that much and I opposed the 1998 strikes. Iraq has never been our major threat. I would only support it if Saddam had posed a clear and imminent danger to the US which he did not.

Just to clear the air, it seems that you supported the Iraq war. Did you? If so, say it.

It should be obvious even to you that if Bush couldn't get the UN to support his excellent adventure, they DID NOT WANT their resolution enforced. Does that MATTER?

It certainly does to me -- and most of the rest of the world, too (except perhaps the neocons). It wasn't Bush's decision to make, to enforce 1991 or any other UN resolution WITHOUT the UN's explicit approval. Frankly, AFAIC, it wasn't even Congress's decision to make.

Eloriel

I still have the emails and the letters I mailed, and so does my husband. We used the things that were being posted here and at Bartcop, and we contacted our congressmen with those concerns.

Some of the reasons they gave for voting for the war had already been debunked before the vote.

They went ahead and voted. If they voted, they should either stand up and say they were right....or say they made a mistake.

Putting the blame on Dean is not solving the problem. Those calls hurt so much, but they got thousands of them. More than thousands. Remember the organized visits to their offices?

They chose not to listen. My senator, Bill Nelson, had almost 3000 calls. 90% were against the war. He voted for it.

But they looked at poll numbers and caved to vote for the IWR. Hillary Clinton did the same thing along with the rest of the leadership. It was a vote that nearly made me cry. Nearly all of my Senate and House heroes showed they had no spine. I now hate the Washington Democrats with the exceptions of those who voted against the war like my personal hero Russ Feingold. He has a great man for voting against it. What did he know that John Kerry didn't?

and Kerry was.

Give me a break.

No UN involvement. No weapons inspections.

No further evidence shown to congress or the UN. (which forced Bush to overreach and provide cooked evidence, causing his credibility to take a dive - no small thing)

Further invasions of Iran and Syria.

so I don't understand the basis for your argument.

but Bush was not cooperative with them. But to say the UN didn't agree and put in weapons inspectors is just not true.

We posted about Blix and his problems with Bush here almost daily. Don't you remember?

Talk one way, vote another. It is called political expediency.

Just like Dr. Dean, I had no problem with disarming Saddam. War was not ever the answer to this problem. I would disarm all of them, to include Bush*.

Pre-emption is unjust in the absence of a imminent threat, there was none. There was adequate evidence available to give any reasonable person doubt. Pre-emptive war should never be launched (or authorized) when there is reasonable doubt about the nature or imminence of the threat.

To the extent that these folks could not see through Bush*, they did not ask enough questions. Bush* had this thing planned in 1998. Bush* made the decision to proceed on or shortly after 9/11/2001.

No amount of evidence to the contrary, and there was plenty, would have disuaded him. To the apparent extent that they could not see this, they hadn't asked enough or the right questions.

You can't spin this away, and trying just looks sad. Admit the mistake and move on.

from Byrd's Oct 02 speech:

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it – we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/byrd1.html

Byrd asked the questions but he didn't get enough help- the Dems didn't fight hard enough. I don't have to read any floor speeches. It hurt too much to hear them the first time.

That's all they need to know to want a change. You can scream until you are blue in the face that Kerry "told" Bush not to do it alone, blah blah blah. It will make no difference to the vast majority of Americans who don't even know what CSPAN is.

They see Senators who stood with Bush and Dean, Kucinich, Clark, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton who NEVER STOOD WITH BUSH ON THE WAR.

about Dean....blm knows that this is Kerry's Achilles heel, and feels that screaming "liar liar pants on fire" loudly and often enough at Dean will somehow make that go away.

It won't.

They are shrill, arrogant, mean, and nasty. I can't stand most of them.

had passed they would have had the exact same position and Bush STILL would have gone into Iraq, and Dean would be labeled a warmonger by those who think in simplistic terms without understanding any degrees of variation.

This quote by Dean also builds your case:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index4.html

"as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."



Edit: by Dean

"We won't always have the strongest military"

And that's all they'll need to know to not want to vote for Howard (clueless) Dean for president.

And blm's right- Dean's really pressing the envelope of truth- if not outright lying here.
This is the real Howard Dean here- political opportunist of the nth degree.

Facts are we WON'T always have the strongest military. That's history. Do you want Dean to lie? How come?

Oh wait, Dean was just bashed by Kerry for being politically expedient (and then did the same thing Dean did for pretty much the same reason).

Dean can't take a crap anymore without Kerry bitching about it.

As Kerry gets farther behind, his lame campaign and shrill negative politics will just get louder and more frantic.

Kerry...the one lawmaker who has exposed more government corruption than any in modern political history. Yet Deanies spread the meme that he's a "corrupt Washington insider." Disgusting.

Northwind

29. Issues are irrelevant in a political campign.
Only the perception matters. Kerry is a Bush enabler and corrupt Washington insider. In case you had not noticed, that is the current great sin in politics. Being an insider, "typical politician." By 2008, it may be something else, but right now that is THE worst thing a candidate can be seen as. Kerry is seen as such, and therefore his campaign is dead. Finito. Belly up. Pushing up daises. Out to pasture. Passed on. The Kerry campaign's inability to recognize this trend and adapt to it only shows that he would be equally rigid and uncreative as President, which is why he will never BE President.

get it?

No wait... it was to coax Bush into going to the UN, because he knew Bush would invade anyway...

No wait... it was to threaten Saddam with the threat of force Kerry said Bush already had...

And he just trusted Bush to come up with a brilliant plan for post-war Iraq...

no wait... He knew Bush blew it before the war but supported the invasion anyway because someday the democrats would crown him King and he could step in and fix it all and become a savior to millions!

John Kerry: Enabling Bush in order to stop him. And don't dare question him, you whiny buffoons!

I suppose I'd be reacting the same way were my candidate in Kerry's position. I'm not pro-Dean simply because he was anti-war; I'm for him because he spoke out against it at THE most inopportune time; when the whole country was gung-ho cheering for it; when artists' albums and movies were banned when they spoke out against it. The quotes you post of Kerry criticizing shrub only anger me more as it shows that he clearly had doubts about *'s intentions, yet he still voted for it. And please don't tell me it's the "better bill"; voting for war = voting for war.

Dean said he would have voted for that bill. So, where's the consistency?

btw...the point of the post is that Dean mischaracterizes the other candidates to glorify himself for the soundbite.