The war vote

I don't know if this will stay up or not, but it's something people need to think about. Just as everyone rips Kerry apart for his war vote, Bush and the right wing will rip Dean apart for being against the war. No matter what good thing anybody tries to say about Dean, the response will be 'Dean didn't care if Saddam had nuclear weapons'. That'll be it. Nothing else will be discussed because that's the way the right does things.

So while those of you *use* this vote to do the exact same thing to Kerry and other candidates, don't forget it's going to be done against Dean next year.

And for those who KNEW Bush was lying about the WMD, why were you all in a panic about what to say if they found WMD just a couple of months ago?

bush will get reselected. Stop working so hard.

they'll never say a bad word about him, right? I don't think it works that way. In fact, I'm pretty sure that no matter who we run, they'll say really bad and probaby even untrue things about him/her. That's what they do.

PS--I KNEW that Bush was lying about WMD and I was never in a panic about what to say if they found WMD, because I knew Bush was lying about WMD.

The point is that it's wrong to use these kind of tactics on our candidates in a dishonest way. And nobody will ever admit that they were one of those who were flitting around about them finding WMD, so that's kind of irrelevant. But anybody who is honest will admit that there were PLENTY of people who were.

Here's where I was at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mt4youme/petition.html

As I recall, correctly, I might add, the majority of DUers in September and October of 2002, knew it was all bullshit.

2/3 of this board was totally freaked out by whether they would find WMD. And many people said there were a whole lot of people who were more concerned about Iraq and WMD back in Sept than they admitted last spring. People are just that way, but a Presidential election is too important to let these kind of rationalizations slide by unchallenged.

And, if people around here KNEW something in Sept 2002, they were smarter than every leader in the world. Because NONE of them KNEW any such thing.

find legit WMDs or that they would find WMDs that they had PLANTED?

They wanted to justify their stupid defense of the Iraq war. They were freepers and most of them are gone.

I have no problem with being smarter than "every leader in the world" (though I think your stats are off by a leader or two)but even if they had found WMD the war was wrong. Unless they were about to attack us with them then he had no right to invade, only to insist they be distroyed.

Rovian operatives, whatever. And in September of 2002, there was no world leader who came out and said Iraq had no WMD.

Whether it be Kerry, Dean, or my guy. The media is gonna be a Bush propaganda machine. So why expect different treatment for different people. BTW I say the same to people who say DK is unelectable because they fear the media will trash him, I think the media is gonna be George's bitch either way, and they are gonna go after who ever it is. On the war vote, I am disappointed with those who said yes, no doubt but I try not to take away their mostly good records from them.

is national security, do you want to be the Democrat who's trying to convince 60% of Americans predisposed to thinking you're too soft on national security that you really care about their security even though you didn't want to be tough on Iraq?

Yeah, yeah, I know all the argument for why we're safer NOT going into Iraq. But multiply the number of sentences you have to write about that to convince people by 15 million, and that's how many dollars you're going to need to convince enough Americans to believe you in order to win the election.

What was happening at the time of that vote is being twisted in the same way the right will twist things next year. It's wrong for them to do it, but it's even more wrong for us to use those tactics against one of our own who has given so much to this country. It's a disgrace.

...that a "yes" vote on the Iraq vote was a political decision and not a principled one.

Mike

PS And I agree with what's stated above--they will distort and tell lies about any of the candidates. We just need to be ready to counter them LOUDLY.

He's being ripped because he refused to accept responsibility by admitting he made a bad choice and just say that he regrets making that vote. Instead of doing that it's been one excuse after another and his campaign trying to blame everyone but Kerry for his failure to do well. Some food for thought...if voters see that Kerry isn't willing to admit a mistake and show remorse for it, he is going to be viewed as not being willing to take responsibility for his mistakes. If people can't depend on him to take responsibility for that vote how can he expect us to trust him to take responsibility as president. This very issue is one of Bush's biggest problems. He is too stubborn to admit he was wrong and apologize to everyone he's managed to offend. That's a major handicap. Kerry is doing the very same thing about the war vote and he needs to stop it. I think it's too late for him to make up for this, but he can still regain the confidence of a lot of people if he'd just admit his screw up and apologize for it.

That's what makes saying the vote was wrong impossible. Trusting Bush to handle the war and diplomacy was a mistake and he has said that.

But the whole point of my post is that it wouldn't matter because the whole thing is sham. Just like 'Howard wanted to let Saddam have nuclear weapons' would be a sham. People use it because as long as they throw out that vote, they don't have to talk about anything else. Howard does the exact same thing. Why do you think he wanted to get the debate OFF Iraq last night? He doesn't want to run of foreign affairs because he knows he'd lose.

It's a great campaign strategy, really really great. I don't think it's going to work next year though.

This is about Kerry's credibility with his constituents and the American people. Until he handles this issue responsibly there is going to be a great deal of animosity directed at him.

Let's not make this about Kerry vs. Dean or either one of them Vs. Bush. You've got to look at it as a matter of trust between Kerry and those who are upset with him. He can't ever hope to restore his good image until he makes amends with those people who are upset over that vote. Everyone can argue semantics until the cows come home and it's not going to change anything.

Being angry with Dean makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Dean has absolutely nothing to do with the disappointment many feel with Kerry. Both Kerry and his supporters (a lot of them anyway) are trying to hold Dean accountable for something he had nothing to do with. People were upset long before the "Bush Lite" comment and would have been just as upset if it had never of been said. As long as this is the way the issue gets dealt with it's only going to cause even more anger and animosity. Now, Kerry supporters here can't make Kerry set this situation straight, but they CAN stop blaming Dean and harboring resentment towards him that he doesn't deserve. Hell, this place would be much nicer for all of us if that happened. I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't have an ill word to speak of Kerry if some of his supporters weren't constantly attacking Dean. I'm sure I'm not alone.

It is about that but it's about another thing too. The entire world. People are just not coming to grips with the fact that the President leads the world, the whole entire world. It is not enough to vote on me, me, me, anymore. How our President engages the world is critical to everything that happens here at home. Dennis Kucinich gets that and it's a whole lot more than just Iraq and the billions spent there. It's the billions spent everywhere because of our shitty diplomatic relations. That's why I want somebody who I KNOW has a different view of world relations and has the relationships in place to get to work immediately.

And nuclear weapons was most certainly the pretense that Bush used to push for that vote AND to push to go to war. Mushroom clouds??? Pushing that vote as any sort of reason to not support Kerry is nothing more than campaign tactics. Without it, Dean has nothing to run on.

It has nothing to do with Dean at all. Dean isn't having the successes he is from attacking Kerry. Dean never singled him out. He just said what many people were already thinking and feeling about ALL of the candidates who voted for IWR. You're right about one thing, it isn't about "me, me, me, me". It's ironic that you chose to say that, because what you are saying that others are doing, you are also doing. I think everyone does it to some extent, and you are't immune to that.

The criticism of those who voted for the Iraq war is NOT what has gotten Dean where he is. That criticism was just one of many things Dean talked about at the DNC winter meeting that got him noticed. It wasn't even so much what he said as it was the passion he said it with. It was his fire that stirred people up and the fact that he just said the same things people were thinking and feeling. The ONLY real impact Dean being against the war has done to help him is that it made people look at him earlier than they otherwise would have. It's his record and his style that held the attention of those who looked at him over Iraq. This is the number one thing that Dean's detractors don't understand. It's NOT about Iraq for MOST of Dean's supporters. It's about a lot of things.

Yes, whoever leads this country most definitely needs to understand where we fit in and what our role should be in the rest of the world. Realistically, all it takes to be good on foreign policy is to be willing to put some effort into getting good information through reliable sources, having good listening skills, common sense, a desire to make things work and a genuine sense of fairness. Anyone can get it right if they do those things. Dean has visited over 50 countries, including most Middle Eastern countries. He DOES understand the culture and societies in those places. And he does have the right qualities to be very effective and positive in foreign policy. Regarding National Defense, he wouldn't have any problems there either. To explain why I say this I'm going to tell you a little story about something that happened right after Snelling died and Dean took office in Vermont. A man named Con Hogan was the head of Health and Human Services. Dean wanted to meet with him to be briefed on his department and hear about the issues, concerns, how things worked, what didn't work, what the problems were. They had a very long meeting. Dean listened intently to everything Con Hogan told him. When the meeting was over, Dean matter of factly got up and left the room to get to work. Mr. Hogan looked at the other person in the room and made the comment that either Dean didn't understand a single word he had said or he understood it all perfectly. Well, he understood every bit of it after one sitting. He immediately got to work and lo and behold, he got all those concerns, issues and problems addressed. He approaches policy in the same way any doctor approaches practicing medicine. It works VERY effectively. Dean has a sharp, intuitive and quick mind. He is able to think on his feet and solve problems quickly and effectively. This is a very big part of the reason I support him so strongly. Fixing tough problems that seem impossible is where he shines. Lord knows we are needing some of that magic right about now.

Okay, with all that being said, this is what I honestly believe. Every one of the 9 candidates AND Bob Graham are NEEDED to fix this God awful mess we are in. Each of them offer something very unique and worthwhile to this country. Eating each other alive as is going on is HORRIBLE for this country. These folks NEED to unite and work together for the survival and recovery of this great nation. The next president absolutely MUST have executive experience, the ability to influence and motivate, and more than anything else, the ability to organize and set forth a clear and effective agenda to fix this mess we're in. Dean is the one best suited to do that. However, he also needs to surround himself with great people that he can trust to do their job. Clark needs to be the one handling the military and cleaning things up in Iraq. Edwards needs to be the Attorney General and clean up the mess in that area. Kerry needs to get to the bottom of the Intelligence and 9/11 Investigation as well as do his part in the investigations into terrorism. Braun is the most diplomatic politician I've ever seen. Send her to the UN to represent us. Gephardt should head up the Dept. of Labor. And what the hell, give Kucinich his Dept. of Peace to act as an Ambasador of good will throughout the world. Let him be the advocate of the world to the US. Sharpton and Graham have to fit in there somewhere too. I just can't think of where at the moment. Lieberman too, God help his misguided soul. I'm sure there's even something he can offer to help.

This is a damn great field of candidate who all have something to contribute. It's too bad they can't all unite and run as one whole administration against the nasty bastard currently squatting in the oval office.

We are ALL on the same team here, and it's a goddamned shame more people don't understand that.

if he can't among friends how will he ever do it among enemies ?

the centerpiece of his campaign is an apparant flip flop. the primary season IS about the candidates. no one is running against Bush yet.

It's an issue.

We had absolutely no right to "hold Saddam accountable." The UN's resolutions are the UN's to enforce (through its members) and the UN said HELL No! We have absolutely no business enforcing Resolutions without their go-ahead. We didn't get it. Saddam was not an immediate threat. There were no WMDs. No causus belli. Sorry.

We went to war to defend the USA from WMD's. Which was a total lie he changed the reason so he wouldn't be hung in the media. If we were liberating people we would've started with Cuba because it's only 90 miles off the coast of Cuba. Bush wouldn't want to do that because he'd lose the Cuban vote then.

That's why we lose. They're going to attack us no matter who's up there facing off against them. Look at how the Pigman has attacked Tom Daschle and Daschle is to the right of some Republicans. It doesn't who's up there tey're going after them with everything they got. Which is what we need to do as well.

We have learned through our sources that citizen without a job dean, masturbates, drives too fast, crunches lifesavers instead of sucking, and has one ear lower than the other."

Thinking that he could is just the imagination of paranoid neocons. We left him alone for four years because we bombed every single suspected weapons development site in Operation Desert Fox. We didn't know what was going on, but his country was in shambles and he wasn't a threat to anybody. The evidence we had was not very compelling, so people assumed that the Bush admin had secret stuff they couldn't tell us. They were wrong.

Nobody. It's fine to understand that AFTER inspectors had gone in, but NOT in 2002 when the vote took place.

You don't invade a foriegn country based on a hunch they might be doing something wrong. It's totally irresponsible.

Go read my link. I know what was known and not known by world leaders because I spent over a month, solid, reading every single solitary piece of information that is available online. And believe me, there is a TON. While I made a case that there was no EVIDENCE of WMD, I also saw the rest of the information that had been presented over the years and could absolutely see the case for getting inspectors back in Iraq. That's why I think the vote was probably right, or at least understand why someone would. It was necessary to do something about Iraq, Bush screwed up what should have been done. Dean will come out on the wrong end of this next year. We already LOST that once.

and a ton of other DUers nobodies?

Pull up the hundreds of Senate Watch threads from that time period and then try to pull your bullshit again!

That's what I was referring to. I can hate my neighbor and expect nothing but the worst from him. It doesn't mean I KNOW he's going to do something wrong. People based their judgments based on their hatred of Bush, not facts. And I've tried to pull up old threads to prove my point, but I can't get anything from before July.

...because whether or not we should have gone to Iraq in 2002 will not be a campaign issue in 2004.

The general election will be about what the candidates are going to do about Iraq in 2004 and the conversation will be more about an exit strategy than the IWR.

Dean isn't completely anti-war like Kucinich and supported Biden-Lugar. He did care whether or not Saddam had nuclear weapons but he did not think the evidence was there yet; it's a perfectly defensible position when we still haven't found WMD's.

Unless the nominee is Kucinich, the IWR will not be a general election issue AT ALL. The people who voted for it will have nothing to disagree about while Clark and Dean would only play into Rove's hands by harping on it.

If you have a complaint, it should be that it's stupid for us to be all worked up over the IWR vote because it WILL NOT MATTER in the general election. If you're asking who is the best candidate to win against Bush, the IWR shouldn't matter at all.

for as long as I live.

of the War Four have been going, I would say the opposite is true.

Along w/Eloriel, the date Ocotber 10, 2002 will forever be in my memory.

at least Kerry had the courage of conviction. Anyone can go with the crowd.

I'd prefer someone more honest, more honorable. Edwards for example.