Does this Kerry headline confuse any of you?

Cause it sure as hell confused me:

In a Tuesday speech, Sen. John Kerry criticized President Bush for leading U.S. troops into war in Iraq without support from major European allies. Kerry also criticized Howard Dean for Dean’s opposition to the war, which Kerry supported.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/

So he attacked President Bush for going to war with Iraq, then turns around and attacks Dean for attacking the war in which he voted for, yet attacked President Bush for?

I don't understand.

Did Kerry want to go into Iraq unilaterally? No.
Did Dean want to go into Iraq unilaterally? No.

Yet Kerry will criticize Bush for going into the war unilaterally, then criticize Dean for not supporting a unilateral war?

My head hurts.

Dean has shift is Irac War position so significantly to the middle that he sound very much like John Kerry. This was a really
different tone and substance that in Deans rally's over the past
year.

I DEAN CHANGING ONE MORE OF HIS POSITIONS FROM THE PAST -- NOW THE
RECENT PAST.

...there was no shift there. Try another meme. Dean stated a clear foreign policy position, and again elaborated on how and why Bush's actions were wrong.

The one I saw showed Dean not flinching an inch from his Iraq War stance. He doesn't have to flinch, either...because he's been right all along.

Simply put, Kerry's most direct threat right now is Dean - not Bush-hole. That is why he's tailoring his language to be the sharpest against Dean. Kerry thinks that, after he gets the *cough* nomination, then he can focus all his attack against Bushhole.

Unfortunately for John, that's going to be tough to do when Howard Dean becomes the Democratic nominee.

"...less than a month before it began (Dean) said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then ‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’

...at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. "

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

unilateral position. "Immediate Threat" ... Bush never proved SH was such, thus Dean's lack of support for the IWR..

Dean said he didn't have to prove anything, and he also supported Bush going to war based on Bush's determination of threat according to the Biden-Lugar bill.

""...less than a month before it began (Dean) said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then ‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’ "

But the parts you leave out are that Dean added the requirement of an iron clad, certified case that this nation was at an imminent threat from Iraq. Which, as history showed, we were not.

I've not run into a single American who would reject going to war to respond immediately to an imminent, serious threat. Dean is no different. No matter how you want pirouette his words, or try and prop up Kerry's ever changing nuance to his positions, Dean's message remains the same on this issue.

Dean saying that he would support an invasion of Iraq under certain conditions which were not met, has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the Iraq invasion the way it went down.

If Kerry thinks the benefits of invading unilaterally outweighed the damage of our stupid unilateral approach has caused, then the guy is off his rocker.

the Iraq issue and proved he never had a firm grasp of the entire issues involved. He said he would never go in to war without the UN, then he had to back off and said of course he would go to war unilaterally if needed. He attacked the others for giving Bush the power to go to war while he, himself, supported that same measure in B-L.

I think Kerry's criticisms are based on Dean's poor grasp of the entire picture rooted in Dean's own words. Fair game.

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

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

Hmm, could it be Dean said the UN had to send troops because he did not believe Iraq was an imminent threat? Maybe? Possibly? Nah, couldn't be.

He wants to not be held responsible for a provision that he supported while attackinh the others for that same provision in the IWR.

He's a hypocrite, or deliberately deceptive thinking noone remembered his support for Biden-Lugar.

I think what Kerry is saying about Bush is that we should not have gone into it unilaterally. What he's saying about Dean is that we should have gone and done so multilaterally, seeing as how Dean is allegedly against the war in any form- which is not true. Dean would have supported a multilateral invasion of Iraq.

I think what Kerry is trying to do is set himself apart from Dean and try to convince people why he (Kerry) is the better choice. He is resorting to inaccuracies to do so, though.

He criticized Dean's adherance to UN only action. It's a legitimate criticism, a central piece of U.S. defense, always has been. We can't rely only on UN authorization for military action, that's too far left. At the same time, Bush has been too far right, as he's been criticizing for over a year. Read the speech, I posted it.

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

Feb. 22, 2003

He opposed going in to Iraq without the UN, because he did not see Iraq as an imminent threat.

I'll answer anything there. Otherwise we're just basing opinion on repeaters, who often never even heard or read the actual speech.

You had to do a lot of work to make Kerry look inconsistent, or whatever you're trying to do.

I copied and pasted the headline.

Full of crap.

“When American needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot,” he said. “One moment he supported authorizing the use force. The next, he criticized those who did.”

Here he grossly oversimplifies the issues involved and the differences between the final IWR, and Biden-Lugar.

Kerry noted that Dean, bunched atop the field of Democratic contenders in most polls, supported the war in Iraq only with UN Security Council authorization.

Dean embraces a “‘Simon Says’ foreign policy where America only moves if others move first,” Kerry said. “That is just as wrong as George Bush’s policy of school yard taunts and cowboy swagger.”

Dean would support force is Iraq was an imminent threat. Dean has always maintained that they were not, which is why he was only prepared to support action under UN charter.

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said. -
Feb. 22, 2003

He opposed going in to Iraq without the UN, because he did not see Iraq as an imminent threat. It's quite simply, and for Kerry to raise a fuss about this and try to paint Dean as a waffler, or "Simon Says" candidate is wrong. He needs to quit crying in his teacups about Dean's success and just get over it.

the country is what this whole election is about! Kerry shows what we need to do. The speech yesterday by Dean was clueless. So he can read a speech written by others. So can Bush.

Kerry is leading the country forward by his ideas. His "First 100 Days" agenda show what he will do. Not just hot air but actual plans on foreign affairs, education, environment, health care.

My god, the war was fought. We are in Iraq. IWR yes, no. It's over people! Let's move on to get this country back on the right path.

Senator John Kerry is showing us the path and shows why he will be the best man to stand up to gwb and rove next fall.

Read the speech, watch it when it is televised.

Choose the best man that can not only beat bush but lead this country.

DemOutWest

Any support of it is bound to confuse.