Did Kerry really say this in 1992? If so, he's a hypocrite.

A headline in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register of August 14th read “Veteran Kerry Touts His War Experience.” Of course the story was about Senator John F. Kerry, the Vietnam veteran who wants to be the Democrat Party¹s presidential candidate. He returned from the war to lead protests, denigrate our flag, mock anticommunists, and call his fellow veterans “criminals” before a congressional committee. He now reminds us, incessantly, that he served in Vietnam. It wasn’t always that way. John DiStaso of the Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader newspaper points out that 11 years ago, during the 1992 New Hampshire primaries, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a fellow Democrat, had contrasted his distinguished war record with that of the draft-dodging Bill Clinton. On February 27th, 1992, John Kerry then attacked his fellow veteran on the Senate floor. Kerry lamented that the subject of Vietnam service had been ‘inserted into the campaign.’ John Kerry told his fellow senators, ‘What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary...We do not need to divide America over who served and how...’


This is written by an obvious Republican, but if Kerry really did say this stuff he is a hypocrite.

http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/fielder/2003/aug25.html

he's "evolving", just like Dean is.

Changing your position on an issue is one thing. But criticizing the behavior of someone and then turning around and doing the same thing is hypocritical.

Posting an opinions of a republican...

Good sourcing...Just like those talking about Vermont being in less fiscal trouble now due to Deans fiscal leadership were the current Republican Governor and his ex assistant of the Treasury DEpartment of Vermont.

Nic_J acting as if he's as pure as can be.....

you got to be shitting me...I can't believe you of all people could even post that without your head exploding.

snip

When you decided to run for the Senate in 1984 against Ray Shamie, a wealthy businessman, remember that I loyally supported your campaign as one of the dozen or so Vietnam veterans the press called Kerry's Commandos, you called "Doghunters." We accompanied you throughout the state, and fended off right wing criticism from folks such as General George Patton III, who accused you of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" for your earlier VVAW activities. I'm sure you remember with fondness that critical time that launched you into national office. Your lawyer brother, Cameron, concluded that it was the veterans' support that pulled your first campaign out of a nose dive and created the necessary "galvanizing energy."

snip

The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office.

snip

In the life of being a Senator, John, I'm afraid that your career again proves that power corrupts (and blinds), and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course you have many friends in the same camp. With your vote for essentially agreeing with the selected resident of the White House's request for incredible authority in advance to wage wars against whomever he wants, you have contributed to finalizing the last of the world's empires, and the likely consequent doom of international law, peaceful existence, and hope for the future possibilities of Homo sapiens.

John is evolving allright

http://www.counterpunch.org/willson1015.html

how do you explain what is said? Brian Wilson seems like he was as close to Kerry as anyone. Why don't any of you even acknowleged it?

Something has to be gone over for 15 years to be acknowledged?

It's actually hard to comment because his actual explanation isn't in print anywhere. If you can find his entire remarks on this, I'd like to read it. As it is, I can only find statements from people accusing him of marching with Communists, etc., articles by Ann Coulter and Newsmax., so it's kind of hard to think these aren't biased in their own right.

Still, I'm not satisfied with his explanations. Seems like he felt he earned his medals but at the same time believed in the statement being made by throwing the medals back. It would be good if he'd make a thorough explanation, maybe he already has. But until I can read something besides articles based on right wing rantings, I'm not going to come to a final conclusion. And the basis of the CommonDreams article is exactly the same as the ones who thought John Kerry was a communist.

from the left? Didn't Dean supporters complain about that same thing with Counterpunch?

Brian Willson has jumped overboard a few times in regard to Kerry. He has no objectivity.

It's pretty damning, too. I have actually had to fight off the urge to post it in response to the Dean bashing.

They ignore it hoping it will go away. No wonder Dean is leading Kerry 38% to 17% in Hew hampshire.

Kerry was hardly alone in throwing his ribbons in and keeping his medals. His life is very well documented, and yet there is not a single example of him misleading anyone about what he had done. Are you going to attack him for filming himself in Vietnam, too? Or that he fooled people into thinking he was Irish?

These Republican attacks have all been discredited, some by the Daily Howler, some by Joe Klein's New Yorker piece. It saddens me that some on the Left are content to stoop to these tactics.

(spelling edit)

always be grateful.

So f'ing what if it was a staged event? I can tell the kiddies here who weren't around to understand the impact of Vets supporting the anti-War effort, that no one questioned or cared whose medals they were.

You ought to think a moment about who is feeding you this garbage...it's the Republicans.

Look, I like Kerry and he's my 1st choice. I've donated to Kerry's camapign, but I've also donated to Dean's. From what I've read, there are no perfect candidates running....but anyone of them is light years better than the criminal's occupying our White House now.

It slay's me that we are holding our candidates up to some kind of incredible high/impossible standard when the bar has been lowered to the floor by the current idiot-in-chief.

The only thing being accomplished here is that we will turn off posters and readers alike about coming to DU and learning what each candidate stands for. We will post ourselves into irrelevancy with the intellectual foodfight that appears well underway.

Being able to recant because your comments are on record is "brave" IMHO.

</sarcasm>

At the time, he attempted to quell the flames of who served and who didn't. Repubs successfully made it an issue in spite of his efforts...now THEY have a draft dodging president who didn't show up for half of his miltary career summoning the patriotism and service of others and showing images of Max Clelland who lost a limb in the war and comparing him to Saddam Hussein.

Kerry has every right to reference his service to the country and his sacrifices...he ISN'T the one who made it an issue in the first place...now that it is...guess what?

BTW if this is about DEAN and NOT Kerry, it is a rather foolish thing to do IMHO...whoever wins the Dem nomination should NOT be torn apart by us.

He brings out the worst in me. Coincidentally, are you on any of the threads he starts calling him out on his behavior?

I'm tired of him posting falsehoods about my state. I'm tired of him trying to pass off other people's opinions as fact. I just don't understand why the admins give him free reign to create such negativity on this site. I honestly have nothing against Kerry. But everytime Nicholas posts his attacks on Dean I feel like doing the same to Kerry because no one is allowed to call him what he is. For what it's worth, I really do try not to take it out on Kerry. He makes it so hard not to, though. I really wish Kerry supporters would do more to influence him to knock the negativity off.

And I don't have him or anyone on "ignore", either. I just got tired of reading the same ol trash!

Don't let it get to you! You do a Good job on DU and I really enjoying reading your posts! :-) :toast:

...because once you've read one of his screeds, you've read them all...

It's really hard to ignore when he posts false information about Vermont when you live there and know he's not telling the truth. On another thread he was claiming all kinds of bold face "you know whats" about Reach Up, Vermont's reformed welfare program. I used to be on that program and he's not telling the truth at all about it. He's also posting opinions and insinuating they are factual, and they aren't in most cases. And the ones that have some truth in them have been mangled so badly they are misleading. I don't mind factual criticism of Dean, but what Nicholas does is bullshit and it's very frustrating that he's allowed to do this and set such a negative tone. I noticed that when he's not around everyone seems to get along pretty well and the tone is really upbeat and positive in this section of the site. But the second he shows up all that changes.

living in Vermont and had to see that! Well, forget I said that and just continue keeping us well informed on Dean!

And I really appreciate having you on our DU Board!

I know you have your work cut out for you but it's Good someone like you showed up to counteract the lies.



Thanks again, Karaoke Karlton! :-)

I like both candidates and don't expect there to be no mistakes in their past or apparent contradictions...I'll take a candidate that grows with experience over stagnation any day.

That this is why a lot of Dean supporters come across as defensive and more critical of Kerry than they would be if it weren't for Nicholas (and a small handful of others) doing this and the other Kerry supporters not disavowing that behavior.

I never post falsehoods...


Everything I post has been backed up on the site elsewhere with factual information from the Times Argus, Burilinton Free Press, and Rutland Herald.

Every one who saw the articles said that these newpapers wre GOP rags, and tertrible newpspapers.

So The reason I myt posts are NOT pulled is becasue they follow DU' rules.
Dean supporters frequently make claims for Dean that they do not provided factual documentation for...But here is a another good one, these Vermonters who write and support issues that are of great importance to working class Vermonters discuss Dean....seems thatbthese guys were not very happy with him. lies..or opinions of other Vermonters, who have a differnt view of Dean than you do...

Some Vermonters Give Their Views
By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
(The Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)

Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont.

As Dean's candidacy caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have appeared on the net examining his history and current stance on important national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose stances are not far from that of the current administration.


If you vote for him, it's your job to stand behind him with a poker and keep him headed in the right direction. Don't give him any honeymoon period, either--keep the pressure on from the second you drop that ballot in the box. The minute you relax, he's going to turn right back into what he really is...a privileged, arrogant, middle of the road republican. Put your political energy into getting some truly progressive folks into the House and Senate, and into State legislatures around the country so that there will be more pressure from more directions. We need to get together our sophisticated progressive thinkers to develop policy ideas in every area, so that we're ready with real, well-thought out counter-proposals for the incremental changes a Dean administration might put forth. If you feel you must, support Dean, do--but then go do the work necessary to make real change.

Ron Jacobs, Donna Bister and Marc Estrin comprise the OLD NORTH END RAG collective. The RAG is an agitational community newspaper serving the Old North End of Burlington, Vermont. This neighborhood is a primarily working class section of Vermonts largest city that has a history of political activism. They can be reached at: rjacobs@uvm.edu


http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html







SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt. - As Vermont governor, Howard Dean was known as a buttoned-down and bottom-line chief executive. He fought higher taxes, cut programs over the cries of fellow Democrats and often sided with business when the choice was jobs versus the environment.

Which explains why many people back home scarcely recognize Howard Dean the presidential candidate, who has stirred liberals across the country with his blunt talk and passionate antiwar speeches.

"A lot of us laugh and say, 'Howard, we hardly knew you,' " said Elizabeth Ready, the state auditor and a liberal Democrat. Added Bob Sherman, a Democratic lobbyist, "The Howard Dean I see running for president is a lot different than the Howard Dean who . . . governed Vermont. He was a moderate."

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/recent2003/0713%5Fdeanvermont%5F2003.shtml

A lie...does it say ANYTHING about Dean that is not true...Are there comments from other Vermonters about Dean that indicates that they just LOVE Dean...

Or this one:


Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk...

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

Are these articles TRUE or FALSE...

Or do they indicate that even Deans closest supporters began to oppose him...


Sorry... this is the nature of 95 percent of all of my posts, just you guys are afraid of whatbthey say about Dean and REFUSE to find justifications for his actions...Or refuse to admint that they occurred.

You support Dean, and greatly object to critical questions about his record.


Everything about Derans past record indicates that he will lie to get what he wants during a campaign, and then drop the promises as soon as he has what he wants...

Othe examples. Dean did not start ONE Vermont Health care program. VHAP, Dr. Dynasaur, and the VScript programs were all created before Dena becasme governor.

Dean made a lot of cuts to these programs, but did not create them of fund them adequately and veto'd all attempts to raise taxes to increase funding to them when fiscal problems occurred...

Or more lies like this....

Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002

By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week...

The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

Or how about an Alzheimers organization in Vemront, advocating for the aged , they are lying too...

The Dean budget for FY 2003 is $891 million in state spending, one percent more than the state expects to spend this fiscal year but nearly 3% less than the budget passed last year ($916 million). Revenues this year are expected to be $50 million below budget. Dean wants to use the "Rainy Day" fund to cover some of the $50 million shortfall but does not want to tap that fund for FY 2003. Next year’s budget is based on revenue estimates of $893 million.

If passed as presented, Dean’s budget would:

Eliminate the VScript Expanded Program.

Reduce the Vermont Health Access Plan pharmacy benefit.

Increase the co-pay up to $750/year for medicines under both the VScript and VHAP pharmacy programs. (Those eligible now pay only a few dollars for each filled prescription).

Eliminate the Medicaid dentures, chiropractic and podiatry programs.

Reduce the adult dental programs (cover pain and suffering only, not preventative care).

Add a 50% co-pay to adult vision programs.

Add a $250 co-pay per admission to VHAP inpatient hospital benefit.

Reduce the hospital outpatient payment by 10%.

Establish a hospital outpatient co-pay of $25.

These cuts would save about $27 million, $11 million in state money. Few advocates for the elderly are happy with the budget and have vowed to restore the money lost to these programs. A coalition of over a dozen advocacy groups held a rally and press conference at the Capitol building to denounce the budget cuts.

http://vnavt.com/vahhavoicewinter2002.htm


The Administration would hold TANF families to a higher standard than the rest of the country and require them to get jobs faster and work more. By increasing participation rates and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
Governor Howard Dean – Draft Testimony

Page 6 eliminating caseload reduction credits, the Administration’s plan compels states to move all families, including those with barriers and little or no attachment to the work force, into direct work activities as soon as possible.

Moreover, this expectation of immediate attachment to the work force for those families with multiple barriers and few or no skills is not only unrealistic, it is inconsistent with the expectations that we as a nation hold for the unemployed. This country’s unemployment compensation program serves only individuals who have had a recent and substantial attachment to the labor force.

Recipients in this program continue to receive benefits for at least 6 months (or more during times of high employment) and the only activity in which they must engage is job search. In contrast, the Administration’s Plan, which does not include job search as a direct work activity, would require engagement in direct work activities within 30 days. Not only does the Administration want TANF families to find work faster, it wants them to work more too.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the work week for production or nonsupervisory workers on private payrolls has consistently averaged 34 to 35 hours over the last decade.viiIn Vermont, the average weekly hours employees spend in the service industries is between a 30 to 32 hours and workers in the retail trade average 29 hours per week.

In contrast, the Administration wants all TANF recipients to engage in activities for 40 hours a week. The fact that 16 of the 40 hours may be spent in other TANF-related activities does not diminish this higher expectation of productivity for TANF families; it is the required level of commitment that is not in conformity with the practice.

The related costs associated with the work requirement changes would be substantial. Vermont would have increased costs for child care, transportation, and work site development and maintenance. The cost of child care for universal engagement at 40 hours per week is high.

To meet the 40-hour requirement Vermont’s Reach Up parents will need to participate in no fewer than two activities. Realistically, some activities will only be available at night, on weekends, and holidays. Off-hours child care is more expensive and harder to find. Vermont estimates.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:JMSzkx_-jvwJ:finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/041002hdtest.pdf+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22welfare%22+work&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And this is HOWARD DEANS testimony about the Veront Reach Up program holdfing Workfare and Start Up program participants to higher standards and requirements than the rest of the country...



Is HOWARD DEAN a liar?

So The reason I myt posts are NOT pulled is becasue they follow DU' rules.

DU rules only prohibit calling the liars liars.

If those statements about Dean in the articles of opinions of other Vermonters are lies, you have offered NOTHIN to disprove the lies but your own opinions...


The articles about Deans own statement ands cuts to budgets cannot be lies, as Dean himself is quoted onm supporting them and initiating them.
I provide evidence of Deans behavior, democrats who opposed him, and all you provide is your own personal opinions...

Ah but I forget, with Dean supporters, only Deans opinions are valid. and even his own record does not exist if they say it does not.

March 21, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500-0003

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our profound concern and dismay at the news of yet another suicide bombing in Jerusalem -- killing three and wounding more than 50 -- even as General Zinni is on the ground in the region trying to bring both parties together for cease-fire negotiations.

Chairman Arafat made a commitment at Oslo to settle all differences between Palestinians and Israelis peacefully and to renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence. Yet even today the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Mr. Arafat's own Fatah movement, are engaged in acts of violence and terrorism.

It is especially disappointing to us that this bombing -- the second in two days -- comes just at a time that Vice President Cheney had offered to meet with Mr. Arafat and that General Zinni had returned to the region to seek to bring both sides together to implement the Tenet Plan. Yet there is no evidence, on the ground, that Mr. Arafat is willing to do what is necessary to help bring peace to Israel and his people. Mr. Arafat must live up to his pledge at Oslo and demonstrate that he is a genuine partner for peace.

We strongly believe that Chairman Arafat must take decisive and concerted action to rein in the terrorists and put and end to their brutal campaign -- and must demonstrate, on the ground, that he is willing to take the steps necessary to bring the violence to an end. Until Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority demonstrate a commitment, in word and deed, to control the violence and do everything they can to stop it, we believe that Israel, a democratic state and a staunch friend and ally of the United States, is strongly within its rights to take necessary and appropriate measures to assure the security of its people.

Until Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority demonstrate their commitment to end the violence we would urge that the Vice President reconsider his offer to meet with Mr. Arafat. And although we believe that it is critical that General Zinni remain in the region, we hope that he makes clear that the United States will not deal with those who do not live up to their commitments.

We look forward to your thoughts on this matter, and to working with you on this critical issue.

With warmest personal regards.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Ron Wyden, Mitch McConnell, Bob Graham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jesse Helms, Kent Conrad, Richard Durbin, Jon Corzine, Jim Jeffords, Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Christopher Dodd, Arlen Specter, Fritz Hollings, Daniel Inouye, John Warner, Paul Wellstone, Hillary Clinton, James Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Herb Kohl, Robert Torricelli, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Russell Feingold, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Orrin Hatch, Tim Hutchinson, Mike Crapo, Christopher Bond, Bob Smith, Mary Landrieu, Charles Grassley, Bill Nelson, Jim Bunning Tim Johnson, Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins, John Breaux, Robert Bennet, Max Cleland, Wayne Allard, Barbara Mikulski, George Allen, Frank Murkowski

http://www.aipac.org/documents/AIPACletter032502.html

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to discuss the division within the United Nations Security Council over how to handle Iraq. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) called the proposed U.N. Security Council resolutions paper tigers dealing with the Saddam Hussein that we compared to Hitler. Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) observed that Saddam Hussein seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction regardless of any cost to the Iraqi people. and called on the administration to unify the UN Security Council in its resolve to maintain sanctions. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) went further, calling on the administration to give financial support to Iraqi opposition groups. NER

Thesaurus entry for "paper tiger": http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=230&subcat=3

 http://www.aipac.org/result.cfm?id=373


MR. SAFIRE ARGUES : …That conservative columnists “all were well ahead of late-arriving Lieberman and his tiny band of principled Democrats.”

FACT : Mr. Safire himself, earlier in the same piece, acknowledges the strongly pro-Israel efforts of a virtual “who’s-who” of the leaders of the Democratic Party – Senator John Kerry, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Joe Lieberman, to name but a few. Mr. Safire later targets Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he cannot even refer to by name – calling her instead New York’s “junior senator.” Mr. Safire seems to somehow “accuse” Senator Clinton of signing the right pro-Israel congressional letters and making the right statements. In Mr. Safire’s world, when Republican leaders make the right statements and sign the right letters, they are true leaders; when Democrats do it, they must be doing so grudgingly. Such a double standard is the hallmark of cheap-shot journalism.

http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=230&subcat=3

(edited out funky question marks that showed up in one paragraph)

Howard Dean: Sharon's Man?


By Ahmed Nassef

Although often portrayed as progressive, former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean falls short on several issues important to progressives, with the Middle East being one of the more glaring.

True, Dean is one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who opposed the invasion of Iraq (along with Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, conservative Senator Bob Graham, former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun, and Rev. Al Sharpton), but he is closer to a hawk when it comes to Israel/Palestine and US policy toward Iran.

In a major foreign policy speech earlier this year, Dean, while calling for an end to Palestinian violence, did not call for an end to Israeli violence, let alone an end to the illegal Israeli occupation.

And when asked whether his views are closer to the dovish Americans for Peace Now (APN) or the right wing, Sharon-supporting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he stated unequivocally in an interview with the Jewish weekly The Forward, "My view is closer to AIPAC's view."

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

Deans visit to Israel in January was PAID for by AIPAC.

But even better before Dean went he called Gary Hart and said "Gary what do I do" and Hart in a Denver Post Interview stated that Dean is TOTALLY clueless on international affairs after his long telephone talk with Dean.

"We have to get the Israelis out of the West Bank, but we can't get them out of the West Bank if a bomb goes off like it did yesterday," Dean said, according to a report by The Associated Press.

"Palestine," Dean said, "is the best hope for peace in the Middle East, partly because Palestinians have experience with Israeli democracy and involve women in their political life," the newswire reported. "Compared to the citizens of many Arab nations, Palestinians... have a better understanding of democracy than anybody else," Dean said at a Manchester house party.

He's said this all along, but people like you conveniently leave it out. Dean has also said that regardless of how anyone else feels about Arafat, he is the one the Palestinians have chosen to represent them and we have no right disrespecting that. But Kerry doesn't have that problem and disrespects Palestinians by supporting Sharon's desire to prevent decent relations between the US and Palestinians.

Muslims Wake Up said it..

It is in their interest and they were active on the Internet getting people cutting support for Dean during the MoveOn primaries, very heavily moving to get Democrat Mslims to support ANYONE but Dean.

And this differs from Kerry's stance which is not the same as the AIPAC stance the Dean supports. The AIPAC stance demands the stopping of terrorism by Palestinian Groups before they will get on with negotiations. Kerry staed that theyy should continue as you cannot hold all Palestinians accountable for the actions of a Few...

Sorry this is more waffling and really says NOTHING, other that Palestinaisn exist and have to be included in the settling of differnces between Palestinaisn and Israel. It is political double talk. Gee, takes a real fgenius to fugure that out.

He still holds to the AIPAC stance which means as long as a few Palestinian terrorists try to hold the talks hostage, Israel wont deal.

It gives a tiny group of fanatical terrorist control over Both the Palestinian Authority and Israel and such a stance interferes with the peace process going on.

Like negotiating with kidnappers, most of the time you leave the money, and the kidnapped person is found dead. THe AIPAC stance is the main problem in preventing the process from going foreward. All that is neededd to stop it is one fanatical group with ten people in it to blow up a bus, and the process is stopped. Deans position lets the terrorists control the peace process.

Dean still refuses to deal with the Israeli murder of innocent Palestinians whenever they persue guilty terrorists. Dean's support of AIPAC approves such behaviors. AIPAC is SHARONS public arm in the U.S.

This statement says nothing of Israel's behaviors of killing innocents in order to capture the guilty.

P.S. here is a reply from a Palestinian to Deans Statement:

Palestine," Dean said, "is the best hope for peace in the Middle East, partly because Palestinians have experience with Israeli democracy and involve women in their political life," the newswire reported. "Compared to the citizens of many Arab nations, Palestinians... have a better understanding of democracy than anybody else," Dean said at a Manchester house party.


Howard Dean is either clueless or mentally incompetent.

"Palestinians have experience with Israeli democracy" Dean states. *Ahem* The Palestinians are under a military occupation, not a democracy. Arafat's Palestinian Authority is under the Israeli military machine. He can only do so much. He does not even have any authority whatsoever over two-thirds of the Occupied Territories, they are under direct Israeli military control. Palestinians have a whole different system, including a different judicail system than Israel proper. They have no say over Jewish settlers stealing their crops, while Israeli peace groups and international activists try to stop them. They cannot stop the bulldozing of their homes. They cannot stop the Wall that goes THROUGH their land, not around it. "Experience with Israeli democracy" my ass. Dean is playing politics and wants the Jewish "bloc" vote. Fair play is not on his agenda. I feel that if this is an indication of how he thinks, I'll stay with Kuccinich, he works with the Jewish peace group Tikkun in Israel.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=341419

You falsely posted that Dean brought the death penalty back to Vermont when you were citing a federal case brought by Ashcrofts Justice Department.

You falsely posted that Dean raised the sales tax when he kept it the same and exempted food.

You falsely posted that Dean had someone jailed for contempt of court and when called on that claimed he signed the order.

You falsely claimed a Planned Parenthood poll in Iowa was in internet poll when called on that you falsely claimed they only polled members of Planned Parenthood.

These are off the top of my head. With even a little research I would find literally dozens and dozens of such falsehoods.

He's spewing a crock of sheeit about that too...and I KNOW because I was in that program MYSELF. But of course, sitting in Florida he still thinks he knows better about how things work in Vermont than Vermonters do. Oh, and I've seen him say he filled out forms and learned he wouldn't qualify for help in Vermont...that's another load of dung. You CAN'T apply on line and find out if you're eligible. You HAVE to go meet with a worker IN PERSON before you even find out if you're eligible or not.

In 1992 Max Cleland was one of Bob Kerrey's strongest supporters, and today he is backing John Kerry. If he was really offended by John Kerry's remarks, or thought it made him an untrustworthy person, I don't think he would would hesitate in finding another candidate.

Obviously what Kerry was concerned about was seeing a candidate using their personal military record to attack another's patriotism, not about making the merits of one's service to our country part of their campaign.

No amount of Rovian spin can change that.
I read the quote; I read the article. Nothing he said about Bob Kerrey can be remotely construed as hypocritical.
They both got a raw deal in Vietnam and made the best of a tragic situation.
This is a non-issue.

Heroic indeed.

Congratulations.

I've never heard Kerry attack Dean for not serving. I certainly have never done it, although many people have pointed out that it's going to be used against him if he becomes the candidate. That's a fact.

Kerry is stating he is the only candidate with a military background because we are actually in a war situation now, it's a different time than in 1992. Military service was totally irrelevant in 1992. And I don't remember exactly what Bob Kerrey said about Clinton back in 1992, but it was probably more along the lines of who went to war and who protested. That battle doesn't need to be fought again and that's what I hear Kerry saying in this quote. He's never once said anything against a Vietnam protestor, or even those who got deferrments, that I'm aware of.

"Kerry is stating he is the only candidate with a military background because we are actually in a war situation now"

A war he voted for. How convenient!

What a lameness.

It's foolish to base future of this country on one vote, a vote that actually paved the way for Dean to be able to say:

"I would do exactly what we're doing with Saddam. I would leave it to the United Nations. Saddam has a long history of having his word be absolutely no good whatsoever. Now, the North Koreans have not exactly distinguished themselves in their level of honesty, either.

But for the United States to negotiate directly with Saddam Hussein, I suspect, is a waste of time. I'd leave that to the United Nations, leave it to the community of nations, not simply the United States, to police what's going on in Iraq."

He wouldn't have been able to say that without that war vote that got Bush to go the UN in the first place. So he was perfectly content with the results gained from the Democratic Party in January 2003. But when Bush went headlong into war, against the advice of many who voted for that authorization, including Kerry, he quickly blamed the Democratic Party instead of George Bush. Typical Howard Dean.

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_dean2004_archive.html

This isn't just about Iraq. There's alot more going on around the world than just Iraq. You may have been against the Afghanistan war too, but I can't think of any candidate besides Kucinich and maybe Sharpton that weren't supportive of the Afghanistan war. So we're in a war footing, regardless of the Iraq vote, regardless of whether people want to admit terrorism is a threat or not.

And if you don't want George Bush leading the war on terrorism, you need to start thinking about the candidate's positions on all foreign policy. Israel/Palestine, international diplomacy, creating goodwill and economic opportunity around the world, etc. This election is about so much more than an Iraq war vote.

It is about his support of Patriot Act, Homeland Gestapo his calling "Bush a likeable fellow", telling dems to "Get over it", etc etc etc etc...ad nauseaum.

They passed the Patriot Act. It had been in the works for years I always hear. Yep, parts of it were things Bill Clinton wanted in the other terrorism act passed after Oklahoma City. Other things were put in it as well. That's the way laws are. They get passed, there's problems with the way they're interpreted, laws get changed. I don't even understand why this is an argument. Every Democratic candidate supports taking a serious look at the Patriot Act and overhauling it.

Homeland Security, I guess is what you're referring to. It actually doesn't make sense for different agencies to be limited when addressing terrorists. If the DEA is doing something and find terrorists instead of drugs, they ought to be able to do something besides let the people go. It just makes common sense. And to think abuses haven't happened in the past is equally silly, of course they have. It's important to address those abuses, whether they occurred within the individual departments or in the Homeland Security Dept as a whole. Any Democratic candidate will do that, much more than Ashcroft ever will.

Bush is a likeable fellow, well, I'd guess that falls under the category of manners. And 'get over it' annoyed me too, but using the election of 2000 as a main campaign issue in 2004 isn't going to work. That's realistic and John Kerry is most certainly a realist.

It's good you support Kucinich, I know he has a very different view of America, but it's a good one, a really good one. It just isn't the one America wants to hear about. Again, just being a realist.

they are my line in the sand.

Dennis has his agenda, platform, whatever term you want to use. I actually prefer it, I just don't think it's realistic. It seems to presume that there is always a peaceful way to deal with dangerous situations. I'd like to think that, I just don't think it's true.

Look at Bush and the kooks in office right now for instance. They DO NOT believe in peaceful solutions AT ALL. They believe fiercely in 'get them before they get us'. It's their 'foreign policy'. So what do we do if we find there are terrorists or foreign leaders who have the exact same mindset? The fact that Bush is in office proves it can happen.

The Patriot Act and Homeland Security were designed to deal with this, whether you think the threat is real or not. Getting someone in office who understands there *can* be lunatics who pose a danger to American citizens while at the same time desires to protect our rights, seems to be the way to go. I haven't seen Dennis come up with the solutions to terrorism if he intends to completely dismantle the tools set up to go after them. Maybe I missed something there.

I trust John Kerry the most of all the candidates to defend our rights, defend the country AND change the way we engage the Middle East and the economic circumstances that create the breeding ground for terrorism in the first place.

A-Wol and all the other chicken hawks in the chicken wing of the republican party.

Didn't you know?

Democrats...

This last post was really lame. It tries to twist everything into bash of Kerry and it just doesn't make it. Kerry is a good man. I don't agree with him on all the issues. But he is a good man and he has a tremendous amount of integrity. As for Nicolas, his posts are about Dean's positions on the issues. An educated voter wants to know where all the candidates stand on the issues and supporters shouldn't freak out when they hear their candidate's positions.

He chooses opinion articles that are heavily spin and twist facts to the point they're not even true anymore. He posts those incessantly. Yes, Kerry is a good man, and so is Dean. An educated voter wants the truth to judge a candidate on, not a mangled presentation of information written by someone with an axe to grind. This article is NO different than the crap Nicholas posts. Think about how you would react if I copy and pasted an article like this on EVERY thread on DU about Kerry.

Senate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk.

Just hours after an angry Gov. Howard Dean leveled a series of charges about how irresponsible he believed the Senate, controlled by his fellow Democrats, was being, senators did precisely what he warned them not to do.

They restored money to a pharmaceutical assistance program that he had slated for elimination, redirected some money to cities and towns to help pay for education, and passed the budget by a 21-8 roll-call vote.


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html


is the information true or fallse or spun...
Sorry every article I post contains reference to Deans own actions, and then provides counterpoint from opthers who WORKED in Vermont in the legislature with Dean and were members of his OWN party....They are probably FAR more aware of Dean and his behaviors than you, adn far better to judge and make opinions on those decisions. They had to work with him FAR more often tha you ever did.

this opinion thus...

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

The fact that Democrats opposed this action and Republicans supprted it is a FACT, not an opinion.

Now tell me this article is not true.

If Dean was correct, and there was not enough money to supportbthe program...the program would not exist and the state would have been left with a deficit when he left office.

Does VScript still exist in Vermont. If so it is not because of Dean, he cut it, and the SENATE restored it. IF so Dean was either purposefully cutting social programs that the state COULD afford, or he is just plain stupid and coudnt do the math.


The most annoying thing about Dean supporters, is that in order to try to get people to stop looking at thing I post, they simply state that I am lying and the information is lies, or opinions or incorrect, in an atttempt to cover up for Dean.

Sorry, there are anough people who DO read the articles that I post, and find them completely factual and informative and valid that I get a good chuckel when the most you can do to support Dean's decisions and the things that I post from valid sources about Dean is to call me a liar.

Such argument and such support reveals the candidate himself.

A candidate who mustr hide his record and refute his own past and is only able to deal with those who question his record by attack rather than evidence. You still have not posted ANY article to indicate that Dean did not attempt to cut these programs or did not spend most of his time trying to cut social programs as evinced by the MANY diffeent people who have concurred about Deans attempt to do so. If one democrat he worked with, or one progressive journalist reported on Dean tenedencies in this arena, then it would be accpetable to state that that is only an opinion, But when many do then it is likely to be a truth about Dean rathe4r than an opinion like this opinion of Dean:

Although sometimes loose with the truth, Dean's attack strategy seems to have paid off. He has put his opponents on the defensive and has drawn considerable attention from political commentators and Democratic contributors. Polls show him neck and neck with Kerry in the critical New Hampshire primary and closing in on the favored Gephardt in the Iowa caucuses...

As Dean becomes a top-tier candidate, however, his casual approach to facts and abusive tactics against his opponents could get him into serious trouble -- and severely damage Vermont's reputation for political civility and intellectual honesty.

http://www.sover.net/~auc/deanbites.htm

But I guess the editors of the Burlington Free Press as Vemronters do not know enough about Dean to state what is essentially journalistic language for stating that Dean has a tenedncy to exagerate, and is NOT intellectually honest(basically he is being called a liar)

Again you who live in Vermont and did not have to do data checks on the truthfulness or accuracy of his statemtns to the press know better than another one of Vermonts newpspers.

So I am lying here as well, Eh?

Apparently Kerry is pro-Israel AND he signed onto Bush's war because he WANTED to do it...he wasn't trying to force Bush to go to the UN...he demonized them.


March 21, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500-0003

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express our profound concern and dismay at the news of yet another suicide bombing in Jerusalem -- killing three and wounding more than 50 -- even as General Zinni is on the ground in the region trying to bring both parties together for cease-fire negotiations.

Chairman Arafat made a commitment at Oslo to settle all differences between Palestinians and Israelis peacefully and to renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence. Yet even today the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Mr. Arafat's own Fatah movement, are engaged in acts of violence and terrorism.

It is especially disappointing to us that this bombing -- the second in two days -- comes just at a time that Vice President Cheney had offered to meet with Mr. Arafat and that General Zinni had returned to the region to seek to bring both sides together to implement the Tenet Plan. Yet there is no evidence, on the ground, that Mr. Arafat is willing to do what is necessary to help bring peace to Israel and his people. Mr. Arafat must live up to his pledge at Oslo and demonstrate that he is a genuine partner for peace.

We strongly believe that Chairman Arafat must take decisive and concerted action to rein in the terrorists and put and end to their brutal campaign -- and must demonstrate, on the ground, that he is willing to take the steps necessary to bring the violence to an end. Until Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority demonstrate a commitment, in word and deed, to control the violence and do everything they can to stop it, we believe that Israel, a democratic state and a staunch friend and ally of the United States, is strongly within its rights to take necessary and appropriate measures to assure the security of its people.

Until Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority demonstrate their commitment to end the violence we would urge that the Vice President reconsider his offer to meet with Mr. Arafat. And although we believe that it is critical that General Zinni remain in the region, we hope that he makes clear that the United States will not deal with those who do not live up to their commitments.

We look forward to your thoughts on this matter, and to working with you on this critical issue.

With warmest personal regards.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Ron Wyden, Mitch McConnell, Bob Graham, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jesse Helms, Kent Conrad, Richard Durbin, Jon Corzine, Jim Jeffords, Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller IV, Christopher Dodd, Arlen Specter, Fritz Hollings, Daniel Inouye, John Warner, Paul Wellstone, Hillary Clinton, James Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Herb Kohl, Robert Torricelli, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Russell Feingold, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Orrin Hatch, Tim Hutchinson, Mike Crapo, Christopher Bond, Bob Smith, Mary Landrieu, Charles Grassley, Bill Nelson, Jim Bunning Tim Johnson, Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins, John Breaux, Robert Bennet, Max Cleland, Wayne Allard, Barbara Mikulski, George Allen, Frank Murkowski

http://www.aipac.org/documents/AIPACletter032502.html

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to discuss the division within the United Nations Security Council over how to handle Iraq. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) called the proposed U.N. Security Council resolutions ?paper tigers dealing with the Saddam Hussein that we compared to Hitler.? Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) observed that ?Saddam Hussein seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction regardless of any cost to the Iraqi people.? and called on the administration to unify the UN Security Council in its resolve to maintain sanctions. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) went further, calling on the administration to give financial support to Iraqi opposition groups. ?NER?

Thesaurus entry for "paper tiger": http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=230&subcat=3

 http://www.aipac.org/result.cfm?id=373


MR. SAFIRE ARGUES : …That conservative columnists “all were well ahead of late-arriving Lieberman and his tiny band of principled Democrats.”

FACT : Mr. Safire himself, earlier in the same piece, acknowledges the strongly pro-Israel efforts of a virtual “who’s-who” of the leaders of the Democratic Party – Senator John Kerry, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Joe Lieberman, to name but a few. Mr. Safire later targets Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he cannot even refer to by name – calling her instead New York’s “junior senator.” Mr. Safire seems to somehow “accuse” Senator Clinton of signing the right pro-Israel congressional letters and making the right statements. In Mr. Safire’s world, when Republican leaders make the right statements and sign the right letters, they are true leaders; when Democrats do it, they must be doing so grudgingly. Such a double standard is the hallmark of cheap-shot journalism.

http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=230&subcat=3

Like all Deanies..You AVOID the question. ANd like my perfectly TRUE statements about Dean, since you cannot find one positive proof of ANYTHING Dean has accomplished outside his own campaign, witrh evidence that HE was responsible for the legislation that crated the programs, ALL you can do to support Dean is to attack other canndidates.

More proof that Dena has NO platform but attack on which to run.

You are AFRAID to address Deans record. You keep on making PERSONAL statements about Dena and what he did for YOU. But have NO proof that Dean and not the Vermont Democrtats who opposed him were accountable was responsible for it.

YOur inability to support Dean with PROOF, makes my case for me

And your "questions" have been answered time and again from what I've read from others.

With adequate source materials to back them up fro OUTSIDE of Deans campaign... COunter this:

Vermont’s Tax Code: No Breaks for the Poor and Middle Class
When all Vermont taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and $44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.


# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

“Vermont’s income tax is not progressive enough to offset the regressivity of its sales and excise taxes,” McIntyre said. “Taxes ought to be based on people’s ability to pay them, which means that the share of income paid in taxes should rise as income grows, not fall as is the case in Vermont.”

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:fJRaEEEPn3gJ:www.itepnet.org/wp2000/vt%2520pr.pdf+Vermont+Taxation+regressive+Tax+institute&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Thesecare not l;iars, these are the Institutye of Taxation andEconomic Policies which would not criticise regressive taxation if it was conservative. It criticizes the change in Vermonts tax system while Dean was governor.

Sorry, you anwering with your OWN opinion does not cut it. All you do when a valid article about Dean is posted, like cutting health care programs is to avoid the issue. Find people from outside Deans own campaign whi are democrats or progressives who support Deans decision. Ppovide counterpoint argument an support from others in the area, Not your own opinion. Your own opinion is not anwswer.


Where are the articles to prove that Democrats supported Deans effort, and not Republicans. Where are your lists of legislation Dean requested to increase support for social programs, even the one YOU suppossedly benefited from. PROVE Dean is responsible for these things.

Problem is you cant. All Deanies to is scream and curse at those who present infomation that is problematic to Dean,and this is simpply because they can find NO legitimate connection between Deans BULLSHIT as "Representing the De4mocratic Wing of the Democratic Party"

THere is a massive disconnect between Dean the centrist and Dean the "Rockerfeller Republican" WHich is how Dean uhas been described by a University of Vermont Political Scientist"

Indeed, as Norman Solomon observes, there's a real disconnect between Dean's media image and his record.


"But the Democratic Leadership Council need not despair. Most of the nation's political journalists, including pro-Democrat pundits, insist that the party should not nominate someone too far 'left' -- which usually means anybody who's appreciably more progressive than the DLC. That bias helps to account for the frequent mislabeling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has risen to the top tier of contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
After Dean officially announced his campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. 'He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal,' according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/27/we_473_02.html#one

OOPS I forgot KK, Mother Jones too LIES... Vermont Professors LIE

ANd hoe bout Norman SOloman. one of the most well know independant LIBERAL political commentators in the U.S. on Dean...

As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated increasing the retirement age for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.

Later in the day, at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition forum, Dean went out of his way to emphasize support for out-of-control military spending after a rival candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said that "the only way we're really going to close the (digital) divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."

The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself to peace activists as some kind of anti-war candidate.


http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

Larr liars pants on fire for Norman too, huh...


O.K. NOW do not attack another candidate, provide valid counterpoint from other sources, NOT off of Press releases from Dean for America. in which liberal democrats, or VERMONT democrats who supported Deans policies as governor. Then we can talk. All you want to do is rant...as such it seems that it is you not me who resembles the portrait you keep posting...

ASll you can do is get angry and rant an curse information that poses a real threat to Deans campaign if it becomes common knowledge. YOur snapping and snarling is that of a cornered animal. You cannot provide
Any valid reasoning with support from the Democratic Party or Progressives to Back Dean at all. All you can find is "REpublicans For Dean" or Dean for America to provide any positive info about Dean.

If I am a crackpot, and my point about Dean are imaginary, just put me on ignore...No one will believe LIES anyway. No you will not, You are too afraid of the trith slippin out. THe person being questioned is Dean... Answer the questions about Dean. YOu claim I am Lying. PROOVE these articles are lies. Do not try to DIVERT attention from Denas piss poor record in order to get attention away from Denas record.

Deal with it, Proove those articles are wrong, that Dean had valid points, and then you will cinvince me that Dean is a valid candidate. But NOT ONE DEAN SUPPORTER in six months has done ANYTHING but present Dean for America campaign information, or their own opinions.

But you cant, there is NO way of proving that Dean is responsible for things he had no part in but opposed. Just becasue they exist in Vermont does not mean Dean supported them. HE is making claims for thing he not only had nothing to do with, but mostly cut money to:

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

Dean turned often to the bully pulpit to belittle and berate them.

Last year, in a news conference tirade that was typical of his budget feuds with the Legislature, Dean lambasted the Senate. "The Senate budget is in la-la land," Dean said last May. "They’re pretending there is no recession."

In the end, he got his way and proposed spending was cut before the budget was enacted.


Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

Oh yes I forgot ,becaue they did not agree with Dean...THEY ARE LIARS.

It is laughable that your response to a question about Dean is an attack against another candididate. It is so hysterically funny that you make my point aout Dean having nothing to stand on, or his supporters have any proof for their cultlike following of Dean.

Your own response shouts my correctness to every non Dean supporter on DU.

No, you will simply slink around and not answer the quastions witrh valid counterpoint, I will see another attack on another candidate ti divert from Dean, adn you will claim that my quesrtions have already bene anwered. Well if they have, go back to the thread in which they were answered and posdt the links and show EVERYONE where they were answered.

No ability to answer, or even find places I was answered, with documentation.

He himself was a war hero and a Vietnam veteran. Yet he felt bad about what our country had done over there. A lot of people returning fom Iraq feel the same way. I bet those criticizing him have no idea what it was like to witness what he witnessed in Vietnam. I applaud his courage to tell the truth about his feelings on the subject. People's feelings about their personal experiences change and he can't be faulted for taking a new look at the issue.

Dean dodged the draft. His medical excuse was a bad back caused by an unfused vertabrae. It prevented him from extended running. It didn't prevent him from spending that winter skiing at Aspen. He earned spending money by pouring concrete before heading to Yale.

Want sources?

Some guy, huh?

...based on a deferment he got from the Army physicians! Rake him over the coals. Oh PLEASE...

Vietnam War! And he went on with his life, Wow!

Much smarter than falling for that bullshit war!

I honestly don't like to see this kind of stuff, it's silly. I have a son who is not qualified for military service because of a hearing deficiency, it doesn't stop him from working or having a good time. That's just the way it is. This is where I don't think Democrats need to tear each other apart. There's plenty of real problems to discuss, without having to use something like this. Unless there's something about this medical thing I don't know about.

And thanks for posting this because it is way Silly!

and never leave our houses. After all that is the liberal way.

I went through the draft and if anyone had disliked himn enough then, one photo of him skiing would have been enouigh to get his assthrown into jail for exagerating his medical condition.

This condition ONLY would have gotten him a deferrment if it was said to be so serious that he could not engage in any rigorous physical behavior, and if he could ski, he would be in good enough shape to be drafted.


The press will leave this alone until later in the campaign, and after going after all of his flip flops, will drop this icing on the cake. But if it is determined that he did exagerate this condition to get out of the draft later, this act would be a felony, and disqualfy him from running, so we will see how they treat it closer to the elections. I am certain Bush already has his hands on the draft and medical records and will eagerly use them, becasue brining up BUsh's own status has hit a dead end, and a Republican congress will not go after him, but be willing to go after Dean.

Any negative stuff about Dean is going to be held off on until it gets closer to the nomination, and then a flood of multiple negative Dean information will appear in the media, meaning Dean will either have to spend most of his time arguing about his past, or trying to run his campaign. He will not be able to deal with dozens of questions about his performance as governor or his flips of opinion as candidate all at once. The other candidates are going to barrage Dean, and Dean simply is not up to that challenge, One on one, maybe a faint chance but 8 on one and a multitude of media questions will bury him.

And one thing Republicans are good at is slinging mud, They keep slinging until a big bit of mud sticks and then they persue it.It is their main campaign strategy.

he got a medical deferment. He became a doctor and he probably saved many lives in that profession. I'll take that over going to Nam and killing people. No smear on Kerry or the others over there but it is no sin to have not served in Vietnam.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=21394

War is wrong, unless one nation threatens another nation. Then again, that's how they all seem to start.

Regarding Dean: If there was a record of Dean stating opposition to the war in Vietnam, like Mohammed Ali made, I would respect Dean's decision to avoid participation. Instead, Dean stayed silent and claimed a medical problem.

If his health prevented him from military service, fine — Dean's no draft dodger. But he was healthy enough to ski all winter and pour concrete to make a living. Both activities would seem to be hard on any back, let alone one that causes sufficient pain to avoid the Army.

Believe it or not, I am a peacenik. There are some things worth fighting for, however: To defend our country and our people our Constitution are three of the biggest reasons. That's also why I'm so darn set against the Bush Organized Crime Family. They are at war with America — my America. To fight and beat them, we need a President who is a warrior. And that is why I support John Kerry.

You ddnt go to the draft board and they found you unfit. For a condition like Deans he had to BRING medical records with him and thses records would have to have shown Dean wa only capable of the most sedentrary of activities, which would have ruled out skiing.

THis will probably be brought up into VERY sharp focus as the nomination campaign gets going furtther, Deans continual changes of opinion are just only stating to be hammered at in the media, and the draft will be icing on the cake, or more aptly the straw that breaks the camels back.

This was post-Cold War 1992, not post-9/11 2004. Secondly, digging up obscure quotations to undermine a candidate is pure Republican Machiavellianism - a little strange coming from someone who defends the moral clarity of Howard Dean so vigorously. Thirdly, this guy is a crackpot. Look at some of these quotes:

"Kerry was unclear as to what, or which, ‘mistake,’ he was referencing. Was it a mistake to fight communism--or was it a mistake to fight it with two arms tied behind our back, and without the support of many congress members--most of which where Democrats?

"Senator Kerry’s developing career tends to indicate to many that it was anticommunism that was the ‘mistake’--even now that we know so much more about the horrors of communist tyranny."

First of all, until the Pentagon Papers were leaked, the Vietnam War had full-throated support in Congress. Secondly, Kerry has often spoken of the shortcomings of communism. Just today, he railed against Castro's Stalinist government.

"But Kerry is not up to the task of being president. If elected, he would probably surround himself with Clinton-era nailbiters who would refrain from taking decisive military action. As we saw on 9/11 and August 19th, that is too risky."

Does anyone really want me to go into this one?

current and pertinent information.

But Kerry supporters like you have got to do something about those who are doing this same shit to Dean. See my other posts that explain why I started this thread.

does that make it right for you to do it, too??

Come on, can we at least PRETEND that we are grown ups??
Saying that Nicholas 'made' you post this because he brings out the 'worst' in you seems kind of cheap to me.

And I am trying to make a point, which seems to be getting lost by some.

That he is getting away with it?? Do you READ the responses his posts get?

If he posts something false, post the proof that he is lying. Making petty comments about Kerry doesn't make you look any better than he does and it doesn't prove any points.

I don't start threads like this against Dean, only reply to what I see as misrepresentations of his actual record.

You, OTOH, have started a few threads against Kerry and have the temerity to call others bashers.

Unless that is your moniker, I wasn't talking about you.

by Dean supporters have pointed to me as a basher many times. I think many of you should learn that any post that points to a candidate's political actions and political deeds using media that isn't blatantly rightwing is not bashing. Posts that talk about a Dem's personal life, looks or that of his family IS bashing.

Then why, pray tell, did you just claim that *I* called you a basher? I don't consider you a basher, anyhow. I think you're beating the bejesus out of a dead horse and are under the misconception that people support Dean because they think he's a liberal. That's not the case and sometimes you DO get really annoying when you continue to beat that dead horse, but I wouldn't call you a basher over it.

If Kerry's Vietnam stuff was aimed at Dean, there would be a parallel.

But it's not. It's aimed at Bush, for the chickenhawk factor. So it's not the same thing.

Here it is in the Congressional Record:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:S27FE2-273:

If that link does not work, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/r102/r102s27fe2.html and select the one titled "Vietnam Inserted into Campaign."

This is interesting...I do not agree with all the stuff in the article, but it is different from what Kerry says now. However, he is not attacking his rivals for not serving the way Bob Kerrey attacked Clinton for draft dodging, so this may not make him a hypocrite. It seems from his full statement that he is criticizing Kerrey for making an issue of Clinton's lack of service, not for emphasizing his own service. But that he said that at all was surprising, since I believe he and Kerrey were pretty close (there is a bipartisan group of veterans in the Senate who are really good friends) and I doubt he had much of a connection to Clinton back then.

God, can you find anything LESS pertinent to ANYTHING to nail him for? Cause if this is the best you can do, Kerry must be some kind of saint.

Gee, do ya think that maybe his advisors may have talked him into using his service to highlight the contrast between him and Bush? Do ya think it has been THIRTEEN YEARS since he made those statements? Christ, this is about as important as Clinton smoking a joint in college. Who the hell DIDN'T smoke a joint in college??

I am so SICK of hearing the Dean people bitch about EVERYBODY and the Kerry people whine about Dean. If Dean is so frigging bulletproof, why even bother with sniping at Kerry??

I know at least I for one and a lot of others havent even bothered snipping at kerry. Till today.

Today's performance on MTP brought out some harsh criticism of kerry on my part but untill today i have held back completely from attacking Kerry. Who by the way has LOTS of skeletons. If Dean people were on the mission against kerry a few of the kerry suporters here seem to be on against dean I am quite sure this board could be flooded with negative kerry posts but they arent.

Took me about ten minutes one day searching google to find out more than a couple things in kerrys past that truely troubled me. But quite honestly its not worth posting. I want bush out I dont really care that much which dem does it. I hapen to think Dean has the best shot but ill take any one of em.

Meet The Press. I had better go check out the thread talking about it.