Beating a dead horse: Kerry's (immoral?) war strategy

I've tried hard to make some sense of Kerry's war strategy in the last week or two. One or two Kerry supporters have laid out Kerry's strategy on the war in this way (and I apologize if I have not got this entirely clearly):

1. Kerry saw that Bush was going to war

2. Kerry got the Congressional resolution (the "war vote")changed so that Bush would have to work with the UN and inspectors, etc., in order to stay within the bounds of the resolution.

3. Bush sort of half-assedly went the the UN, blew them off, ordered the inspectors out of Iraq, and invaded.

4. Kerry stayed mum about the invasion.

5. (This part is in the future) Kerry springs a trap on Bush, proving that he has not stayed within the bounds of the resolution, and is therefore guilty of not staying in the bounds of the resolution. Various legalities happen, with the end result at least embarrasing for Bush.

6. (also in future) Kerry is a huge hero for everyone, is rushed into the white house on an enormous victory.


Now, of course we don't know what Kerry's actual strategy is, we only have the words of a few of his supporters on this. But it does explain a few things:

A. Why Kerry signed the resolution: as a partial author of the final compromise, and seeing it as something which would ultimately be the ruin of Bush, Kerry wants to see his name on it, even though it will constantly be conflated with him giving Bush approval for his actions in Iraq.

B. Why Kerry wouldn't denounce the actual war on the grounds that he had denounced a theoretical war: He had to let Bush go through with the invasion Bush's way so Kerry could catch him in a technical illegality.

C. Why certain Kerry supporters are so pissed that other candidates spoke out against the war: Dean, for example. If Dean had succeeded in somehow bringing public opinion around to the fact that we shouldn't even be going to war, and that changes Bush's actions in Iraq, Kerry is left with no trap to spring and a vote which looks like an authorization for Chimpy to kill people.

Based on this, certain people are hailing Kerry as a hero, and themselves as genii for figuring it all out. If it all unfolds as planned, I will have to give Kerry credit for making it work. However, I have a number of problems with this strategy:

1. It makes Kerry look extremely inconsistent: Kerry, in the last six months, can clearly be seen doing the exact opposite of what he said he would do on the eve of the resolution vote; namely, "vigorously opposing" a unilateral invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change.

2. It confuses the shit out of people: The Democratic populace is confused - should we support or oppose illegal, unethical wars that bloodthirsty Republicans fearmonger and lie us into? (This would normally be an easy question, I would think).

3. It kills people to "catch" Bush: This strategy allows Bush to kill hundreds of our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis, not to mention standing international law on its head, shattering American international relations and alliances and weakening the UN and NATO. It is a severe loss to America, just to catch Bush out in an illegal act - it might even be a Pyrrhic victory. You might even say that because it allows Bush to kill people with no outcry from Kerry, that he is partially responsible for those deaths.

4. It supresses anti-war sentiment: It makes Kerry, and by extension Democrats who want to support him, enemies of enlightened world citizens who think that the era of war as an answer to problems has passed.

5. It might not work: This, I think, is the plan's biggest flaw. Kerry's role in Iran-Contra is much touted. But Iran-Contra didn't bring anyone down. Sure, it exposed some sleazy elements in the Reagan White House, but Bush won the next election and even his pardon of Caspar Weinberger, which effectively was an admission of guilt on his part, did not sway the public never to vote for a Bush again. If not for a slumped economy and Ross Perot, Bush I might well have won re-election. And Smirky should never have been even considered for election if the American public actually paid attention (read: were led by the nose by the media) to scandals by Republican presidents. In the end, do you think people will care more about the fact that we had a war which needlessly killed thousands including our soldiers, bankrupted us, ruined our standing in the world, and made us all targets for further terrorism - or that that war was technically illegal?

6. It hinges on outrage: once Kerry springs his trap, he will have to rely on public outcry and media following the scandal. But Republicans have the media in their pockets (if you think the media are really trashing Bush now, just wait until a Democrat seems like he or she is actually threatening Bush's election), and by dampening the public's sense of outrage by not seeming outraged about the war, Kerry has dulled this potential tool.

No matter how I slice it, this seems like a dangerous, morally bankrupt, and risky strategy. I hope this isn't really what Kerry is up to.

I wouldn't get my boxers in a bunch about what supporters for a particular candidate may say here on DU. It's all speculation.

Read and listen to the actual words of the candidates and make your judgements based on that.

I analyzed Kerry's statement prior to his vote last fall. Everything he said indicated he would be against the war the Bush eventually carried out.

But Kerry has declined to oppose the invasion. Why?

The argument above is the only one put forth by Kerry's supporters which is logically self-consistent, except for the theory that Kerry just didn't want to be smeared as a non-patriotic, non-flag-waving, non-bloodthirsty idiot by the press, which I find to be at least a sensible, if not brave, political position. A few of Kerry's supporters have consistently said this is not the case, and that Kerry actually has a scheme like this up his sleeve.

Again, you can speculate and put words in his mouth, other DU posters can speculate on some Machiavellian scheme they think he is hatching, but it is just so much blather.

and so far I can't reconcile what he says with what he says.

I think his inconsistency is merely a matter of political expediency, not speaking up about how he really feels when it would be politically injurous.

But some people claim that can't be true and have posited the theory above about what he is doing. I don't find it a satisfactory substitute for my original theory - and I'd like to know if other people also hold this theory, or just think that Kerry was acting like a typical politician (and just a bit of the scared Senate Democrat role) on the matter of Iraq.

I think his inconsistency is merely a matter of political expediency, not speaking up about how he really feels when it would be politically injurous.

There really is nothing wrong with keeping your mouth shut when opening it would cause worse problems. It is a lesson this mis-administration would do well to learn. For example, I can't imagine any president or prospective president thinking that Kim Jong Il is a wonderful leader and a great man. But you don't hear them calling him a pigmy that they loathe, and there is a reason for that. Politics is in many ways the art of choosing carefully how and what you say to get the effect you want.

IMO, John Kerry believed that Hussein did pose a potential threat to the world. He believed it in 1998 when we pulled our inspectors out. He had no reason to believe the situation had changed dramatically since 1998. But he felt that there was a multi-lateral way to accomplish putting the pressure on Saddam.

Saddam was not very likely to welcome inspectors (he hadn't for the 3 years) without the threat of force bearing down on him. A very impressive military strength sitting on his border was fairly convincing. And it could have been enough. Inspectors were there, and Saddam was cooperating to at least a greater degree than he ever had been. That could have been enough. And that is what I believe Kerry's stance is - approve the use of the military IF NEEDED. And I believe, as I believe Kerry does - that Bush rushed to actual combat and failed to use the UN and the inspections team effectively.

all that you say is true. I think he approves of the use of the military if needed. I think he would agree that the invasion of Iraq was not needed, because the UN and inspections options were not exercised. Therefore, Kerry disapproves of Bush's use of military force in Iraq. Except he's never said that - that is the contradiction.

And I agree that it seems like Kerry did keep his mouth shut for political reasons. (What harm do you think it would have caused if he had opposed the war?) That's a reasonable conclusion and also my conclusion.

But I don't want Kerry supporters giving people who vociferously opposed the war any guff, if that is the way Kerry felt, too. And I don't want them to pretend it was all part of some brilliant plan on his part, if he was just keeping quiet until popular opinion turned against the Chimp.

a number of things. First of all, "people who vociferously opposed the war" - do you mean Dean? That's hardly been Dean's consistent opinion. The fact that he is LOUDER than any other candidate does not necessarily make Dean more correct. He has waffled on his opinion of Iraq FAR more than John Kerry. Perhaps he figures that if he yells "waffler" at and about Kerry long enough, folks will forget his own flip flops. Just consider how many positions Dean has had on Iraq vis a vis the UN, for starters.

"And I don't want them to pretend it was all part of some brilliant plan on his part, if he was just keeping quiet until popular opinion turned against the Chimp."

This is something that you've made up and are now setting it up as the straw man you want to knock down.

Kerry is extremely careful about how he refers to the hostilities in Iraq because we have kids over there dying. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

He has consistently opposed Bush's illegal invasion...

He would have no problem with a war if it were proven that Saddam was an imminent threat. Dean has said this was never proven.

He would have had no problem if the UN had passed a resolution authorizing the war and there were a case made for war. This obviously never happened.

This is not "waffling".

Waffling is voting to give Bush the authority to go to war and then 6 months later claiming that the war was wrong after the war starts to go bad and the public starts turning against it.

You are approaching this from a standpoint of supporting someone who did not have to go on the record with an up or down, yea or nay vote at a specific point in time. Therefore, you can interpret his comments in any way, at any point in time, as being consistent with what he said in the past. The other candidates are being at least as consistent as Dean, and yet it is he who villifies those other candidates.

As one example, here is the position Dean took just after Powell made his presentation at the UN, as described by Salon:

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

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

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

So, in this one interview, he presented several positions. He is free, because he did not have to cast an irrevocable up or down vote in October BEFORE we even knew about the N. Korea shenanigans.

John Kerry has said that he could have voted "Yes, but..." or "No, but..." and he had to choose. He chose "Yes, but...". Dean chose "No, but..., and if.... and if...." but he didn't have to take a position for the record.

Make no mistake, though, that his various positions have been recorded very clearly, by a variety of people, Karl Rove included.

The next paragraph:

"Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly."

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game."

Am I the only one who sees just the teeniest part of deception in "the game"?

Once again, I'll ask if this accurately describes Dean's position:

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot—and will not—support a unilateral, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

It sounds like a case of the glass being half anti-war to me.

and I haven't read anywhere on these boards anyone saying that that is his strategy, so I'm curious where you got this and I will look around and report back

this board very long (at least not Kerry posts) if you think that.

:hi:

I have been here about 4-5 weeks and have done a good bit of reading, particularly in the Dean/Kerry threads (some of which disgusts me). I'm not a speed-reader, nor do I have 3-4 hours a day to spend on DU.

After my post above I realized you were most likely refering to Dr. Funkenstein's thread on the Congressional Resolution. I had only read about 1/3 of what was there, so I went back and read most, but not all, of the rest.

It seems to me that you came upon this theory yourself in post #64 and Nicholas_J agrees in post #79. I disagree with both of you. But I'm no politico.

My problem with your theory is the motivation: that Kerry voted for this resolution specifically in order to catch Bush in a "technical illegality." I'm not naive enough to think that politicians don't do things for political reasons, but I do think you've gone overboard on this one. I do not think that Kerry wanted Bush to take us to war so that Kerry could then say "AHA!" and be seen a hero.

I'm sure you were hoping for longer, more insightful responses from the good Dr. Funkenstein and/or Nicholas_J, and here's hoping you get them!

and now I've probably burned my chicken, dammit

I've only come up with this theory myself in so far as it is what I can piece together from Nicholas_J's posts. He specifically refuses to believe that Kerry's actions are anything but completely brilliant, and from his other comments it seems as if he thinks that this is the kind of trap Kerry has laid out.

I don't think Kerry was hoping Bush would lead us into war either, but from this argument it looks like Kerry tried to set up something which would catch Bush out in case he did - that is the argument I'm trying to test here.

to be saying is that Kerry's ambivalence on the war mirrors the feelings of the bulk of the American people, and that's why it is brilliant. He trusted the President to be telling the truth. So did most Americans. He wanted the President to give the UN and inspectors more time. So did most Americans. He wanted our troops to comport themselves well when actual combat started. So did most Americans. He wants our troops to be as safe as they can possibly be right now in Iraq. So do most Americans.

The world is not black and white. Kerry has said, he could have either voted "Yes, but", or "No, but". Sometimes an up or down vote is not enough to explain yourself.

I guess I just have a hard time with people characterizing his position as brilliant. It implies that his position was deliberately chosen, instead of as a result of his actual feelings.

If his positions are the result of his genuine, sincere ambivalence, then they are as valid as anyone else's positions, but not a result of brilliance.

If his positions are deliberately chosen then they are brilliant only in as much as they do good for the country and/or Kerry, and I don't see where they do much good for either.

From your description above you can also see how Kerry might be perceived as "blowing in the wind" of public opinion, instead of taking a leadership position and working from it, and Kerry also needs, I think, to do a bit to dispel that impression.

Finally, I can't believe that Kerry would actually trust the President to be telling the truth. After all of what has/had happened, I don't think Kerry would be so blind to who these people are. The fraud is pretty easy to see through, if you've ever read Animal Farm or 1984 or seen Brazil. I mean, don't you think that part is hard to swallow.

Thanks for your reasonable reply.

htttp://www.johnkerry.com

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted “No” on the Iraq Resolution." - Howard Dean 6/5/03

That must have been right before he voted "Yes" on the Biden-Lugar proposal.

Ground control to Major Tom...you didn't vote on anything, and you wouldn't have done anything if you had.

Jus' kiddin!

http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/dean_062303_131529.pdf

Wow, that is some incredible dissembling. Thanks for the link DrF.

Makes no sense to me. It makes no contextual sense. Hmmm. Clearly he never had a vote on the issue.

:wtf:

I'm going to assume that he's talking about non-support and not "voting," but I still have to say, "WTF was he thinking when he said that."

Fair enough. Your guess is as good as mine.

He helped negotiate better terms for the Iraq resolution and it cost him his vote. He has always decried the abysmal diplomatic effort leading up to the action. He decried Bush's military strategy as one that was not prepared to deal with the aftermath and win the peace.

Like MWO said today, anyone can see that voting for the resolution doesn't mean you abdicate your right to criticize Bush when he's wrong.

Besides, by that standard, Kucinich can tell Dean to shut up and point out Dean's support of military action in Iraq as laid out in the Biden-Lugar bill he supported and which wasn't that far off from the Iraq resolution and would have still allowed for Bush to be in Iraq today.

"it cost him his vote" mean?

And I don't question any Democrat's right to question Bush under any circumstances.

Can you provide a better theory than the one above which explains questions A, B, and C, given Kerry's statement prior to the vote, which clearly shows he would vigorously oppose Bush's kind of war? (Keep in mind, the above isn't my theory - it is proposed as the "Kerry is inscrutable genius" alternative to Kerry just being politically expedient).

Hogwash. I never saw the argument you claim was made, and I pay attention to most threads on the subject.

The art of negotiation is to keep pounding on the terms you deem best as if you refuse to give in. Kerry was doing just that, keeping the UN involvement as desirable part of a desirable outcome and part of the public debate even while BushInc. was trying to render it irrelevant with their very high poll numbers. That's how the White House came to the compromises they did. Gephardt was part of the Dem lawmakers doing the negotiating and he undercut the others by agreeing prematurely, but they achieved their main goals.

Kerry didn't oppose the war. From Kerry's excellent record and his pre-Iraq vote speech, it would seem the war was against everything he stood for. Yet he didn't speak out against the invasion as the wrong thing for the US to do.

My own explanation is that he just didn't think it would be wise to speak against the war when the war had high "approval ratings" and has waited until now to speak his true mind when he has more political cover and public opinion on his side. There is nothing novel about this, and is a typical thing for a politician to do. It does have a whiff of "Senate Democrats quietly letting Bush do whatever he wants" about it, but other than that it is not a fatal flaw or anything.

But there are those who oppose this explanation and insist everything Kerry does is self-consistent and crafty, etc., and I've tried to distill that argument above. It is a straw-man, I admit that. I would like those people to admit that it is not likely to be Kerry's real strategy either, because I think it is a pretty immoral strategy. I would like for some to admit that Kerry's war stance was not consistent with his high ideals.

I admit that I start from the assumption that the war, as Bush carried it out, was wrong - not only immoral and unethical, but a financial and international disaster for our country. But I've read the same in Kerry's own words - I think Kerry and I are on the same page about that. That's why I don't understand why Kerry's supporters would be angry at anti-war citizens, or would not understand why people who are anti-war would want Kerry to also oppose the war.

Again, not a fatal flaw - I think Kerry is a great candidate. I just don't want his supporters to hide behind the argument I set out above.

that Bush did NOT seek adequate diplomacy, and that Bush's whole timing on the military action in Iraq was based on political motivations. He is now saying that Bush's military strategy now that he's invaded SUCKS BIGTIME and there is no plan in place to win the peace. He said Bush misled the Congress and misled the nation....and STILL you say he says nothing.


If you think he was quiet for the last TWO YEARS, then you haven't been paying attention. Kerry was the first to start riding Bush's ass after 9-11. He hasn't let up, and only someone willfully ignoring his many articles, speeches and interviews would deign to say so.

How about votes?

He said * invaded too soon. Then why did he vote for the IWR? A NO vote would have allowed him to better pick the timing of an invasion, if there was to be one.

He supported Biden-Lugar. How did that vote go?

Any unbiased reading of the IWR will result in the conclusion that it, de facto, gave Shrub the power to declare war as he saw fit. UN, or no UN.

Words vs. actions. Everything else is spin.

Kerry has been a member of the Foreign Policy committee for years deciding POLICY. Kerry has held the same view of Iraq since the late 90's, when it was clear that sanctions were not working and Saddam had no interest in UN cooperation. This is before "everything changed."

Dean continues to support the Biden-Lugar resolution long after it became past history. He would like to deal in fantasy land, where Senators can vote on any resolution they feel like.

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted “No” on the Iraq Resolution." - Howard Dean.

Right after he voted "Yes" to Biden-Lugar...

Saying that Kerry is "pro-war" after he has made it clear over and over that he supported THE SAME EXACT enforced disarmament as Dean, now that's what I call spin.

And for that matter, when did Dean? And, forgive me, when did Dean vote on the IWR? (Also, a link to the quote would be helpful)

I understand that it is easy for Dean to take the stance that he does, not having had to vote in the Senate for or against the IWR. It's convenient for me and inconvenient for Kerry and you. Dean gets a free ride and it's not necessarily fair to Kerry, I understand that. But facts are facts. The IWR gave Shrub the power to declare war in Iraq as he saw fit. Period. Kerry voted for it. Period. I think you and other Kerry supporters would have an easier time of it if you just admit that he made a mistake and move on, instead of trying to spin it. It's eerily reminiscent of the yellowcake scandal.


Note: I don't think Kerry is evil. I just think the IWR vote was unconscionable and an abdication of Congressional authority. I know we've gone over this a hundred times, but I think it is very important. And, as I've said, I don't think that it's necessarily fair that Kerry had to vote and Dean didn't. Kind of like life. I have no animus towards you, or the vast majority of Kerry supporters. I'm just really trying to understand the rationale for the vote and the subsequent statements of record.

Keep in mind that this thread is called "Beating a Dead Horse." I said several times already that the vote was imperfect, and that while I understand and respect Kerry's vote, my heart wanted to hear a "no." Me and Prof Plum have been dancing this tango for weeks now (or at least it feels that way).

However, I honestly would not call it a mistake. There were very good reasons for voting "yes," all of which I have stated repeatedly. He admitted openly that he regretted the terms of the resolution, but felt the need to demand Saddam's disarmament over protesting the conceits given away by Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards. (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm)

Dean and his supporters continue to say "The vote - period," which is unfair. Dean could do no more to stop Bush than Kerry, and Kerry has been upfront about the conditions he would personally seek for disarmament. Dean has not.

Dean would limit to terms of the debate to "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists (the Bush administration)." Yet Dean and Kerry wanted the same exact thing, under the same exact conditions.

So, while my heart says "damn," it is not difficult at all to see the vote as a no-win situation for Kerry. And based on other everything else, I think Kerry has the credentials and depth of vision to make an excellent President. Not to bash him, but I think Dean is a little thin on alot of the issues that matter most to me.

Imperfect vote. Agree.

Your heart wanted to hear "NO." So did mine.

I honestly would not call it a mistake. This is where we part ways.

The vote is unfair when comparing Dean to Kerry. I agree.

Dean would limit to terms of the debate to "You're with us, or you're with the terrorists (the Bush administration) An unfair characterization.

Yet Dean and Kerry wanted the same exact thing, under the same exact conditions. Pretty much.

And based on other everything else, I think Kerry has the credentials and depth of vision to make an excellent President. He's no slouch.

Not to bash him, but I think Dean is a little thin on alot of the issues that matter most to me. Well, to bash a little. :-) Fair enough. I can't speak for you but to call Dean "thin" is extremely unfair.

Can't wait for the primaries. After that we'll be of one purpose. May the best man win. Peace.

from the War Powers Act. The resolution was a Congressional guidepost, as they all are since the War Powers Act.

They further argue that none of the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, including last October's Iraq resolution, confers sufficient authority for the war the President is threatening. The October Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - purports to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."" Plaintiffs' contention, based on the language and legislative history of the resolution, is that unless narrowly construed, this resolution would be tantamount to congressional abdication of its non-delegable trigger power and would impair separation of powers. And, they contend, such a narrower reading of the statute is plausible, as the statute appears to tie the start of hostilities to the progress of international diplomatic efforts, reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations, to bring Iraq into compliance. Thus, Congress's October Resolution can reasonably be read as expressing three ideas: (1) Congressional support for international diplomacy on the part of the executive; (2) Congressional authority for limited use of force to protect American troops; and (3) the inclination of Congress to provide the necessary assent if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

Implicated in the questions raised by the suit are the larger debates over originalism and separation of powers that have recently occupied much attention in the Supreme Court. Clearly, clarifying constitutional meaning on the war powers question holds special urgency today.

But in Doe v. Bush the district court declined to join the debate at all. Instead, it opted out of the debate altogether, adopting the Government's position claim that the matter is a non-justiciable political question. Under the political question doctrine, of course, the judiciary declines to wade into certain supposed "political thickets," theoretically leaving the underlying constitutional issue undecided. But, especially given the nature of the debate, invocation of the doctrine - ostensibly to avoid decision - still adds "precedent" to the pro-executive side of the scale. Judicial demurral leaves a vacuum that the executive will fill on its own terms - thereby creating new facts to support its exclusivity claim. The executive's evidence that it possesses the trigger power is that it has many times in the past exercised it absent congressional authority and without judicial interference. This is a win-win syllogism for unchecked executive authority: its use of the power is an unreviewable political prerogative and, ipso facto, proof of its legitimacy, and so the evidence in its favor is infinitely accumulative.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php

sufficiently above?

The judge ruled against John Doe, suing Bush in February, in a Massachusetts Court (before Bush began to use force in Iraq). Based on the resolution stating that the resolution required that the U.N. be involved with any action in Iraq.

The judge of the district court ruled against the plaintiffs, but totally avoided the issue of the Iraq Act, and had to find other legal reasons that the president could use force, without U.N. or Congressional support...


But other language in the resolution limits Bush to ordering only military actions to "defend U.S. national security" and -- not or but and -- "enforce United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq." And therein lies the crucial ambiguity.

Congressional advocates of the resolution did not present it purely as a mandate for war. They sold it also as a lever Bush could push in working for tough United Nations measures that might force Saddam Hussein to disarm and thereby avoid war. Some members of Congress, such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), thus maintain that they supported the October resolution while opposing a war unless the United Nations authorizes it.

That position is embodied in the October resolution, according to John C. Bonifaz, a lawyer who represented the plaintiffs at the Boston hearing. United Nations approval, he said, was "a condition before the president goes to war." If Section 8 requires a clear declaration of war -- and Bonifaz made a good case that it does -- the October resolution does not appear to provide it.

Still, in Tauro's view, even silence by Congress in the face of a war would not warrant judicial intervention. Before a court should assume jurisdiction to regulate the war-making roles of the executive and legislative branches, the judge said, those roles must reach "the point of clear and resolute conflict."

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/02/rosenbloom-j-02-27.html

I know TAP is a conservative rag, but they were reporting on the plaintiffs arguments for trying to get an injunction against the use of force, as the Iraq Act (October Resolution), was not a mandate for war, and that the act requires United Nations approval of the president acting in Iraq.

This judge sidestepped the resolution, by claiming the judiciary has no right to intervene in matter of foreign affairs and foreign policy(this same judge used the same reasoning when a case was filed against Nixon for bombing Cambodia).

This rather clearly supports the stance that the resolution did not authorize the presidents use of force, but required that he get U.N. approval for use of force.

So support for the act, and support that the president tried to get around obtaining U.N. Authorization is the only way that Congress can deal with the president having used force in the first place.

It also indicated that Kerry was arguing that the act required the president had to have U.N. support well before the president even went into Iraq.

I have other information that shows that it was ruled that the president has been completely in compliance with the War Powers Resolution of 1972 regarding Iraq, so the only case that can be made for the president acting illegally in use of force lies in the Iraq Act.

Everything else he has done is being considered totally legal under constitutional law, according to a wide range of judicial experts and law professors (I dont belelve this, but they are already teaching constitutional law courses on the war in Iraq)

which I outlined in the inital post.

I'll take that to mean that I've summarized your theory correctly. I still find it a morally skewed position, but I guess we'll have to agree to support Kerry based on different sets of assumptions about his motivations.

It was like the trap the shinning, blindingly brilliant, wise, thoughtful and compassionate, dignified genuis statesman, but wily and gracious Clinton sprung in his profoundly insightful statements in support of Bush. It is a marvelous plan of diabolical proportions! Surely you must realize that?

;-)

what Clinton said - he suggested that Bush admit he should not have said it and everyone move on.

The Bushies will NEVER allow Bush to admin to making a mistake. Perhaps it is Bush himself who will not allow it, perhaps it is Rove. But regardless of where the resovle comes from, it is there. Bush will NOT take responsibility for what he said, as Clinton suggested.

It would be ironic if that were his ultimate downfall. It is a weird message coming from Clinton, though - he knows those guys would never cut him an inch of slack. Why is he giving Bush good advice?

To cover his own "mistake(s)" regarding bad intelligence by extension, and to provide cover for his fellow DLCers and Tony Blair who rallied around Bush? Because he is a sleazy politician above and beyond all things?

The 16 words were the tip of the iceberg and Clinton suggests we move on?

There is no getting around it. There is no excusing it. No need to make it more diificult for those trying to get a legitinmate investigation off the ground. Does it please you that Clinton gave him a pass?

and I was horrified when he did it. But think about it from the reverse. What good would it have done for Clinton to hard further on Bush about those 16 words? IMO, it would have just enabled more of the neo-cons to dismiss everything that any Dem said as "partisan politics".

It just wasn't the venue, the time or place for Clinton to harp. And as a president who also "made mistakes", maybe it never will be Clinton's place to do so.

Not every person has to fight every battle.

But it ain't the first time I heard him giving Bush cover about "bad intelligence". He doesn't know when to open his mouth and when to close it when it comes down to the wire.

You do dismiss this as if it was nothing. How sad the lengths some will go to still believe in Santa Claus.

This's is really sticking in your craw, huh?

If you don't mind, I'll reiterate a few points I made in your previous thread and lay out what I actually believe to be a fair way of understanding Kerry's position.

For starters, I assume John Kerry is an honest person, that he says what he believes and believes what he says. Saying things, however, especially in Washington, can be a tricky business. I believe that at least some of the inconsitencies in Kerry's position can be understood by attending to the way things are said in the field of politics, to the different audiences that are addressed by political speech, and the meanings which are conferred on the utterance by its belonging to a genre of speaking --don't worry, I'm not going to get all Bakhtinian on your ass. An underlying assumption I'm using is that words are polyvocal, that is, they have many meanings, depending more or less on how they are being used. To understand how a utterance derives its meaning from how it's being used, you have to take into account not only the intention of the speaker, but also the intentions, themes, and meanings of the speech genre to which it belongs. You must also examine its addressivity, the fact that words are spoken to specific listeners or groups, as well as its inherent dialogicity, that is, the fact that utterances are spoken in response to other utterances and contain within them traces of implicit ongoing conversations--okay, I lied about dropping some Bakhtin, but I'll stop with the jargon now. (If you're curious google heteroglossia and have fun.)

To break it down a little, the easiest distinction to draw may be between different audiences. In the case of Kerry's statements on the war, these would include:

• The Nation as a whole
  
• His constistuents in Massachussetts
  
• The News Media
  
• Political Commentators
  
• Potential voters
  
• The Democratic base
  
• Swing Voters
  
• The Senate
  
• Senate Democrats
  
• Congressional Democrats
  
• The White House
  
• The Neocons
  
• The State Department
  
• The Armed Services
  
• Foreign Nations
  
• Allies of the US
  
• Enemies of the US
  
• Iraq

I do think there are statements made by Kerry, for instance, his speech on voting for the war resolution, in which all of these audiences are addressed, though that it no way implies that his words were not specifically targetted or intended to be heard more clearly and directly by certain audiences.

You might ask whether he was saying different things to different audiences, yet I would caution that how Kerry's message will be heard by these different audiences is not completely under his control. He may be circumspect, or clever in manipulating the addressivity of his utterances, but in the end he does not own the discourses his words enter into. For example, we might both agree that the neocon's propaganda campaign exaggerated the menace of Iraq for nefarious and totalitarian purposes. Kerry also spoke of the menace of Iraq. However, it seems clear that his intentions were not precisely those of the neocons. The degree to which they were in concert, and what Kerry might have said differenty to thwart them, I don't really have an answer for.

We can look at a body of statements synoptically, frozen in time as it were, but in actual practice, they unfold. They continue to unfold with events. In the context of the speech to the Congress, there were certain things that Kerry felt he had to say, work that had to be done, and audiences that had to be addressed. To get a sense of how those factors may have impinged on his statements, you can compare what he said in the foreign policy address at Georgetown, to press releases, to statements made in debates. You can think of the different tasks at hand: crafting a law, rallying the nation, persuading voters, speaking for soldiers in an ugly situation so that the White House might get on the right track.

While I tend to agree with Nicholas that Kerry's views are consistent, regardless of whom he is addressing, we part company, I believe, when it comes to interpreting the contextual and rhetorical meanings of Kerry's utterances. I do not believe that Nicholas' "legalistic" definitions exhaust the potential or even crucially relevant meanings of Kerry's statements. That is not to say that they are wrong, but rather incomplete. (Incidently, my take on many of the others who object to his arguments is that they are essentially honing in on the ideological resonances of Kerry's statements while discounting their legislative function, perhaps not a wrong way to see things, but again, in my view, only a partial truth.)

Finally, I think mention should be made of the deceptive intelligence assessments which Kerry was relying on. As he has called those into question, it's only fair to see that some of things he was saying came in response to those questionable reports, and if he had it to do over, he wouldn't repeat them. Certainly not in the same way.


Well, Professor, my apologies for the turgid prose. Maybe this helps you. Maybe we're just beating a dead horse.


On edit: grammar and again grammar--yikes

Why don't you just say he changes his story depending on who he is talking to? And that he is opting for the "bad intelligence" excuse to cover his political blunder.

;-)

Why don't you just say he changes his story depending on who he is talking to?

Because I might rather say his story changes depending on who is hearing it.

:utter lack of irony emoticon:

let me chew on that for a while.

I left the academy to get away for people that talked like that! Here's a good guide to jargoning with the best of them:

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0231072430.01._PE_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

But I prefer talking to people instead of having a discourse.

Look ....

I can't speak for Joe Lieberman, Dick Dephhardt or John Edwards.

But John Kerry voted against the first gulf war, has 3 purple hearts and 2 full volunteers terms of service in Vietnam after graduating from Yale University.

He voted for the "Resolution" because he thought it was the best way to protect America in his heart

All this prognosticating and whatnot is really inconsequential.

Howard Dean is not nor ever was against the war.

He was against the RESOLUTION to war.

He said on Meet the Press, Fox News, CNN and NBC that he was opposed to the ruthless dictator Saadam Hussein, but given the current information he would not of supported the resolution; but the greatest hypocracy is anti-war protesters supporting Howard Dean because he was against the war, he was not.

I was nearly arrested in Phoenix during the war protests and I am now supporting John Kerry, because ultimatly the only person that I can picture walking from behind the curtains in late october 2004, after all the 30 second commercials, all the crap, all the hate, all the fire ........ the ONLY person, i believe, that will walk onto that stage and defeat george bush is JOHN KERRY.

So, mark one Anti-war protester and Fair Trade promoter for John Kerry.

Oh please John, can I call you that, Senator -or do you prefer to go by JFK?

You are a phony--an empty suit, always talking the talk, posturing, putting out a slick, well-groomed, distinguished appearance--forever broadcasting 30 year old stands taken to boast of current relevancy. Your medals don't impress me--or the entire mentality of honoring barbarism, as if it was something to be rewarded. My father fought and withessed the hell of war and he was a strong and intelligent man who didn't feel the need to play macho games on the one hand, and, at the same time, promote peace as a result of the horrors of the experience. But with all things, John, you want it both ways, you want to use it to strut your military credentials while you distribute snapshots with John Lennon to attest to your anti-war sentiments.

We can see through you and your aloof elitist upper-class airs.

You took a political gamble and you lost. You used poor judgement and put aside critical thinking and jumped on the war bandwagon of deception because you thought it would win you greater approval. You sold out your country, John, for political gain. Why should we vote for you, since you have demonstrated poor judgement, a lack of ethics and an inclination to follow rather than lead? Why should we reward you only because you promote yourself as heir apparent.

If it comes to it, you should know, that the only reason many of us will be forced to vote for you is to cast a vote against Bush.

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

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

Damn! He's been working for years on that schtick, too!

Admit it - the sex appeal thread turned you on.

I think it was the "crotch rockets" line. :)

I think politics can eat you up if you take it too seriously. Sorry I was a little crabby earlier. I hadn't noticed the "immoral" line until then, and it occured to me that "immoral" and "Kerry" would be put together on the board everytime I responded. I understand why you did, I just wish you hadn't.

In any case, I had a great time at the Meetup, which I'll probably go into briefly tomorrow.

Thanks again for the great debate. Probably the most challenging and rewarding one I've had since I've been here. Nothing like disagreeing with someone you respect to really get the brainwaves surfing (the imagery doesn't make sense, but you get the idea). Cheers!

Kerry risked his life MANY TIMES OVER to save the lives of ghetto and blue collar soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam. Guess you never heard that he VOLUNTEERED for every risky mission to find and rescue lost soldiers? Someone with "elitist airs" doesn't risk his blueblood for bluecollar lives.

You are cruel in your depictions of Kerry. Most people would choose to be in a foxhole with Kerry watching their back over most anyone else. Watch who gets endorsed by the Firefighters Union.

Talk about elitism. I'm not so sure that your candidate would approve of you labeling his comrades-in-arms as "ghetto".

The fact that you interpret Kerry's service as VOLUNTEERING to save the lives of these "ghetto and blue collar soldiers" injects the idea that Kerry's service was somehow more noble than those "ghetto and blue collar soldiers" just because he wasn't drafted.

When you use this argument it seems that you are cruel in your depiction of Kerry. When it comes down to the foxhole, I really don't see how economic or social status enters into the situation.

Kerry enlisted to serve his country when his generation was called. He determined that it was right for him to go to war. When he came back from the war he decided that he was mistaken in that belief. Please don't try to misconstrue his participation in Vietnam as a sacrifice that was more noble than any unfortunate draftee.

and NEVER valued his life over the lives of any other soldier. Most of those men were from blue collar and ghetto backgrounds. An elitist NEVER would have valued those lives over his own.

I can't help how you see what I say...I say it the way I feel it...maybe awkward, I'm no writer, but definitely not an elitist.

<<< NOTE TO ADMIN, this one will be cleaner :) >>>


I think you are spending a little too much time talking trash on the net and too little time actually evaluating the candidates at meetups, or watching them on cspan or whatnot.

Calling a man who graduated from Yale, then VOLUNTERED for 2 years of Vietnam service, has a silver star, bronze star for bravery in combat, and 3 purple hearts is beneath you , my friend.

He then ran the 2nd largest district attorney's office in New Hampshire and created the FIRST EVER Domestic Rape ,abuse victims unit.

Yea...some elitist ...

Kerry OPPOSES war, so he votes for the resolution....

Dean SUPPORTS war, so he puts his political neck on the line to speak out against it when the war is really popular....

this reminds me I gotta dig out 1984 by George Orwell.....

No offense, but thats about the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say so far.

Kerry supports the resolution to the war AND the war { but Bush betrayed the compromise they had struck with the Senate Democrats that he would have UN approval, and acted like the 1st security council resolution was a blank check, which it was NOT)

Dean opposes the resolution but SUPPORTS the premise of the war in Iraq

PERIOD.

Look it up before you sound so damn hypocritical.

And I'm an apologist?

Tell that to the cops who have sprayed mace in my eyes and wrestled me to the ground in Seattle, Vancouver and Phoenix!

He would go to war on Iraq if Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.
He would also join a multilaterl UN force to disarm Iraq if the UN authorized it.
He does not think it is okay to invade countries which pose no threat imminent threat to the US.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Even Kucinich would invade Iraq if it posed an imminent threat to the US.

Period.

How many times do I have to say it to get through your thick skull!

Kucinich would not support war, period. Read his statement in the press (albeit on the last pages most of the time)

Kucinich and Al Sharpton have both said that they would not of gone to war if they were President, period.

THAT is the TRUE Anti-War Activist, not some wishy washy "Terms of war" like Dean

But you have to admit that he was a long-shot until people started cheering his anti-war lines. He went from zero to hero on that premise, even when he would slip in that he was actually only against these specific conditions for war. Let me get his position straight:

1. He would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, he would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. He would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.

Am I correct on that? I just want to make sure that he doesn't want to present Americans a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.

Now where is that copy of 1984? Or perhaps "Politics and the English Language"?

He would work to disarm Iraq non-militarily through the UN
If that fails, he would support a UN authorized invasion to do so.
If that fails, and IF Iraq was proven to be an imminent threat to the US, he would support a unilateral effort to disarm Iraq.

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot—and will not—support a unilateral, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.”

If I got this straight, Dean supported the Biden-Lugar version - the same one Kerry wished for publicly in his floor statement. Given the choice between voting for a watered-down version or going on record as opposing the use of force to back up disarmament, Kerry choose the former. If a different world, he could have drafted the resolution himself. But it was clear that this vote would pass, and no other resolution would come down the pike, and so Kerry had to do what he felt was best.

Dean had the luxury of supporting a resolution that never came to pass. Kerry supported it as well, but had to actually vote on a real measure.

Beyond the actuality of the vote, though, Dean and Kerry's personal positions are - according to you - identical.

Don't you Deanies have a scenic road trip planned of all the areas of the country that Dean and Bush planned to dump nuclear waste.?

Just wondering.

n/t

I admit that I didn't know where MA waste goes. I assumed that it was headed to Yucca mountain, and guess what....

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/states/mass.htm

"This vote was on whether to override the state of Nevada’s veto and approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump (S.J.R. 34), despite broad-based opposition from environmental and public interest organizations. The Department of Energy’s recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site has been plagued by compromised research and numerous safety issues. Far from solving the nuclear waste problem, sending waste to Yucca Mountain would require tens of thousands of radioactive shipments through communities in 44 states."

Public Citizen Vote = Nay.
Kerry Vote = Nay.

http://action.citizen.org/pc/officials/congress/?lvl=C&only_votes=1&azip=02101

this is what I meant by pointing out the innuendo. Asking 'where does Mass. waste go' and then saying 'omigosh it goes to Yucca Mt.' is really a backhanded way of implying that Kerry is in some way being hypocritical. Never mind the facts of Kerry's position, his vote, his long record on the environment.

The purpose of those posts was just to smear Kerry. I've got news for you: Dean isn't going to win the Presidency by attacking Democrats. You aren't helping Dean by attacking Democrats.

Fifteen Democrats, including Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, also voted in favor of the motion. Most prominent Democrats, however, opposed the motion, including Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate did not take a roll-call vote on the final resolution, but decided to use the procedural vote as a test. When it passed 60-39, S.J. Res. 34 was then put to a voice vote. Consequently, the resolution finalizing Yucca Mountain as a dump for 77,000 tons of the nation's nuclear waste was passed on a voice vote, relieving senators from having to defend voting on the record in favor of the proposal.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/legal.htm


I'll ask the question again, in order to "learn something." Where does the nuclear waste from MA go? A city and state will suffice.

You are incredible - called out and exposed and you persist in your smear campaign - let me ask you this - the toxic waste that YOU produce in your daily life, (used batteries etc. - you can't live in America and not generate toxic waste) - where does it go? Do you even know? Is that a valid reason for me to attack you?

On edit: Who are you trying to help? Dean? or someone else? do you think it's working?

You are incredible, too.

Real slooooooooooow now: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Is it better to put nuclear waste in an urban environment or a rural one? Close to high-density poopulations or low-density ones?

And sloooooooooow again: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Who decided that it goes there? Who was in the Senate when it was decided? How'd they vote on it? (Careful, this might be a trap)

guess what? I don't know the answers to those questions. Do you? If so, tell us. You seem to be trying to make a point, but it escapes me. Why don't you just say it in plain words? And while you are at it, why don't you tell us how it is relevant to the discussion at hand (Iraq, in case you forgot), and what your motivation is in bringing those questions into this discussion. And again I ask, who are you trying to help? Dean? Someone else? Do you think your attacks on Kerry are helping? Who are they helping?

blm (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-24-03 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #39

51. haha...speaking of Orwell...


Don't you Deanies have a scenic road trip planned of all the areas of the country that Dean and Bush planned to dump nuclear waste.?
.
.
.
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-27-03 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #51

72. Where does Massachusetts waste go?


Just wondering
.
.
.
Feanorcurufinwe (308 posts) Sun Jul-27-03 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #72

73. the epitome of innuendo


n/t
.
.
.


74. "the epitome of a wasted post".........


I admit that I didn't know where MA waste goes. I assumed that it was headed to Yucca mountain, and guess what....

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/states/mass.htm
.
.
.

Feanorcurufinwe (307 posts) Sun Jul-27-03 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #76

78. this is what I meant


this is what I meant by pointing out the innuendo. Asking 'where does Mass. waste go' and then saying 'omigosh it goes to Yucca Mt.' is really a backhanded way of implying that Kerry is in some way being hypocritical. Never mind the facts of Kerry's position, his vote, his long record on the environment.

The purpose of those posts was just to smear Kerry. I've got news for you: Dean isn't going to win the Presidency by attacking Democrats. You aren't helping Dean by attacking Democrats.
.
.
.
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-27-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #76

80. Typical.


Fifteen Democrats, including Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, also voted in favor of the motion. Most prominent Democrats, however, opposed the motion, including Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate did not take a roll-call vote on the final resolution, but decided to use the procedural vote as a test. When it passed 60-39, S.J. Res. 34 was then put to a voice vote. Consequently, the resolution finalizing Yucca Mountain as a dump for 77,000 tons of the nation's nuclear waste was passed on a voice vote, relieving senators from having to defend voting on the record in favor of the proposal.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/legal.htm


I'll ask the question again, in order to "learn something." Where does the nuclear waste from MA go? A city and state will suffice.
.
.
.
RUMMYisFROSTED (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-27-03 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #81
.
.
.
Feanorcurufinwe (308 posts) Sun Jul-27-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #80

81. You are incredible

Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 04:47 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
You are incredible - called out and exposed and you persist in your smear campaign - let me ask you this - the toxic waste that YOU produce in your daily life, (used batteries etc. - you can't live in America and not generate toxic waste) - where does it go? Do you even know? Is that a valid reason for me to attack you?

On edit: Who are you trying to help? Dean? or someone else? do you think it's working?
.
.
.
83. Thank you.


You are incredible, too.

Real slooooooooooow now: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Is it better to put nuclear waste in an urban environment or a rural one? Close to high-density poopulations or low-density ones?

And sloooooooooow again: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Who decided that it goes there? Who was in the Senate when it was decided? How'd they vote on it? (Careful, this might be a trap)
.
.
.
Feanorcurufinwe (307 posts) Sun Jul-27-03 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #83

84. guess what


guess what? I don't know the answers to those questions. Do you? If so, tell us. You seem to be trying to make a point, but it escapes me. Why don't you just say it in plain words? And while you are at it, why don't you tell us how it is relevant to the discussion at hand (Iraq, in case you forgot), and what your motivation is in bringing those questions into this discussion. And again I ask, who are you trying to help? Dean? Someone else? Do you think your attacks on Kerry are helping? Who are they helping?



And I'm the one not talking about Iraq?(In case you forgot).

so, what are the answers? let's hear it

For one of them I know the answer. For the other, I don't.

playing dumb now?

You:
You are incredible, too.

Real slooooooooooow now: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Is it better to put nuclear waste in an urban environment or a rural one? Close to high-density poopulations or low-density ones?

And sloooooooooow again: W h e r e...d o e s...M A...n u c l e a r...w a s t e...g o ?

And faster: Who decided that it goes there? Who was in the Senate when it was decided? How'd they vote on it? (Careful, this might be a trap)


Me:

guess what? I don't know the answers to those questions. Do you? If so, tell us. You seem to be trying to make a point, but it escapes me. Why don't you just say it in plain words? And while you are at it, why don't you tell us how it is relevant to the discussion at hand (Iraq, in case you forgot), and what your motivation is in bringing those questions into this discussion. And again I ask, who are you trying to help? Dean? Someone else? Do you think your attacks on Kerry are helping? Who are they helping?


clear now?

This post takes us into a sub-thread (as illustrated in my previous thread). Post #51 takes the debate away from Iraq and into a debate on environmental policy. I responded with a legitimate question.

Is post #51 about Iraq?

Who is post #51 helping? What is the motivation for bringing that into the discussion?

Who is it trying to help?

Kerry?

Someone else?

Do you think post #51 attacks on Dean are helping?

Who are they helping?

Clear now?

I didnt post #51 and neither did you. I am asking YOU about what YOU said. It is clear that you don't have the stomach to defend your own words.

we'd probably know by now, wouldn't we?

I highly appreciate our last dialogue. It really helped me to sharpen myself on Kerry's position. But I feel like it is starting to go in circles, and I am tired of dragging up the same quotes from the same web pages to debate the same issues.

One more time:

"Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force."

Kerry has a long-standing position that Saddam violated one too many UN resolutions to be let off the hook. Since the late 90's he has backed using force to ensure inspections leading to disarmament, all in accordance with UN doctrine.

Although he would have preferred stronger constrictions on Bush's actions than Gephardt and others allowed, he voted for the Iraq resolution for three reasons: 1) to delimit the theater of war, 2) to change Bush's mind about going to the UN, and 3) because Saddam Hussein needed to be plausibly disarmed. I do NOT believe it was a trap, although in hindsight it may have worked out that way.

Kerry has been consistent in his urging for UN support to provide legitimacy and funding to the disarmament process. He stated very early that this should be the rationale, and that Bush's kaleidoscope of reasons - especially regime change - undermined that position.

Secondly, he criticized the prosecution of the war as inept, just as he criticized the use of warlords in Afghanistan. He also claimed that Bush failed to prepare for the post-Saddam scenario - or rather ignored what the State Department had prepared.

Finally, he described the knee-jerk rejection of UN peacekeeping as "false pride."

None of these criticisms countered the threat Saddam posed. Although Kerry claims Bush "misled" us regarding the nuclear threat, a threat still remained - even though no WMDs have been found (perhaps as a result of Bush's preparation gap).

I cannot be more clear than that. Kerry does not think disarming Saddam was a mistake, but regrets Bush's prosecution. Does he think he could have done more to stop Bush's prosecution? I don't believe so, but obviously I can only speculate. He has not indicated that he feels that way, and I don't believe he will. Furthermore, I don't believe he should.

Finally, there is a clear indication of the terms Kerry laid out for an invasion, an invasion he frequently urged Bush not to rush to - for two reasons: 1) not enough allies are convinced of the imminence of the threat, because 2) the case for imminence was not made.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot—and will not—support a unilateral, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.”

1. He would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, he would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. He would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.

Once the invasion began, Kerry continued to press this point because the lack of multilateral support contributed to the post-Saddam chaos. This has been his point of attack - the failure to exhaust diplomatic efforts. In his words, Bush "did not give full meaning to the words 'last resort.'" By failing to exhaust diplomatic efforts, we are now in the dangerous position of occupation, failing miserably at winning the peace.

<>

PS - Kerry's investigations led to the Iran-Contra hearings, to Ollie North putting an FBI investigation into Kerry's investigation, and a false response to a Kerry question forced Eliot Abrams into a guilty plea to withholding information. I'll let the Globe finish the story:

"A few weeks later, the White House disclosed that funds from the sale had been diverted to supply the contras.

Suddenly, Kerry's theories didn't seem so far-fetched. He hoped this would be his moment to help lead the investigation into this extraordinary episode. The Iran-contra scandal was the top story in town, and there was worried talk in the halls of Congress that the United States might suffer another failed presidency.

But when congressional leaders chose the members of the elite Iran-contra committee, Kerry was left off. Those selected were consensus-politicians, not bomb-throwers.

The feeling among a disappointed Kerry and his staff was that the committee members were chosen to put a lid on things. "He was told early on they were not going to put him on it," Winer recalls. "He was too junior and too controversial . . .. They were concerned about the survival of the republic."

Even some Democrats "thought John was a little hotter than they would like," says Rosenblith.

As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership gave Kerry chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and a charter to dig into the contra-drug connection. While disappointed, Kerry stuck with his investigation and the subcommittee published a report in 1989 that concluded the CIA and other US agencies had turned a blind eye to drug trafficking occurring on the fringes of the contra network."

credibility in his criticisms against Bush. But he squandered them and showed us that he could be fooled by Bush, who we all know used the war as a trump card over the Democrats in the 2002 elections. Who wants a president who can be fooled so easily?

Dean based his arguments on Gore's Sep 23, 2002 speech and on the fact that Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Dems who were on the Intelligence committees and who said publicly that Bush had NOT made his case for war. Two thirds of the congressional Democrats, lead by then Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, voted AGAINST the war resolution, so why did Kerry vote for it? I don't buy Kerry's excuses. He knew that his vote was wrong. He also knew that his 1991 vote on that Iraq War was wrong also.

DrF lays out all that detail and the best you can do is repeat your opinions? Why don't you try responding to what he said?

Now you know why this is becoming so tedious for me. I try to take my time doing positive things for Kerry, getting out his positions on the issues and such, but I keep getting dragged back into the same argument over and over. I recognize that it is an important argument, so I take the time to respond.

I don't try to spin Kerry's argument. I try my best to honestly express Kerry's position, but more often than not I get back stump speeches instead of dialogue. Prof Plum is one of the few that has tried to engage in dialogue, but by this point I feel the argument has been all but exhausted. And honestly, I resent that he put the word "immoral" in the thread title. I felt it was a cheap shot, and beneath him.

As for the others, it is hard to take them seriously, but at the same time, I don't want to just throw my hands up - because I feel that - more than discussion - that is what they are after.

In any case, I am going to prepare for tonight's Kerry Meetup. I will make a point of reminding people that Dean supporters are on our side, and that alienating them only hurts Kerry. Beyond that, I am going to do my best to help get Kerry's message out of common-sense progressivism.

<>

Thanks for your hard work here and in the other threads. I find you a source of light and not heat. I would also remind Dean people that Kerry supporters are on our side as well, and alienating them only hurts Dean.

Try as so many people do to try to separate their positions out, I think that Dean and Kerry are on essentially the same page as any other sane person would be on the use of American force (imminent threats have to be evaluated, we should work in the context of an international world, working together with our allies is preferable to working alone, an actual proved imminent threat must be dealt with, unilaterally if necessary). I find both of their positions similar to each other's and my own.

They differ only in the vote itself and in stated opposition to the invasion. As far as the vote, I think we can conclude Kerry had good intentions for it. And Dean, finding himself not in a position to have to make a vote, made some political hay with that. Neither come off as saints.

In the opposition or non-opposition to the war, they are both opposed to it, just on different timelines and by different means. My personal preference would have been to have Kerry more visibly and vocally opposed earlier, because I just can't see how the invasion can be anything but a disaster for us. But I can't have everything, and I'm very heartened to see Kerry pushing back at Bush now.

I will admit this topic has exhausted me (but not some of the k-heads on this board). And I apologize for using the word immoral in the title - it was meant to be a "grabber" (as Bob Newhart's ad-man would have said) and also meant to describe the very Machiavellian strategy I laid out in the initial post. I don't think that it reflects Kerry's true strategy, and therefore doesn't reflect on Kerry. It is how I would describe some people's theories on Kerry's motivations. And it would seem that they agree with me (on my description of their theory, not my conclusion on its morality). With that, I will conclude that they are supporting a much different version of Kerry than I would and will if it comes to that.

Cheers, Doc,

PP

Kerry still stands behind his vote 100%.

there are numerious references, from numerous speeches in which he totally contradicts himself over a period of days.

He has stated that under no cirumstance should the U.S. use force in Iraq withoput the U.N. Then he reverses himself and states that if the U.N. does not support its own resolutions, the U.S. would have to use force unilaterally. He has changed his point of view on this numerous times, depending on whi he was speaking to, and who he would be able to attack by changing his stance.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

One Democrat, who is already supporting another candidate, is baffled that Dean is attempting to earn a reputation for principled views, labeling the former governor as "incoherent."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html



Dean's reference to ambivalence the night before is directly contradicted by a first hand account from Lawrence Lessig, an Edwards supporter and chair of the Creative Commons project, who attended one of those events:



Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the “correct” answer is “no”. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_03.shtml#001007

Now Dean is facing questions about his rhetoric surrounding the war.

Early last week, after Dean had been in South Carolina, Lee Bandy, a longtime political reporter for The State newspaper of Columbia, wrote that Dean ''will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.'' Bandy quoted Dean as saying, ''It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field.''

The same day, USA Today reported, ''One of the most outspoken Democratic presidential candidates, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, calls it `the wrong war at the wrong time' and says he will continue criticizing Bush's policies.''

On Friday, Dean sought a correction from the Los Angeles Times after it published an interview that quoted Dean as saying he was ''uncomfortable'' offering his usual criticism of the war because it might be misinterpreted abroad now that the fighting has begun. The Times stood by its story.


http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

Dean is himself, trying to get attention off of the Iraq issue, since as it gets closer to primary time, much more media attention will be focused on Dean, who has been running an attack campaign, but when in the presaence of other candidates, or in when in a position in which he is being asked questions rhat are obviously way outside his experience, Dean flounders. When this occurs, it is obvious, at even by listening to Deans own supporters, that Dean has flubbed it, as the usual response of his supporters is something like" Dean was not up to his best that time. You really havn't seen him at his best."

Which is unfortunately true. The only time Dean is at his best is when he is critising others, as his own skills and abilities are not good enough for his own record to carry him.

The greatest proof that Dena does not have the qualities necessary to be president is that he must run a negative campaign attack, rather than run on the relative merit of is record. THis is becasue Dena kmow well that relative to the other cnadidates, his record just is not enough.

Attacking the DLC and the other candidates for having given in too much and too often to the Republicans is ironic, as Dean is the candidate who has gone the furthest in placating Republicans at the expense of fighting and opposing the fiscal and social policies of his own party in Vermont when he was governor...

He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left.

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/May2003/May_19/News/reg_vt0519a.asp


Dean also was on good terms with Vermont's business community - a relationship some considered too cozy. "His top advisers were all money people, brokers and bankers," said Ready, a regular Dean adversary when she served in the Legislature.

While Dean was instrumental in preserving hundreds of thousands of acres of open space, critics say he was too willing to capitulate to developers and allow growth that contributed to sprawl and the pollution of Lake Champlain, Vermont's natural gem.

"If the question was enticing new business in the state, giving them what they wanted or needed in terms of permits, locations, you could pretty much predict Howard would come down on the side of what business wanted, even if meant sprawling development," said Patrick Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School and a former state environmental commissioner.

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

The idea that Kerry was easily fooled, used by Dean and his supportes by claiming that the Iraq Act was a vote for war has already been disproved in federal courts, where plaintiffs brough a case to get an injunction to prevent Bush from going to war a momnth before he went to war, by using the fact that the act itself requires the U.N. to approve the use of force in Iraq:

They further argue that none of the legislation passed by Congress in the wake of September 11, including last October's Iraq resolution, confers sufficient authority for the war the President is threatening. The October Resolution - House Joint Resolution 114 - purports to authorize the President to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."" Plaintiffs' contention, based on the language and legislative history of the resolution, is that unless narrowly construed, this resolution would be tantamount to congressional abdication of its non-delegable trigger power and would impair separation of powers. And, they contend, such a narrower reading of the statute is plausible, as the statute appears to tie the start of hostilities to the progress of international diplomatic efforts, reflected in the resolutions of the United Nations, to bring Iraq into compliance. Thus, Congress's October Resolution can reasonably be read as expressing three ideas: (1) Congressional support for international diplomacy on the part of the executive; (2) Congressional authority for limited use of force to protect American troops; and (3) the inclination of Congress to provide the necessary assent if the Security Council authorizes the use of force.

Kerry claims the president lied to him, as well as Congress. Dean supporters assume that this means what THEY want it to mean. That the president tricked them into passing legislation that approved of his actions. OIn the contrary, Kerry is claiming Bush lied, because he signed legislation that required him to only use force with U.N. approval, and that he then circumvented the law. Ignored it.

There is quite a difference.


The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share inmaking decisions that may cause the United States to become engaged in hostilities. The Resolution statesthat the President's powers as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities orimminent hostilities are to be exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutoryauthorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces.50 U.S.C. § 1541(c). The Resolution also requires prior consultation with Congress before introducingarmed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or some otherspecific Congressional authorization. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1542-1543. The Resolution further requires thatperiodic reports be given to Congress and that Congress must, within 60 to 90 days, authorize the use ofthe armed forces or the forces must be withdrawn. 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b).Every Administration since 1973, whether Democrat or Republican, has viewed the War PowersResolution as an unconstitutional infringement on the President's authority as Commander in Chief and onhis authority to execute the foreign policy of the United States, although no Administration has challengedthe Resolution's constitutionality in court.
No Administration has ever acknowledged that it was legally bound to act pursuant to the provisions of the Resolution. Instead, although each Administration hasgenerally comported its conduct with the Resolution's provisions, each Administration has explicitly characterized its reporting to Congress as being "consistent with the War Powers Resolution."Further, although there have been a number of court cases alleging that an Administration has committed U.S. armed forces in violation of the War Powers Resolution, none of them has been successful.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:1UDA3HkQizkJ:www.aclj.org/resources/natsec/PresidentWarPowers.pdf+%22Constitutional+Law%22+Authorization+Force+Iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Many professors of constittional law, and other judicial experts in the area are currently of the opinion, that constitutionally, everything that the presidend has done regarding use of force in Iraq is completely legal nad has been totally compliant with U.S. law.

However, they indicate that the only area in which the president may find himself facing problems due to his actions is due to the fact that he signed the October resolution, therefore his breaking of the terms set with Congress may be the ONLY thing regarding use of force in Iraq that he has done which may have violated the law.

Dean's position and Kerry's position on in invasion of Iraq are really light years apart. They couldn't be more different.

public trough for 3 decades because of ideals. Professional politicians poll and vote based on those polls.

Dean '04

on the Iran-Contra investigations. That sucks. And of course, it is because the Democrats thought he would be "too hot". What a bunch of weenies, even then. Little did they know that Republicans (in just 11 short years) would not hesitate to impeach a Democrat for oral sex.

Thanks for the info.

My one regret for Kerry's position is that it does leave the impression that Kerry really did support Bush's version of the war - I look to my own confusion on the matter, and that of many others on these boards and in my daily life. I hope we can now all work together to point out to Chimpy where he was wrong.

no further weapons inspections, no need to present evidence, and to extend the battle into Iran and Syria at his full discretion.

I'd say the Dems negotiating didn't "cave" as much as many believe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=6407&mesg_id=6407&page=

Rather than waffling, Kerry has been remarkably consistent for years now calling on 1) enforcing Iraq's disarmament, and 2) doing so in the framework of a larger multilateralism.

Every statement and speech he has made has been totally consistant in its adherance to international legal principal...

Dena on the other hand.

Every time I post this:

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

or this:

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


http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

The topdog site has references to a good half dozen other refernces to Deans many reversals on the Iraq situation as well.

Dean supporters see them. I have asked them to explain how Dean is the only ANNTI-WAR candidate in light of these quotes, and not one has stepped up to the plate.

Oh yes, Dr F. excellent job of deconstruction. A little bit on the bashing side though, wouldnt you say.

Lets face it Dr F. A lot of Dean supporters still go from thread to thread, attacking Kerry, or Kucinich, using tired old stale Dean arguments that Dean himself has finally gotten too embarassed about to keep repeating. When was the last time you have heard Deanrepeat that tired old lie that the October Resolution gave the president a blank check to go to war. Try his weak little objection at the Rainbow Coalition debates where he meekly stated that he "BELEIVED that the act allwed the president to attack" No more pit bull.

AS I said, Kerry needs no defense from me. But politicians who bring campaigns to their lowers level and politics to itts lowerst forem, as Dean has done warrants attack. Especially when he resorts to lying about other candidates and misrepresenting their actions.

We have a guy in office right now who has made a presidential career out of lying. We do not need a democrat who rsorts to the same techniques of lying to the public to get them to support him. As Bush has with WMD's. as Dean has regarding the October Resolution His supporters are all opver the Internet claiming that the other candidates ALL voted for the Bush tax cuts. That all voted for the October Resolution (Kucinich and Graham did not). Any more proof needed. Dean has been caught lying a number of times during this campaign. There is no reason to assume that he has not lied about many other things, that he is not lying in his campaign platform.

THe only thing one can assume, is that whatever a grown man in his fifties has done in the past with regularity, he is likely to do again in the future.

He has cut taxes on the rich, not repealed tax cuts. He has cut programs that serves the disabled, poor. elderly, and blind. His tenure as governor is a history of continually opposing the progressive legislation of is party in order to support the legislation desired by Vermont Republicans. Since he is a proven liar, and his there is nothing in his political record that resembles what he is claiming he will do as president, the most logical and rational comclusion to come to is that he is lying about what he will do, and what he stands for in order to appeal to very young, and disaffected people who are rather ignorant of the nature of our political system. I bet that they beleive that Dean will wave a magic wand and all of the things they want will happen. It would be amusing to see Dean win and then immediately begin to reverse everytthing in his platform. AND watch tem still trying to defend Dean, as all those right wing fools wha have just lost their jobs still try to support Bush.

5. (This part is in the future) Kerry springs a trap on Bush, proving that he has not stayed within the bounds of the resolution, and is therefore guilty of not staying in the bounds of the resolution. Various legalities happen, with the end result at least embarrasing for Bush.

Then Kerry has traded thousands of innocent lives for the chance to play "gotcha".

except the whole thing is nothing but a straw man argument that has nothing to do with Kerry's views

this is his actual opinion of Kerry's strategy. I've just outlined it here.

I don't think it is Kerry's strategy either. But in that case, Kerry just made a less-than-brave political decision to just go along with the war while it was popular. Not such a big deal, but he could have made a lot of hay with having opposed what he should have guessed would be an enormous Bush f*ckup.

Who Cares? Listen to Kerry if you want to know what Kerry thinks. And I don't find your 'analysis' any more cogent.

and I find most of it highly commendable. I don't approve of Kerry's support for the invasion of Iraq (not because of his vote on the resolution, but because it runs counter to the conditions he outlined in his speech before that vote).

What I am tired of is reading Nicholas_J's bullsh*t about Kerry's grand strategy.

Thanks for the feedback.

Kerry has said consistently that we SHOULD NOT HAVE INVADED, but should have worked through the UN instead

(on edit: spelling)

he never said was against the invasion itself, only Bush's methods of bringing it about. When the war-hysterical press was sniffing around to crush any hint of dissent, Dean took an anti-war position and all the heat that came with it. He was labelled "too liberal to be elected", a hippy, a peacenik, etc.

I don't recall Kerry being smeared with any of those labels, which would have been as false on him as they are on Dean.

If Kerry was really against the invasion (and stated it when the war was popular), then there would be almost no difference in the Dean/Kerry positions on anything about Iraq.

It's what he says that matters, not how you spin it. In reality, there is almost no difference in the Dean and Kerry position on Iraq. In the spin cycle, it's a different story.

in the Dean and Kerry position prior to the war.

Kerry explicitly supported the invasion, however. There may have been several valid reasons for this, including not wanting to demoralize our fighting forces, etc.

I'm glad Kerry and Dean are both pushing back against the misadministration now, though.

No matter what Senator Kerry does to some malcontents he is the epitome of Satan himself and Howard Dean walks on water.

Forget the fact that Dean is complete shit on nearly every other issue and Kerry blows him away…Because Kerry made this vote many on the left have lost their marbles over him.

John Kerry came to oppose the Vietnam War (a war he fought in). I seriously doubt his decision was made in a cavalier fashion. This is the problem with Democracy. Sometimes politicians have to compromise and sometimes they do things you don’t like. I didn’t like that vote and it bothers me, but instead of casting him off on the piss patrol I want to hear his responses and how he is going to deal with the situation in light of new evidence.

Kerry had nothing to do with creating faulty evidence. He voted based on information he was given and likely what his constituents told him.

If Kerry can address the war issue in a suitable way then he has Dean on 100% of the issues and not just 99%. While Bush is a shithead and being “against” a war seems to be a good thing…Look at the mass graves under Sadam’s regime? He has practiced genocide. Where were you people when Clinton was going after Kosovo? While I think we were lied too and suckered into this war, the fact remains because of the tyrannical and brutal dictator who was running Iraq and what he was doing to “innocents” if John Kerry WANTED To make a case in a REAL liberation of Iraq then you bet your ass he could make it.

Iraq was not a peaceful nation. They were not run by a peaceful man. They murdered people by the thousands (at last count).

It is much easier to be Howard Dean…Just someone out there in space doing nothing but critiquing what everyone else is doing. When you are a non-commodity (like Dean) you don’t have a real record. So because Dean’s only public policy experience is being Governor of a niche-state that is very monolithic demographically and the standards of compromise are much less he APPEARS to be a great candidate.

Because he didn’t vote FOR (or against, he merely commentated) the war people believe he is super man all of the left. That being said, Dean’s scattered anti-war pablum is a bit more palatable than voting for the war (my main issue was voting for a pre-emptive strike, not necessarily war). Still, he is a paper tiger. Dean can’t be trusted to do what is right. He wants to expand the military-industrial complex, “invest” in star wars, is opposed to any federal firearms regulations (although the cheeseball says the laws in place shall remain. HYPOCRITE? He is AGAINST federal gun control, BUT…”not enough” –I guess- to repeal present gun laws that he is presumably opposed to).

Then there is his silly stand on the death penalty. He is opposed to it unless you happen to kill a certain type of person. Kill a cop? You get death. Kill a teacher? No death. Fuck you Dean. A police officer (whom I respect their jobs) is no damn better than a teacher, a doctor a scientist diligently working to cure cancer-at least until the pharmaceutical companies have him rubbed out.

Of course, we don’t need to get into Dean’s shoddy environmental record (for a Liberal. For a Republican he does have a great enviro-record). Being in a very Liberal state like Vermont you’d think Dean would be aces on the environment. LMAO. If Dean was in the South he’d be a Republican.

And I can’t forget that he is “in favor of factory farms”, whatever in the hell that actually means. I have sat back and watched John Kerry’s name raked through the mud by these freaking Dean clowns for a vote they don’t like. And then I watch them and their fellow apologists justify every other “vote” of concern any Democrat should have about Dean. They have no troubles with anything he does/says. They won’t and never admit it…They just shut their brain off and keep the cliches coming.

I have said a numerous occasions, Dean is only popular insofar those Democrats who feel they’ve been let down by the national party and its Liberal roots can project their paradigm of what a great candidate is onto Dean.

In the end, Dean the man..Dean the issues is a lousy choice for our parties nomination.

A President Kerry is much more solid than Dean on our core issues that matter. We should question him diligently about the war vote. As a Kerry supporter I won’t apologize for this vote. I was very dumfounded he gave Dickweed pre-emptive authority, but I have watched Kerry fight his ass off in the Senate for almost 20 years for ALL THE ISSUES that matter to us Democrats.

If you don’t like Kerry fine, but back off him…Because his supporters (and he) are starting to fire back and if we look for the stands of his opponents (namely Dean), YOU who support other candidates (namely Dean) and oppose Kerry may not like what we find.

Dean will be exposed as a fraud at some point and his run will wither away hopefully.

check out the thread, my friend. I think Kerry and Dean are both excellent candidates, and we are lucky to have them.

I think Dean's position on the war is more consistent with both Dean and Kerry's pre-war positions, and also more consistent with the policies of the historical US. Our invasion was not justified. On this particular issue, I think Dean has the advantage of having stuck to his principles and also to have been right.

Take care - Dean and Kerry supporters are going to need each other someday soon, regardless of how the primaries turn out.