Mr. I-Told-You-So

It wasn't supposed to be like this.

Last October, when many Democrats in Congress supported the war resolution, they figured they'd take national security off the political agenda and change the subject to the economy.

That didn't happen. President Bush surprised Democrats by making national security the focus of the midterm campaign. And he won big.

Four Democratic presidential candidates voted for the war resolution. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri led the fight for the resolution among House Democrats, while John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for it in the Senate. They figured the United States would bring down Saddam Hussein, they'd have political cover, and anti-war candidates such as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would fade away.

Saddam's regime is gone, but the other things didn't happen. What did happen is that Iraq became more controversial. Polls show more and more Americans turning against the war. According to Gallup, the number of Americans saying that Iraq was not worth going to war over went from 19 percent at the end of the war in April to 42 percent by late June. Among Democrats, opposition has been stronger: 33 percent opposed the war in mid-April, 63 percent in late June.

More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/schneider2003-07-29.htm

Though that is an awfully inflammatory title. Dean is such a great candidate - I hope he is as good of an executive as he is at campaigning.

I hope the other candidates kick up their campaigning as well, and start really putting Bush's feet to the fire. This is the kind of moxie I've been waiting for a long time in a Democratic candidate.

They didn't bother to see what the hell the plan was? Good job, dems.

Kerry spent hours with Powell, members of the State Department, and members of the CIA. They assured him that they would get Bush to focus on disarmament, build a coalition and do it right. How is it Kerry's fault that Bush shut the State Department and the CIA out of the process? Who the hell shuts your State Department and CIA out of a friggin' war!?!

This article shows how the Pentagon hawks completely shut them out of the process in favor of Chalabi intelligence and cowboy diplomacy.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030724/ts_washpost/a37468_2003jul23

failed to build a coalition, pissed off nearly the entire world, was using dodgy evidence to build a case for war, and cut short inspections in a rush to war, (IOW Bush didn't do it right), Kerry came out against invading, right?

Sacramento Bee, March 14, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, stumping California on Thursday in search of support and dollars for his 2004 presidential campaign, castigated the Bush administration for what he called a stumbling diplomatic effort to win support for a war against Iraq.

Speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California, Kerry asserted that President Bush has offered too many rationales for invading Iraq and thus threatened the credibility of the administration's arguments.

Kerry and several other Democratic presidential hopefuls have taken fire from party activists for endorsing a congressional resolution last year authorizing Bush to mount a military operation against Iraq. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a legitimate threat and his vote for the legislation was proper, the senator said.

A former naval officer who was thrice injured in the Vietnam War before becoming a vocal critic of that conflict, Kerry said he has long considered Saddam a threat to the Middle East and to the United States.

But he contended that Bush did little to counter that threat until deciding to seek Congress' approval for the Iraq resolution last September, two months before congressional elections. The timing politicized the issue, Kerry said.

Further, the senator suggested that Bush's actions and statements have failed to demonstrate there is no other way to force Iraq's disarmament.

---

The American Porspect, March 1, 2003.

Kerry continues, saying that he's not afraid to use force and that, should Iraq be in clear material breach of the United Nations' resolutions requiring it to disarm, he'd support joint action against the Baghdad regime. "I will do whatever is necessary to defend the United States," he declares. "But one thing I know to a certainty, in my heart, in my mind, in my gut: The United States of America should never go to war because it wants to go to war; it should only go to war because it has to go to war!"

---

World Socialist Web Site, February 8, 2003.

Kerry declared, “With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the UN to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common goal of either bringing about Iraq’s peaceful disarmament or moving forward with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.”

Kerry claimed his decision to support a war was based on the facts, not politics. “It’s about doing what’s right for the country. I’m worried about the national security of our nation and doing what’s correct. I want the president to continue to work through the multilateral structure, and I’d like to see us get the support of other countries, but I’ve always recognized that you need to face up to the threat of weapons of mass destruction.”

---

Cox News Service, January 24, 2003

WASHINGTON --- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry derided what he called the ''belligerent and myopic unilateralism'' of the Bush administration's foreign policy Thursday, promising to replace it with ''progressive internationalism'' that works closer with allies to promote democracies and trade around the globe.

And while he urged President Bush to rely more on diplomacy and international support before going to war to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein,

Kerry also said the United States must always be ready to act alone when necessary. ''Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime,'' Kerry said.

''And while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the president, show respect for the process of international diplomacy . . . Mr. President, do not rush to war.''

"They figured the United States would bring down Saddam Hussein, they'd have political cover, and anti-war candidates such as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would fade away."

That is a gross mischaracterization of Kerry's long-stated position:

“I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

"Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

"We cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97)

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97)

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

and Dean is the incarnation of Karma, who's biting them where it hurts -- their egos and poll numbers.

After he okayed dumping in lakes by Corporations and sold out thousands of poor people on Medicaid so he could get his political carear going again by "covering every child with health insurance". Never mind that most kids that don't have health insurance don't have parents with it either and THAT is the problem, not covering every child while the parent withers away and dies.

what shoddy journalism!

Those numbers plummeted to 39% in the latest poll after Uday and his brother were killed.

He was the most anti-war of the candidates. Dean only wanted a delay. Kucinich wanted the war stopped. Kucinich has called for a Department of Peace. That is a paroposal we should embrace.

Great article.