Deannies Have No Grounds to Attack Kerry IWR: Enough!!

[WiseMen]

I have absolutely had it with Dean supporters attacking John Kerry for his IWR vote. Only Kucinich VOTED against IWR. Kucinich supporters have some basis to comment. But, Dean did not have to vote, and it is totally ambiguous as to what he would have voted if he had had that responsibility.

Ted Kennedy led the opposition to the vote, yet he says Kerry’s objective was the same as his – diplomatic resolution of the festering problem of Saddam. I accept Kennedy’s vouching for Kerry and his unequivocal endorsement.

John Kerry’s IWR vote was the correct vote. He had no other option given his past leadership, with Clinton and Albright, in the effort to conclude the Iraqi stalemate in the 90’s. (I will post my analysis of this issue at some future date).

The endless attacks, are totally baseless coming from the Dean camp, especially since Dean has announced a mainstream foreign policy stance. It is now well documented that, prior to a campaign strategy decision, around the time of the IWR vote, Governor Dean was making varied and ambiguous statements on the Iraq question, many of which were identical to those of other Democratic candidates.
Howard Dean began opposing the Iraq war because he believed that it was the only way to get his campaign off the ground.
Dean’s own campaign staff described Dean’s newly discovered anti-war sentiment as a political maneuver to capture the “activist” movement.

Excerpt for the Oliphant report on Dean's anti-Gephart campaign in IOWA summarizes the history of Dean's statements on the Issue.

___________________________________

By Thomas Oliphant, 11/23/2003

WASHINGTON

.........

In the TV ad, a voice (female, of course) states ominously, "October 2002. Dick Gephardt agrees to coauthor the Iraq war resolution giving George Bush the authority to go to war."

Retorts Dean from a small-town street, "I opposed the war in Iraq."

The ad also notes that Gephardt voted for the recently passed $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction costs, with Dean's voice responding, "And I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate. This junk is generally accepted in politics, but the situation in Iraq is too serious and deadly for tolerance of it now. As the facts show, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean was; the facts show that each of them was basically in favor of the same thing, namely bringing matters with Iraq to a climactic head. Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly.

One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement.
The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience. At that point the world was essentially united and so was the United States.

Against that background, Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution. It is no more Gephardt's fault than it is Dean's fault that Bush decided to invade the country on March 20 with only Britain as a serious ally and without a clear plan for the aftermath. The ad's implication to the contrary is false.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[evil_orange_cat]

13. right on... I won't support any Dem who voted for IWR and PATact

and I made my mind up the second those votes were cast... I didn't need Dean to tell me about Bush enablers. I saw Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman's true colors right off the bat. Plus Kerry wants to keep some of the Bush tax cuts... sorry, no thanks. The whole thing is crap and should be scrapped. Sure the poor and middle classes should get tax breaks. We should be more progressive in tax code. Hell, I'd like to see sales taxes banned (the most regressive tax). But you shouldn't keep one part of a plan that is shit.

Is Dean in a better position in terms of IWR because he didn't have to vote on it? Sure... So is Clark. But you know what? I don't care. It just so happens they are my two favorites. Maybe they are Monday Morning QB's pandering... but hey, that's politics. I believe Clark and Dean are the two best guys for the job, and I hope one of them gets the nod.

I'm not sure if Edwards voted for IWR, but I still like him. There are other things about Kerry I don't like. He seems very arrogant and snobby to me. Sure, those may be shallow observations that have no bearing on his leadership capability, but hey, there are a ton of other politicians and advisors. When you vote for a president, you aren't just voting for one man. And I'm sure a lot of the same advisors who are advising Kerry would be around to advise a President Dean or Clark. Perhaps I like those two the best because they are Washington outsiders. I don't know.

But all I know is that the Kerry camp is scoring any points with me when they bash Dean or Dean supporters. I'm in the ABB crowd, but bashing a candidate who I think is pretty good isn't the way to get my vote.

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. I love your signature

That's the funniest shit I've seen in a long time! LMAO!

[evil_orange_cat]

54. thank you, I try ;)

:D

[mb7588a]

38. anti-Kerry post

"Nothing you can say is gonna make me like Kerry."

Try his awesome liberal record. Try this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=911866

[pruner]

2. whatever you say…

:eyes:

[Don Claybrook]

3. I like your analysis

It seems, though, that the biggest problem with it is that Kerry did in fact cast this vote. And Howard Dean was, in fact, opposed to this war that the congressional Democrats ceded to Mr. Bush.

Other than those little details, and the fact that yes, Kerry did have a choice as to how he voted, I can agree with the rest of your post.

Thanks.

[VT70]

4. Good points

Deanies can deny this all day if they want, but the fact remains that your candidate and my candidate are heads and shoulders above Dean. Dean is nothing but an unprincipled waffler and I really hope that he does not win the nomination.

[msanger]

8. a real question for you

If Kerry and Gephard are head and shoulders above dean, then why is dean leading in the polls, and the money, and the endorsements?

I don't mean this as a snide question. I'm actually interested in how you explain Dean's popularity - given that others are 'heads and shoulders above him.'

[paulk]

75. Dean has a plurality in the polls, this should not be construed as

popularity, except among the group of people who (rabidly) support him. That solid core of support has boosted him into the lead in polls and money. I don't believe Dean has a lead in endorsements, he is not leading in the superdelegate totals.

How to explain Dean's popularity? His "anti-war" stance, his forthright criticisms of Bush, and his attacks on the Democratic party in general, which have stimulated the Democratic left, who have felt for years that the Democratic party doesn't represent them.

[Scott Lee]

10. Pass a message to Dick for me....we need more attack ads!

I want to see the bat knock one out for a cool million next time!

Thanks ;)

[VT70]

26. Too bad Bush would knock out Dean in a GE

And too bad you don't care that this would happen, but hey, as long as Dean is our nominee, that's all that matters, right? :puke:

[TLM]

29. How many elections has Gephardt lost again?

8 isn't it?

Soon to be 9.

[VT70]

39. What are you talking about?

Gephardt has never lost an election.

[TLM]

65. Really so Gephardt has won all the primary elections he's run in?

I don't recall when he was the party nominee.

[AWD]

49. Only if....

...he can keep himself from running to Bush's side in the Rose Garden every other day.

[wtmusic]

43. Apparently most other Democrats disagree with you

Whose head and shoulders were you referring to?

:silly:

[Sensitivity]

53. Your Kerry folks are just too elitist for me

[WiseMen]

52. I hate this Strident Dialogue, But Phoney Deannie Attacks are Maddening

And that is probably the intent on this board.

[msanger]

5. I won't attack Kerry, but I don't really like him.

I think Kerry, but far more Gephardt, played into bush's hands. Dean and hundreds of thousands of other Americans thought voting for the war was giving bush a green light - which it turned out to be.

If Gephardt hadn't caved, perhaps the dems could have made a real fight of it.

ANd we'd be 87 billion dollars and 454 american lives better off today than we were a year ago.

I don't condemn Kerry for doing what he did, which I see as having been the actions of a politician. And I don't like the way he plays politics.

I like the way Dean plays politics, which is to stand up to Bush and say "enough is enough."

I was a big fan of Kerry's before the Iraq vote. After it, I lost all interest in supporting him.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Voting For Biden-Lugar "Played Into Bush's Hands"

If you are going to be a single issue voter, at least pick something with a real difference between the candidates.

[Scott Lee]

11. Not like IWR did. Nearly night and day difference.

Unless you want to quibble with the ACLU on this one....and quite frankly, I'll take the ACLU position over yours. Nothing personal.

[_Jumper_]

14. Would we be in Iraq today if IWR-lite passed instead of the IWR?

?

[Scott Lee]

20. Much less likely.

Of course, both Biden/Lugar and IWR were much too war appeasing for my tastes, but Dean's stance and reasoning made the most sense. Too bad he couldn't have been in Congress at the time to stand shoulder to shoulder with Kucinich and the handful of other brave Democrats who said NO to Bush's war.

[ibegurpard]

87. Biden-Lugar was different AND preferable

According to the ACLU. I don't know why you guys continue to try to say there was no difference when it is so easily debunked.

[Raya]

89. Dean and Kerry have very similar views on Iraq.

I really don't think Kerry should hit Dean this topic. Leave that
to Gephart and Lieberman

[Scott Lee]

6. More antiDean garbage, piled sky high.

Dean was and is against this war and the way it came about. I'm sorry if that riles your wheaties, but it's the truth. There has been no waffling, vascillation or backtracking. His statements are out there for all to see. The upshot of his position was that a unilateral Us war without international support, and based upon flimsey and questionable premises and an unclear "threat" to this country, is wrong.

And he is right.

Kerry voted for war. Voting for IWR was VOTING FOR WAR. Period. No one in Congress was stupid enough to think that Bushpig would not launch a war if given the IWR approval.

Now, let's see how many times you all of the Dean hating Sour Grapes bunch can post various iterations of this worn out ragged old theme. Go ahead, let's see them. I haven't gotten all my laughs in yet this evening.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. You're wrong.

Dean was obviously pro-war from the get-go. His position is identical to Kerry's.

[Scott Lee]

22. Lie. Dean was against the way this war came about, and is still.

You can spin that one any which way you care to, but I am sorry to report that the war enablers are stuck with their own folly.

My condolences to Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and LIEberman on this issue. You guys simply backed the wrong horse.

[WiseMen]

36. NOOO. Neither Dean Nor Kerry was Pro-War. IWR NOT War

It is a calculated invention of the DEAN CAMPAIGN that IWR meant a support for
war. For some it was. But many, including Kerry, were clear that
it was to support a "credible threat" to force Saddam to accept
a return of the U.N. inspection regime.

Kerry's IWR floor speech was specifically opposed to any unilateral move to war.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Credible threat?

The Dean campaign did not invent the notion that the IWR meant support for war. The IWR in the hands of Chimp did that all by itself.

Kerry made a political decision, imo. One he only half-way regrets. (Ask how many DU'ers thought that Kerry would vote NO after his speech. A vast majority, I bet)

Dean also made a political decision. One he's not backing off from.


We can agree to disagree. I think Dean has been consistent. If the case is made, I'm for it. First via the UN and if not, unilaterally after 60-90 days. There being no case, I'm against it. No case was made. I think Kerry made what looked like a politically smart play at the time: Hedge the bet. Give a flowery, and at times, moving speech against unilateralism and then vote for relinquishing his congressional duty to declare war (Art. 1, Sec. 8) and leave it in Chimp's paws.

If it makes you feel any better, if Kerry is the nominee I'll vote for him.

[AWD]

50. IWR not war???

What exactly do you think the "W" in "IWR" stands for????

[paulk]

78. you consider this a valid response?

This is the sort of bullshit coming from Dean supporters that drives the anti-Dean anger of so many. A snide little one liner, that, rather than being any kind of intelligent response, only exposes the ignorance of the poster.

Read Kerry's floor speech and tell me he was for the invasion. Read his speech. Read his FUCKING speech and tell me Kerry wanted this war.

[RetroLounge]

81. Poop

Oops, was that too snide?

[paulk]

85. yes, your juvinile response

only serves to reinforce my point.

It says a lot about you, and the level of thought you put into your posts.

[Scott Lee]

83. Bullsquish. IWR = War and every congresscritter knew it.

Kerry included. He made the safe vote at the time - one meant to keep the "patriotic" fires burning and keep his seat. He backed the wrong horse.

[_Jumper_]

18. Why did Dean support IWR-lite?

Why did he believe Bush in crunch time when Bush stated that Saddam was a threat?

[Scott Lee]

23. Had he heard the whole case (which was not forthcoming)

I don't believe for a second he'd have supported Bush's war. The reasons would have been simple: Bush did not have international support, Bush did not have a certified case against Saddam and there was no demonstrably clear and present threat to the United States.

[TLM]

27. Why not be honest about Biden Lugar?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[_Jumper_]

30. All Shrub would have had to do was "certify" that Iraq was a threat...

...and we would be in Iraq right now. Bush, in effect, "certified" that Iraq was a threat anyway.

The requirement for a clearly stated militarly objective would have been easily met by Bush.

IWR-lite was better than the IWR, but at the end of the day we still would be in Iraq today if it had been passed.

[TLM]

58. Under BL we might have used force against Iraq...

However we would not be IN Iraq because the key difference between IWR and BL is that biden lugar did not allow for regime change and the take over and occupation of Iraq. That's no small difference.

BL said that Bush had to go to the UN, then he had to come back to congress and if he could demonstrate a real threat, then he could use military force in order to take out that threat, not take over Iraq and depose their government.

So BL did not allow for the take over which was really needed in order to hand Iraq’s oil fields over to Halliburton. Which as we all know was the real motivation for this war. BL would have effectively neutered the oil agenda.

So to say that’s the same as the IWR is completely wrong.

[mb7588a]

34. There's a CRS report that says they are nearly identical.

I take the Congressional Research Service over the ACLU any day.

[_Jumper_]

35. IWR-lite did preclude Shrub from invading other ME nations...

...by citing the IWR (which was politically impossible anyway), but with respect to invading Iraq it made no consequential difference.

[wtmusic]

44. NYT says there is a 'major' difference

'The major difference between the two resolutions is that the version agreed upon by the House and the president today authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs.'

http://onepeople.org/archives/000106.html

[_Jumper_]

48. We'd still have fought the war if Biden-Lugar was passed

All Shrub had to do was certify that Iraq was a threat that needed to be defended against.

[TLM]

59. Sorry wrong... we may have used force...

but BL did not allow for regime change or invasion or take over of Iraq. It was specific about the target and the goal, and did not allow for taking over Iraq.

Maybe you missed it, so let me say it again...

BL did NOT allow for the invasion and take over of Iraq, nor the regime change. IWR did.

That’s one hell of a big fucking difference.

Do you think that invading and taking over Iraq is the same thing as bombing some suspected weapons sites?

That's what you are claiming if you say IWR was the same as BL.

Under BL Bush would have been able to bomb weapons sites, and maybe use ground troops to take out some sites, but there would have been nothing to allow for the regime change and the seizing of Iraqi oil fields for Halliburton. If they couldn’t give the oil fields to Halliburton, Bush loses his whole reason for invading, since we know there were no weapons.

So again trying to defend what Kerry helped make possible by claiming that BL would have authorized the same thing is wrong and uninformed… not to mention a little bit desperate. Is it so hard to admit that Kerry was wrong? He let us down when we needed him most.

[Scott Lee]

84. BidenLugar was much more strict in calling for evidence

Would it have resulted in war? Still very likely. But the bar was higher, the case much tougher to make. Kerry and the other Bush enablers made it easier on Bushhole.

Again, they backed the wrong horse.

[nomaco-10]

7. I'm sorry, we'll have to get back....

to Kerry some other time, we're busy with the Marcus invasion. Hold that thought.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. By that token,

Kerry can't say shit about what Dean did in Vermont.


:dunce:

[KaraokeKarlton]

15. Actually, Dean supporters have every right to criticize Kerry on the vote

Seeing as Kerry supporters criticize Dean on his opposition to the war. I've heard many Kerry supporters claiming (since Saddam was captured) that because Dean opposed the war that he isn't able to beat Bush. So why shouldn't Dean supporters be able to say that because Kerry voted for IWR he isn't going to be able to win the nomination?

I see no difference between the two.

[Cha]

16. Too BAD! kerry blew it and

now he's weaseling again. I can't keep up with my contempt for him.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[wtmusic]

45. Chum in the water zidzi!!

You go girl :-)

[dsc]

21. So Kennedy's vote was wrong?

Then why is he to be trusted in this regard? BTW when I intend to do the same thing as someone I don't wind up doing the opposite.

[WiseMen]

46. I Support Kennedy's and Bird's Positions. Kerry HAD NO CHOICE

Under Clinton, Kerry had authored a similar resolution to resolve
the Iraq tragedy. Kerry's goal was to END the ongoing Anglo-American air-war against Iraq which had continued, non-stop for a decade.

Refer to 1998 senate deliberation on the issue.

[AWD]

51. Had no choice?

So they gave him a vote that had "Yes" and "Yes" on it as choices???

You're geting dizzy from all the spin.

[TLM]

62. Kerry had the same choice that Graham and Kucinich had...

And Kerry made the choice to side with the republicans... and now he is paying the price.

[Sensitivity]

24. Dean Has been consistent every time I have seen him

[_Jumper_]

31. He said Iraq was a threat

If that is the case how can he now claim that we are not safer because Saddam has been apprehended? Did he learn something about Saddam that he did learn of when it mattered?

[Cheswick2.0]

55. are shades of gray invisible to you?

?

[blm]

60. I see shades of grey in both positions

but it was Dean who turned IWR into black and white once the antiwar movement grew. Shouldn't he be held accountable for that false portrayal?

[Fleshdancer]

64. Dean turned IWR into a black and white issue??

Funny. all this time I thought Bush was the one who turned IWR into black and white when he took the yes vote as a green light to attack Iraq.

Bush was beating the drums of war so early it's hard to imagine Kerry or anyone else thought Bush of all people would see shades of grey in the damn Iraqi War Resolution! Perhaps next time Congress would benefit from not putting shades of grey in legislation authorizing the President to go to war??? Perhaps the Congress should take their job of declaring war a little more seriously? :wtf:

[blm]

71. Point is that Dean dropped all nuance in favor of antiwar-prowar rhetoric

which was not healthy for the debate and did not HONESTLY reflect HIS actual position or the position of the others.

Did you ever hear him speak of about the truth of his support for the same provisions that he attacked the others for? Did he ever explain hos little the difference was between his position and others who voted for IWR?

[TLM]

80. WOw another change in the Dean bashing story...

First he is attacked for having a position that was too neuanced, then he was accused of supporting the war because of an out of context quote about a 60 time frame, and now he's beign attacked for being too black and white on the war.

Try to understand this... Dean was against the IWR, and KErry was FOR the IWR.

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[TLM]

25. KERRY VOTED FOR THE IWR....

No amount of spin or excuses or rationalization or attacks on people who are pissed off at Kerry for folding like a f-ing road map will change the fact that Kerry voted for the IWR>

Everybody on the fucking planet who was against that war has firm basis to hold Kerry responsable for what he helped make possible.

The idea that you have to have been able to vote against it in order for your opinion against the war to be a valid one is absurd and insulting.

You're telling me, and millions of folks across the globe, that our opinions against the war are baseless because we didn't get to vote on it?

Why not just admit what Kerry did was WRONG?

[Sensitivity]

32. IW

[unfrigginreal]

33. Kerry better worry about convincing undecided voters that he was right.

He won't find any support trying to change Dean supporters minds, we've seen all three sides of him on this issue.

[WiseMen]

40. Bush had NO EXPERIENCE: And We are PAYING THE PRICE

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. That should be all the argument needed for
a candidate with experience and credentials in national security.

Bush had no experience. WE ARE SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES!!!

[unfrigginreal]

47. And Kerry knew it and let Bush play him like a fiddle anyway.

Too bad that he's not a better judge of character.

[mb7588a]

37. I agree, WiseMen. Good work. nt

[Fleshdancer]

41. I can disagree with any and every Kerry vote if I so choose

He's running for President and voted for something I don't agree with. I have the right to think that. I don't agree with Biden-Lugar either so what's your point?

Once upon a time I believed the Congress was the branch that declared war. I believed in the whole checks and balance concept because, if executed properly, it would protect us from Presidents like George W. Bush. But I was wrong.

Now we are in a pre-emptive war based on lies. Hundreds of American lives are lost, thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead, billions upon billions of dollars are gone and what do we have to show for it? WMD? No. Security? No.

I see the IWR vote and think of death and destruction. I don't "attack" Kerry for his vote because I'm a crazy "Deanie" who's playing politics and has some sort of unhealthy facination with hating Kerry contrary to popular belief. I speak out against what Kerry and the others voted for because of the hideous consequence! A close relative of mine went there, so pardon me if I'm a teensy bit pissed about it, but last time I checked, being an American is grounds enough to speak my mind and opinion on the matter of the Iraqi War Resolution and anything else my government does.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Not a Deanie, I didn't vote for the IRW either

am I allowed an opinion? Or is an opinion only valid from people in congress? If that is the case then your whole post which is, of course your opinion, would be invalid.

Kerry had a choice, he made a really bad one. He is dead in the water. It is his own fault.

[Padraig18]

57. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.

Sen. Kennedy is entitled to his opinion on the subject, but so are others, like Sen. Durbin, with whom I spoke this past Sunday. He does not hate OR oppose Sen. Kerry, but he said "Howard Dean was on the right side of the war issue, and that's one reason Paul Simon endorsed him for President."

[blm]

61. Because few people are even aware of Dean's support for B-L because the

media portrayed Dean only as an antiwar candidate.

And Dean fostered that belief with his rhetoric which was designed to turn the issue into black and white instead of the one with actual nuance involved for both his position and Kerry's.

The media has been complicit in this portrayal.

[Padraig18]

63. A difference of opinion.

One senator who voted against the IWR says there isn't much difference (Kennedy), and one who voted against says there is a substantive difference (Durbin).

:shrug:

[TLM]

68. Yeah we're all just too stupid, right

We all too stupid to know Dean's positions... and if we were just a little smarter, we'd support your guy.

Kerry sided with the republicans and voted for the blank check, and now he's trying to worm his way out of taking responsiblity for what he did.

Kerry can turn right around and get right back up on that fence he's been riding for the last 4 years.

[RetroLounge]

82. But what about the MILLIONS of people reading

your post? Aren't they all informed now?

I guess Dean is dead in the water now because you let the cat out of the bag...

Damn liberal media.

[ibegurpard]

88. Once again, BLM, I have to call you on your attempts to equate

the IWR with Biden-Lugar. I was aware of Biden-Lugar and it seemed to me to be a preferable alternative. Why didn't Kerry support that and say he couldn't vote the IWR? And please don't try to say they are the same because they're not. I know it, you know it, Kerry knows it and the ACLU knows it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. No grounds? How about the fact Kerry voted FOR the IWR.

Now he, and his supporters, are twisting themselves in knots trying to justify it.

"He had no choice"? How come 23 other senators found a choice and had the courage to vote against it?

Dean may well have judged the mood of the Democrats in the country and their disgust at their "leaders" sell out to Bush and decided to become the "anti-war" candidate. So? Kerry, and the others, had the same opportunity. All any of them would have to do was to have the backbone to vote against the slaughter and voice the concerns of the grassroots of their own party. They, instead, chose to play it "safe" and join in the flagwaving.

Now they expect us to support their cowardice.

Fat chance.

[Padraig18]

67. *MY* senator, Mr. Durbin, was one of the 23.

He says there was a 'substantive' difference between Kerry's and Dean's positions.

[TLM]

69. Of course... the only people who say there was no diffrence...

are the ones who folded and voted with the republicans and now are trying to cover their asses.

It isn't like Kerry or Gephardt are honest enough to say they were wrong and should have voted against the IWR.

[mzmolly]

70. I just want to know who 'Simon' is?

:shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

72. the UN

or whomever else might tell the U.S. what to do IF it were against our interests.

[mzmolly]

73. That's what I thought... so he 'today' supportes Bush's unilateral

approach because "Bush didn't wait to take orders from Simon"? Sounds like a FLIP to me.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

74. If Saddam had missiles which could reach the US

then I can see why most Senators voted for IWR.

[mzmolly]

77. Dean said the same thing when he supported B/L...

he maintained Bush never made that case before proceeding with said war. I think we can all agree that Dean was right about that regardless of what they may find tomorrow.

:hi:

Kerry (who last week) criticized Bush for not involving the international community now refers to them as "Simon". hmmmmm? Something is rotten in Boston...

[Padraig18]

79. The late, great senator from Illinois.

May he rest in peace.

[stickdog]

76. How about Kucinich supporters? Can they call a Judas a Judas?

I admit that it's sad to Kerry reduced to the inconsistent, mean-spirited and incredibly needy specimen he is today. But I guess it goes to show what happens when your ambition so greatly exceeds your integrity and courage.

[WiseMen]

86. Absolutely. Kucinich was consistent from the start. I was there.

I attended early Kucinich events sponsored by "Imagine America"
and he was very consistently against any kind of threat or action.

He is certainly in a position to criticize.