NYT: As Campaign Tightens, Kerry Sharpens Message

[DrFunkenstein]

<>

After what many Democrats, including Dr. Dean, described as vacillation on the subject, Mr. Kerry is now standing by his decision to vote for the war in Iraq, arguing, "I didn't take the easy road, but I took the road that I thought was correct."

"I think I'm stronger and more capable of protecting the security of our country," Mr. Kerry said. Asked to assess Dr. Dean's position on the war, Mr. Kerry, who has been lambasted by his opponents for appearing to equivocate in his views on Iraq, responded: "I don't know his position. He's all over the place."

And more than ever, Mr. Kerry is invoking his stature as a Vietnam veteran as he challenges the stature of his Democratic opponents — none of whom, he frequently points out, have "worn the uniform of our country" — to withstand a debate with Mr. Bush on national security. When an Iowan asked if he had the fortitude to endure a nasty campaign, Mr. Kerry responded: "Listen, man, I fought in Vietnam and I know how to do mud. I'm ready for them."

"Look, I had a prostate operation in February and I'm feeling energized again," he said. "I'm feeling fully healthy and well and energetic and focused. I think there's a greater intensity. I'm stronger, back in full mettle and ready to go."

Whatever the reason, the change is bracing, and suggests that the fall campaign will be lively, if polls continue to show Mr. Kerry and Dr. Dean battling for support in states like this.

<>

For the most part, Mr. Kerry's reception these days has been warm, and he is clearly benefiting from a lowered expectation created by the portrayal of him out of Washington as cool and aloof. As he campaigns, Mr. Kerry is very big on physical contact, throwing his arm over every shoulder he sees, grabbing elbows and hands as he moves in close to ask, "What is your name?" And he has learned the value of telling a joke on himself, which inevitably charms and surprises his audiences.

"The question is, are you offering a vision of leadership, and do you stop talking Washingtonese," Mr. Kerry said. "And I ain't talking Washingtonese."

<>

A reporter asked if he was worried that Dr. Dean had been on the cover of Time and Newsweek magazines — a platform Mr. Kerry would presumably have liked to have had.

"Campaigns have cycles," Mr. Kerry responded, "It's early. It's very early."

The senator, who has spent the better part of two years preparing for this, continued: "I haven't even announced yet. We have some time to create some energy here."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/politics/campaigns/10KERR.html?ex=1061092800&en=1992dbd32f138ab2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Note: I mutilated the article for brevity. Read it for yourself!!!

[killbotfactory]

1. Kerry can't understand Dean's position on Iraq?

That's funny, since I can't understand Kerry's.

[styersc]

17. Dean's stance on Iraq was a very easy call to make.

Since he did not have a vote on the issue and whould have to take no heat, for a national security call, he was able to pander to his strongest base.

[killbotfactory]

19. Kerry's support for the war was an easy call to make...

He just had to go with the flow, put up a fuss about how Bush was screweing up, and then when we invaded and killed Saddam and found all these banned weapons he could claim he was supporting the best interests of the US when we bypassed the UN and cut short inspections to tackle the menacing threat from Iraq.

Whoops.

[DrFunkenstein]

24. Wrong - Kerry Laid Out A Presidential Course of Action

While Dean whined about imminent threats and the rush to war.

[killbotfactory]

26. Kerry voted for a bill which said that Bush could invade whenever...

he wanted.

After that vote there is nothing Kerry could do except come out against the war, and he didn't even do that.

Kerry whined about Bush (not exactly praised for his internationalism) not doing enough to get a multilateral force in place, stated repeatedly that we should only go to war if we have to, demanded more time for inspectors, and then supported the war after Bush bypassed the UN, cut short inspections, and invaded prematurely.

[styersc]

47. Kerry gave Bush the tools to do a job. The same way he will expect the

Senate to give him the tools should a similar situation arise.

Bush badly botched the job. A reasonable person would not blame Kerry for Bush's incompetence.

[killbotfactory]

54. Kerry supported the job Bush did, when it comes down to it.

He didn't like the way Bush did it, but he supported the goal.

[Nicholas_J]

36. Yup

Dena was the ultimate Monday Morning quarterback here.

[killbotfactory]

40. Along with millions of people around the globe...

Who also thought invading Iraq was a damned stupid idea.

[Nazgul35]

57. doesn't Monday morning quarterback...

imply complaining about how the game was called AFTER the game....

and wasn't Dean suggesting how the Iraq situation should be handled BEFORE the run up to the war?

PS: Saw Kerry this weekend on CSPAN...he had a great line...a customer was asking him isn't it true that Repugs handle the economy better then the dems....and he outlined how Bush has lost 3.1 mill and the Clinton/Dems created 23 mil new...then he said....

"the truth is...if you want to live like a republican, you have to vote like a democrat..."

PERFECT!!! Get it on a bumpersticker...FAST!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kanola]

2. I like Kerry as my number two choice but

He needs to be more decisive. I keep hearing that he is such a strong campaigner and have seen glimmers of that on CSPAN, but there is this inside the beltway perception of him that turns outside the beltway people off.

I will still vote and support him as the nominee. I am saying this because I am tired of these bashing threads that seem to be helping Shrub 43.

[acerbic]

3. Strange:

Asked to assess Dr. Dean's position on the war, Mr. Kerry, who has been lambasted by his opponents for appearing to equivocate in his views on Iraq, responded: "I don't know his position. He's all over the place."

Haven't Kerry supporters here been accusing Dean of being too consistently against the war? Now Kerry is claiming instead that Dean is "all over the place". Whom to trust... :shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Dean Is For Disarmament, Or So He Says From Time To Time

It depends on which audience he is talking to, I guess. Mostly he says he is different from the other candidates, because he wasn't "fooled" into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat. Of course, that's what Kerry has been saying all along. Or Dean says we need a multilateral commitment. Sounds familiar. Or against regime change for its own sake. Ditto for Kerry again.

Depending on the day, Dean is against the war but for disarmament, or just against the war. Or he's voting for Biden-Lugar, or he's the only one who voted "no" (a claim he made at the Campaign for America's Future forum).

Kerry has been for enforced inspections and disarmament since 1997, back when Dean couldn't find Iraq on the map. What's funny is that as the campaign built up, Dean developed a foreign policy almost exactly what Kerry has been suggesting for several years now - while becoming more and more insistent that they are more and more different.

Can a Dean supporter tell me if Dean would have opposed disarmament? Because its hard to discern from his press releases.

[acerbic]

7. O'Really?

Dean Is For Disarmament, Or So He Says From Time To Time

Like for example which time? Quote and source, please?

...or are you perhaps making cutting wasteful military spending equal "disarmament"?

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Thank You For Proving My Point

I meant disarming Iraq. I suppose the word hasn't gotten around to you that Dean supported it. I'm not very surprised. It is very easy to be a Dean supporter and never hear that word.

PS - Did Dean say he supported cutting wasteful military spending?

[acerbic]

9. O'Really?

Mostly he says he is different from the other candidates, because he wasn't "fooled" into thinking Iraq was an imminent threat. Of course, that's what Kerry has been saying all along.

Kerry is an ok candidate and I don't like attacking any of them, but I am a reality supporter...

"He misled every one of us. That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States," he told a crowd in Lebanon, New Hampshire.
"I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied he lied to me personally."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,980800,00.html

P.S. Can you see how to tell what somebody has actually said vs. only claiming what somebody has said...?

[DrFunkenstein]

11. C'mon, Soundbites Out of Context? You Can Do Better Than That

You're not really going to give me soundbites taken out of contest are you?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm

Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans on War (AP)

''He misled every one of us,'' Kerry said. ''That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States.''

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

Still, Kerry said it is too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. There needs to be a congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq, he said.

''I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally,'' he said.

Kerry said he has led the call for a congressional investigation and pledged, ''We will get to the bottom of this.''

''I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us,'' he said.

Addressing senior citizens in Hanover later in the evening, Kerry said he supported a congressional investigation because it was not clear whether Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicized intelligence.

''I don't have the answer,'' he said. ''I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this.''

------

For Kerry this is a side issue. The main issue has always been disarmament. Even if ALL the intelligence was phony, an unchecked Saddam remained unacceptable. If only all the candidates were Presidential enough to keep their eyes on the prize like this.

[acerbic]

12. Thanks for that laugh!

You only claim what Dean has said, I provide actual quotes of what Kerry has said with link to source and you whine that I'm giving soundbites taken out of context? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Funk, Funk, Funk. tsk tsk tsk

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

The Niger stuff was debunked as early as 8 months before the war. As far as aerial weapons....C'mon!







(No mention of the I*R)

[killbotfactory]

20. FEAR THE UAV!!!

You could knock that thing down with a slingshot.

Since when did RC planes become a case to invade a country. Sheesh.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. More importantly, kbf...

If this is what Kerry based his vote on, one has to ask themself, "Do I want this man running the country?"

[DrFunkenstein]

25. But This Is What Dean Based HIS Vote On, Not Kerry

Kerry has consistently said that the individual weapons are not the issue. The issue is Saddam's failure to hold himself accountable according to the agreements he signed after the Gulf War.

Dean would have voted "no" because he felt there was no imminent threat. We later learned that, oh yeah, he also supported disarmament and Saddam is evil, blah blah blah.

[killbotfactory]

27. Saddam was being held accountable.

And everyone on the planet supported disarming Saddam. Unlike what Kerry would like me to believe, disarming Saddam didn't mean supporting Bush's premature and ill-conceived war for regime change.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. The quote specifically says:

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

(Dean's "blah blah blah" speech was riveting, wasn't it? Anyway, let's talk about Kerry here.)

If it wasn't about weapons but about Saddam's accountability, let me ask you this?

Q: What was Saddam unaccountable for?

A: Uh, uh, I know! WEAPONS!

Capiche?

[DrFunkenstein]

59. You Put The Em-PHA-sis on The Wrong Syl-LA-ble

By highlighting "made" you are putting an emphasis that isn't there, nor is it supported by the rest of the article.

Kerry is not suggesting that Bush "made" the case - i.e. successfully made the argument. He is saying that Bush argued his case based on faulty evidence.

Slight difference. Watch those propellers when you are spinning like that.;-)

[killbotfactory]

22. Yeah, no one wanted disarmament but Kerry!

Except the entire friggin world.

Not everyone wanted to disarm Saddam with Bush's ill-conceieved and unneccessary unilateral invasion, however.

[killbotfactory]

14. Of course Dean wanted Saddam disarmed...

So did the French. So did the Russians.

That does not mean you have to support an invasion, or regime change, or Bush cutting off inspections and working with the UN because the best window for invading is coming up.

There are ways to disarm Saddam nonviolently, through the weapons inspections that Bush cut short. Or by airstrikes like Operation Desert Fox, in the case that Saddam becomes obstructionist. It does not require a full scale invasion and regime change.

The whole problem here is that Bush never proved any of the allegations he made against Iraq. Bush never proved that Iraq was a threat to the US and warranted an invasion. Bush never proved that the UN wasn't enforcing it's own resolutions. Bush never proved that Iraq had any weapons left.

If Kerry was so much against unilateral invasion, or regime change, then why the hell didn't Kerry say that this war was wrong? Why does he did he say that he "supports Bush disarming Iraq" and "saddam brought it on himself" before the war started and after the war started. How is anyone supposed to interperet that as anything other than support for the war?

[DrFunkenstein]

29. Um, Because That's What He Said

It was true that Saddam could have easily stopped the whole process by agreeing to completely unfettered, non-negotiable access to his country. Instead, he chose to squabble about his palaces and Iraqi scientists, etc. knowing full well that an armada was sitting just across the border.

I'm not sure what you think Kerry should have said, or how you feel that Dean said something different than Kerry.

"That does not mean you have to support an invasion, or regime change, or Bush cutting off inspections and working with the UN because the best window for invading is coming up."

Kerry could not have been more clear on these issues.

"There are ways to disarm Saddam nonviolently, through the weapons inspections that Bush cut short. Or by airstrikes like Operation Desert Fox, in the case that Saddam becomes obstructionist. It does not require a full scale invasion and regime change."

This is new from you. I've never heard the Desert Fox (which Kerry supported) argument. I don't see how you can hold Saddam accountable - which was THE issue - by bombing here and there. I don't even think Dean called for this. I sincerely hope he didn't.

As for non-violence, Kerry said repeatedly that we should go to war because we have to, and that he felt that was not the case in Iraq (at least not yet). Even on the very eve of war, Kerry asked for 30 more days.

And finally, I am not sure where you are coming from by saying "of course." If Dean uttered the word "disarmament" before mid-February, it was a completely isolated instance, because he almost pathologically (hyperbole time) avoided the term.

[killbotfactory]

31. Here's what Kerry should have said.

"Invading now is wrong and unjustified, and I do not support this action taken by Bush"

Instead he said he supports Bush in disarming Saddam and that Saddam brought it on himself.

How am I supposed to take that as anything other than support for the invasion?

[DrFunkenstein]

34. Where Kerry and Dean Part Company

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."

Feb. 25 on PBS: "I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily...Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is."

In his Foreign Policy speech at Drake: "I agree with President Bush - he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb.

Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

You might think Dean feels Saddam represents enough of a threat to necessitate disarmament, but you'd be wrong.

Is containment enough?

Dean: Yes. "Saddam, in my view, has been successfully contained for 12 years. … We can stop Saddam Hussein from doing anything for another 12 years if we have to without invading." (Meet the Press, March 9, 2003)

Kerry: No, because deterrence doesn't work in this case. "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." (Speech, Jan. 23, 2003)

[killbotfactory]

38. You can contain Saddam and disarm him.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Disarmament didn't require cutting short inspections, invading, and taking over the country.

And as we can see from the lack of any WMD found, containment worked.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

5. Surprised to see this article posted

This article was incredibly unfair to Kerry, IMHO. Not objective at all. This part was interesting:

"By all appearances, the changed atmosphere in the early battlegrounds of Iowa and New Hampshire has forced Mr. Kerry to recalibrate his approach to the crowded race for the nomination.

By his own account, Mr. Kerry's campaign message — which even some supporters described as toothless and themeless back when the fight seemed simpler — has become sharper, more focused and more compact."

This is my favorite part of having so many candidates during the primaries. They are all forced to make their arguements sharper. If they don't, they all start to sound alike, and no one will have any passion for one candidate in particular. It makes them all account to us, the voters, who they really are with specifics, not general statements of typical Demo rhetoric. Definition is a good thing!

[DrFunkenstein]

6. You Forgot The Prostate Cancer

The whole part about recovering and all. Kerry is building steam for this fall. The man hasn't even announced his candidacy yet. He hasn't said "chickenhawk." And he hasn't discussed disarmament with Dean.

Even against Weld, Kerry held his cards until the fall. This article is about the corner Kerry is turning. Dean week is over. He won't be on those covers again unless he wins the nomination. He peaked when nobody was paying attention to the news (outside of Kobe and Arnold). Dean rode the crest of the internet anti-war movement, but that's pretty much maxed out. The rest of the country supported the war, and most thought Bush did a pretty lousy job of it. Sound familiar?

<>

[tedoll78]

10. honest question

Do you think a busy legislative Fall hindering the time he has to campaign will hurt him overall?

[Egnever]

13. Just curious

you base this statement on what?

"Dean rode the crest of the internet anti-war movement, but that's pretty much maxed out"

Almost 20,000 people signed up on deans website over the past three days, and you say its maxed out?

Sry DR.Funk but wishfull thinking doesnt make it so.

I wish kerry no ill will and hope he starts his message soon! This is not a game! Bush needs to be stoped in his tracks. He continues to do damage at every oportunity.

Its time for kerry to get off his ass and start bashing bush daily!Or do his card you refer to only respond to his concerns with other democrats?

Did you read about the executive order issued by bush just the other day easing restrictions on oil companies drilling on public land?

"Darin said this week's administrative policy change in the BLM is one of many coming from the Bush administration, and it exemplifies the administration's rush to make public land use and energy policy decisions before legislators get a chance to.

"Speeding up oil and gas development has been the No. 1 priority of the administration's energy policy ever since it was formulated behind closed doors in the spring of 2001," Darin said."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/10/news/wyoming/438cf28bd9fb67675ac20d503a1300d5.txt

Sry but its long past time to stand up to this lunacy.

Pretty cool pic of kerry though.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. I Stand Corrected On The Numbers

This is news to me, and impressive news at that. I still think Dean rode the anti-war crest, but I was certainly wrong about the "maxing out" part (to say the least!).

As for Kerry blasting Bush daily, he is (literally). But in case you didn't realize, he has been for months:

August 1, 2003 - Kerry Talks with Workers Struggling Under Bush Economy in NH

July 29, 2003 - John Kerry Calls on Bush to Put National Security First, Break Stranglehold of Foreign Oil

July 28, 2003 - Kerry Urges Bush to Seek U.N. Support in Iraq
Democratic Candidate Questions if 'False Pride' is Delaying the Move

July 21, 2003 - Kerry rips Bush on national security issues
BY Mike Glover - Associated Press

July 17, 2003 - Kerry says credibility gap has opened between Bush rhetoric, actions
By Will Lester - Associated Press

July 17, 2003 - Kerry heats up attacks: Blasts Bush on homeland security
By Elisabeth J. Beardsley - Boston Herald

July 17 2003 - Kerry Says Bush Lacks Viable Security Plan
By Alan Feuer - New York Times

July 16, 2003 - Kerry: Bush's Failed Economic Policies Lead to Record Deficits;
Administration Needs To Scrap Economic Policy

July 16, 2003 - Kerry Says Bush Has Credibility Gap
By Will Lester - Associated Press Writer

July 13, 2003 - Kerry criticizes Bush record at La Raza
By April Castro - ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 11, 2003 - Kerry Raps Bush Policy on Postwar Iraq
By Dan Balz, Washington Post

July 10, 2003 - POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Kerry says money lacking behind Bush education rhetoric
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press

June 20, 2003 - Kerry says he'll filibuster Supreme Court nominees who do not support abortion rights

May 2, 2003 - Kerry says Bush economic plan ignores the country's needs
Boston Globe

April 15, 2003 - Kerry Faults VA Drug Policy
Washington, D.C.: States News Service

April 4, 2003 - Democratic Candidate Fires Back at DeLay, Republicans for Attacks over 'regime change' Comments
Washington, D.C.: Associated Press

March 18, 2003 - Kerry Proposes Homeland Security Plan to Make America Stronger and Safer
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator Kerry

March 17, 2003 - Senator John Kerry Responds to the President's Speech to the Nation
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator Kerry

March 14, 2003 - Kerry Blasts Bush on Iraq Effort
San Francisco, CA: Sacramento Bee

March 14, 2003 - Kerry Asks Bush Administration to Investigate Record High Gas Prices
Washington, D.C.: Kerry Campaign Press Release

March 13, 2003 - Bush 'Robbing Peter to Pay Paul,' Kerry Says
San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Chronicle

March 7, 2003 - Kerry Asks Bush Again to Release Home Heating Oil Reserves
Hampton, NH: Associated Press

March 4, 2003 - Kerry Criticizes U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms Deal
Washington, D.C.: Associated Press

February 28, 2003 - Back on Trail, Kerry Assails Bush Team
Anaheim, CA: Los Angeles Times

February 9, 2003 - Kerry Campaign Speech Blasts Bush Environmental Actions
Washington, D.C.: Los Angeles Times

January 28, 2003 - Kerry Responds to President Bush's State of the Union Address
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator Kerry

February 23, 2003 - Kerry Proposes 'Progressive Internationalism' As Alternative To 'Blustering' Bush Approach
Washington, D.C.: Cox News Service

January 19, 2003 - Stops in Iowa Focus on Bush's 'Failure'
Marion, IA: Des Moines Register

January 15, 2003 - Kerry Blasts Bush Effort to Undermine Diversity at Univ. of Michigan
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator Kerry

January 7, 2003 - Kerry Says Bush Plan Wrong for Our Workers, Wrong for Our Economy
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator Kerry

December 16, 2002 - Kerry Calls on Bush to Scrap Economic Proposals that Would Hurt Struggling Workers
Washington, D.C.: Kerry Campaign Press Release

December 11, 2002 - Kerry Says Trent Lott Should Step Aside As Majority Leader
Washington, D.C.: Statement of Senator John Kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6841&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

[AfricanDonkey]

39. I am starting to wonder about those numbers

20,000 people sounds, well, made-up.

[Egnever]

44. Like i said before

wishfull thinking diesnt make it so.

I certainly couldnt guarentee you the acuracy of those numbers.But i can tell you that here in nevada at our meetup last month we had 30 people show up, This month we had over 50 almost doubling Deans support here in one month and there was certainly no lack or waning of enthusiasm.

The trend here so far in nevada from what i have seen and testimonials from others on deans blog and other places on the growth they are also experiencing first hand only goes to reinforce in my head that the numbers signed up to the website are true.

It certainly a long way till the primaries and anything can hapen. But as of this week at least dean is still gaining support at an amazing rate.

[AfricanDonkey]

52. wow, that is amazing, you guys should congratulate yourselves

I think the dean campaign has truely re-made politics for the 21st century.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

15. If Dean's tapped out

Why have 10,000 people signed up at his website in the last 2 days? I think his popularity has only just begun.

Edit to add info: 82,000 signed up for meetup, with 2,026 local events planned. That's a small army volunteering to get Dean's name out, free to Dean's campaign. People all over the country are tabling at farmers markets, fairs, parks, etc. all over the country, and I don't see how this could mean that Dean's popularity will slow.

On Aug. 4, there were 255,173 people signed up at Dean's site, while today there are 279,289 people (and the numbers haven't been updated since yesterday). In 5 days 24,000 people signed up. I just don't see the evidence that Dean's slowing down.

[Nicholas_J]

37. But Kerry has increased

His internet support by almost 200,000 in less than eight weeks, that is 25,000 per week.

[burr]

16. Does mud great!

But still has a loose message.

[chimpymustgo]

23. He has just begun to fight.

Kerry has plenty of fight in him. And class and charisma.

[burr]

28. I agree....

Dean, Kucinich, Gephardt, and Sharpton have these qualities as well.

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Who Said They Didn't?

Dean is the pugilist's pugilist, and Kucinich showed his spark at the AFL-CIO forum. Gephardt raises his voice alot (which kinda counts as energy), and Sharpton is...well Sharpton is Sharpton.

[burr]

33. And Kerry is Kerry...

that same loud scratchy voice, the Forbes for the Folks, talking very much about people and things and speeches, the Senator is riding high on his moonbeam!

[DrFunkenstein]

35. Dean is The Son Of Poor, Black Sharecroppers

Uh, what the hell does "talking very much about people and things and speeches" mean?

PS-Dean is the son of a insanely wealthy Wall Street baron. Don't let his ski lessons in Vietnam fool you. Forbes for the Folks, sheesh! You'd be a perfect hatchet man for the GOP. Good thing you're on our side! We can't get enough demagogues!

[crissy71]

58. i like them all too

even Lieberman, when he's talking about 2000, gets me going - i don't know what i'd do without cspan and the Dem events -

hows this: Kerry - Prez; Graham - VP; Dean - Secy of Defense; Gephardt - secy of Labor; Braun - Atty General; Sharpton - Secy of State!

[AfricanDonkey]

41. I now understand kerry's position, but i don't understand Deans

This is not a slight fore I have not chosen a candidate yet but I would truely like to understand Dean's position.

From what I have picked up and have written down from various posts, I have found this: In a Febuary speech, Dean denounced Bush for "focusing...on the wrong war at the wrong time" claimed that he (Dean) was "not ready to abandon a search for better answers" and called for continuing inspections "as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmant".

If this is his position then i admire him for his bravade and courage, except that someone showed me an article by Dean just months before.

Dean proclaimed in the Nation article that Washington should issue a sixty-day deadline to comply with the UN resolutions and if it does not, then "we will reserve our rights as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq"
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030331&s=corn

This issue of war to me is not that critical but it helps me paint a picture of each candidate's ideology and that is how I will make my decision. I understand Kerrys and I previously understood Deans, but this new information from the Nation Magazine really scares me into believing that the war stance may of been a political gamble by Dean. God knows thats what Politicians do and I wont hold it against the good Doctor, but it takes away the purity that his supporters claim to have.

In fairness, I would like Dean supporters to discuss this issue with me and please, give me some evidence as to why this does not paint the picture I am envisioning right now. I would really like to believe in Howard Dean and campaign for him, but this information scares me and I am not sure that I can dedicate myself yet if this is true.

[killbotfactory]

42. The 60-day thing...

Basically, Dean was saying should give them 60 days or so if (big if) we found weapons and the UN did nothing to to destroy them.

[AfricanDonkey]

50. ah okay, but how is that different from Kerry,Lieberman or Edwards?

[killbotfactory]

43. Here's a transcript of what he said, in context

DEAN:Foreign policy in this country is dependent on us working with other countries. And I think the president got off on the wrong foot when he was simply talking about "Let's go in there, we don't care what anybody else thinks, we're going to do it."

I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction.

BORGER: Do you have any evidence that the president of the United States is not trying to do that?

DEAN: Well, I don't think he was trying in the least bit up to a few weeks ago...

BORGER: Right, but now do you...

DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

But there's been this kind of bellicose talk going on for three or four months now about unilateral intervention and all that. I think the American people are confused about this, and I think it could have been very easily stated from the outset: "Here's the problem. Here's the threat. Here's the conditions under which we will go in."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

[DrFunkenstein]

46. David Corn on Being All Over The Place

Here is David Corn's article, stemming from the interview where Dean came out vocally for Sharon's wall:

On the stump, Dean has received the most notice for left-of-center stances: his antiwar position and his call for healthcare coverage for all. But on Iraq, Dean has issued what appear to be contradictory remarks. In a February speech he denounced Bush for "focusing...on the wrong war at the wrong time," claimed that he (Dean) was "not ready to abandon a search for better answers" and called for continuing inspections "as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament." But previously, Dean proclaimed that Washington should issue Iraq a sixty-day deadline to comply with the UN resolutions and if it does not, then "we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq." Then, at a Democratic National Committee meeting on February 21, he attacked the Democratic Party leadership for "supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq." Aren't these various lines inconsistent?

Dean doesn't concede. Instead, he spells out his position: "One, unilateral action is not appropriate unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. Two, the imminent threat would consist of Iraq's having a nuclear program or developing one or being found, credibly, giving weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, to terrorists. Three, Saddam needs to be disarmed, period, whether he's an imminent threat or not. Four, the responsibility for disarming Iraq belongs right now to the UN because Saddam is an imminent threat to the region.... Unilateral action is not appropriate." That is an internally consistent position--but not a script to which he has always adhered.

---

Perhaps this is the source of Kerry's confusion:

Asked to assess Dr. Dean's position on the war, Mr. Kerry, who has been lambasted by his opponents for appearing to equivocate in his views on Iraq, responded: "I don't know his position. He's all over the place."

[killbotfactory]

48. It's a bit out of context..

Dean is using an example of the approach Bush should have taken, and it is dependent on the Iraq being an imminent threat to the US and the UN not enforcing the resolutions.

Earlier in the interview he says Bush has not made the case to attack Iraq unilaterally.

[AfricanDonkey]

51. But did not the CIA Director brief the Senate Select Intelligence Committe

and tell them that Iraq had nuclear weapons and was ready to use them. Thats what he apologized for in his taking the blame. He told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that Iraq had biological, chemical and was within 6 months of aquiring nuclear weapons, the same that he briefed the president with. He then found out it was false, but kept it quiet most likly for political reasons.

So how does the CIA director's false testimony turn Edwards and Kerry into warmongers?

[killbotfactory]

53. The public knew everything Kerry knew.

And most of the case was discredited before we went to war. The Niger documents, the aliminum tubes, the UAV. They used a bombed out bakery as evidence that Saddam was making WMD, even though it was in an area out of Saddam's control. They used a tape of OBL condemning Saddam as proof that they were working together. The report the CIA gave to the senate was full of footnotes which showed how sketchy the information was. Didn't this raise any red flags for Kerry? It sure as hell did for me. And despite all of that, plus Bush's complete failure to work with the UN, and the cutting short of inspections, Kerry still supported the war and still refuses to call it a mistake, despite repeated claims that we should never go to war unless we have to and that he would speak out.

That's my problem with Kerry.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Discredited Before The Vote?

Listen, the central point remains that Kerry felt that Saddam had to be held fully disarmed and accountable. No other way to cut it. But here is Kerry on the CIA reports prior to the Iraq vote. Let me know if it sounds like he was suckered.


"It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution.

Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX.

Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material.

If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region?

And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?

Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now? In my view, we cannot."

[killbotfactory]

56. I'm talking about his support for the war..

Everyone wanted Saddam disarmed. Most people thought Saddam was hiding something, but not everyone thought that required a unilateral invasion (this included Kerry when he voted).

The stuff I talked about above came out before the war, around the time of Powell's speech. I remember it because I was raising hell about it to whoever I could talk to.

[AfricanDonkey]

60. Have you ever asked him of this or e-mailed the campaign?

Cause I had a few questions about howard Dean that i asked here and then I e-mailed [e-mail] and i got similar but different answers but it answered my question about him. I think I might chose Dean btw, but don't quote me on that:)

[killbotfactory]

61. He outright said that he supported Bush disarming Saddam.

During the SC debates. And said Saddam brought action on himself, and that the UN had to enforce it's own resolutions based on Powell's evidence. He even brought up Hans Blix in the latest debate saying that Saddam was not in compliance to try and justify his support.

I don't know about you, but I take that to mean he supported Bush's unilateral action in Iraq. He's certainly bitched about how Bush handled the whole thing, but in the end he supported the war.

If he was against the war, I would have expected him to say that, well, he was against the war.

[blm]

45. Anyone who is familiar with Kerry's campaign style knows

that he holds back for quite awhile then comes out and overpowers the opponent before he realizes it. He does it every time. Especially in 96 against the most popular Republican in Mass. politics, Bill Weld.

The reporter must not be familiar with the previous campaigns.