Kerry: calls for an END to US occupation of Iraq

[blm]

For those who were asking about this last week. The article is from 9 days ago. Guess the main media didn't want the public to hear this.


WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry called for an end to the US occupation of Iraq and criticized the administration's use of now discredited intelligence as a basis for launching the war.
>>>>>>
"We need to get the sense of American occupation over with. We need to protect our troops. And that means that pride should not prevent this administration from going to the United Nations and doing what they should have done in the first place," he declared Wednesday.
Kerry also criticized US President George W. Bush's use in his January 28 State of the Union address of the erroneous claim that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material from Africa.
>>>>>
"Remember the old saying, Harry Truman's saying, 'The buck stops here'? Right now, apparently, the buck stops at Langley (CIA headquarters). And there are a lot of questions about the political input to this intelligence," Kerry told NBC's "Today" show.
"We have to see what happened."
The US senator for Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, also criticized the administration's efforts leading up to the war in Iraq, launched on March 20.
"I made it very clear that their diplomacy leading up to the war was inadequate," Kerry said.
"I said I thought the president should have even done more diplomacy before he went to war. I said to the president, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war. You need to build the large coalition necessary in order to win the peace.'
"And I said very clearly, winning the war was not what was difficult, it's winning the peace," Kerry said. "And I don't think the president put a plan together to do that."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030716/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_weapons_politics_1

[sfecap]

1. Gee, that sure overshadows Dean's statement today...

I especially like this part:

The US senator for Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, also criticized the administration's efforts leading up to the war in Iraq, launched on March 20.

"I made it very clear that their diplomacy leading up to the war was inadequate," Kerry said.

"I said I thought the president should have even done more diplomacy before he went to war. I said to the president, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war. You need to build the large coalition necessary in order to win the peace.'

"And I said very clearly, winning the war was not what was difficult, it's winning the peace," Kerry said. "And I don't think the president put a plan together to do that."

...and after "saying" all that he went ahead and voted to attack Iraq.

Quite the politician, I would say.

[sidwill]

2. I think its great!

Every time Dean, or graham, or Kery, or lieberman, etc... slams Bush on these issues it makes the news.

We finally have an "echo chamber" of criticism for this administration and the Dem pres hopefuls are all beating up on George.

I hope all the candidates choose to continue running against Bush and not each other.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. easy to mischaracterize

Saying that Kerry 'voted to attack Iraq' is not really any different from Rwingers saying that antiwar protesters 'don't support the troops'.
It is simply an attempt to define the debate in terms hostile to your opponent. I could ask you 'Why do you hate America?' and it might win debate points but it wouldn't advance the discussion.

[sfecap]

6. Did he or did he not vote for the Resolution to permit

the President to use force in Iraq?

(This in spite of his "reservations"?)

Did I mischaracterize his vote?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. the world is not black/white yes/no

the world is not black/white yes/no and neither was the resolution Kerry voted for. To read the comments posted here on DU you would think the resolution said: Are you in favor of war? Yes/No. The reality is a lot more complicated. If you need to boil down the issues to that level of simplicity than rather than debate you I would prefer to just wait until November 2004 when you WILL have a simple choice.

[sfecap]

9. It doesn't need to be boiled down.

The resolution authorized the President of the United States to utilize "force" in Iraq. Not a grey area at all. I'm certain that Sen. Kerry comprehends the phrase "use of force".

If Senator John Kerry didn't understand that he was voting for an attack on Iraq, and that * was going for it, with or without the UN's approval, then he certainly isn't competent enough to comprehend the duties of the office of the President. I don't buy "the President lied to me" BS. That's called "covering one's ass".

Please don't insult him by suggesting that the resolution was a "grey" issue. The potential result of that vote was perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain.

Incidentally, why didn't Graham vote for it after signalling that he would? Could it be that HE saw the end result?

Why didn't Kerry?

[blm]

11. Biden-Lugar permitted the president to "utilize force"

in Iraq, too. But Dean's support for it doesn't bother you. I preferred Biden-Lugar myself...so did Kerry. But, Gep folded too early for B-L to go through.

[Nicholas_J]

30. Well guess what...

All of Biden Lugar is part of the text of the October Resolution. All that differs is that congress also added a few other elements, and additional pragraphs to supplement the text of Biden-Lugar. They included other elements that they wanted the president to get U.N. support for as well, so the president ignore Biden Lugars focus on WMD's and not other reasons that the president could later give as reasons for using force witohut U.N. approval.

[CTLawGuy]

44. Biden-Lugar

would only authorize force with a UN resolution. The resolution Kerry voted for did not require a UN resolution. The only way, IMHO to get a UN resolution would be if Iraq was an acutal threat. So I think Dean is right on this issue.

[Nicholas_J]

62. Again pay attention

Ann that the Iraq act is is the text og Biden Lugar, with additions adding other things that the president should have to get U.N. support for, to prevet the president from getting around Biden-Lugr, by stating it was his right to go into Iraq because he had reason to believe that Saddam was harboring peopleinvolvedd with 9/11. And since there was nothing in Biden-Lugar referring to THAT reason for going into Iraq, and since there would bee NO OTHER act that asked the president to go to the U.N. for that reason, the law states that if Congress has issued NO legislation about that reapn for going to war, it means congress SUPPORTS him going to war for that reason. All the president needed to do with Biden-Lugar was to change his reason for attacking, and if there was no legislation that dealt with that reason, it means the president can assume he has the full blessing of Congress.

The absolutely foulest thing Dean has done was to give the impression that by writing an act, they can stop the president from attacking.

Deans causing such a division in those opposing BUsh's actions is actually what allowed Bush to act so freely. becasue it divided those who wanted to prevent Bush from going to war, while those who supported Bush remained united. As a matter of fact, the Resolution that passed was used in John Doe v Bush to try to get an injunction against the president to prevent him fro attacking Iraq.


In the case, those acting to stop the president gave this as the reason that the injunction be issued:

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.


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

So that the court case itself indicates that the October Resolution does not grant saupport to the president except in the case in which he had U.N. support.


The court ruled against the plaintiffs, on the merits of this argument, but ruled that such an action is non-justicable. Meaning that they courts do not have the right to stop a president from using a power ceded to him by the consitution.

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

Deans support of Biden Lugar does not standwell with comments he made in January and February, before the start of the war:


"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.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html


Which is exactly consistant with the October Resolution, which he and his supoprters claim to have been the right decision.

And more comments:

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

I mean which is it...

Dean is the one candidate who seems incapable of taking a firm stand on anything.

He blows whichever way the political winds seem to take him, and his supporters simply choose not to hear things he says that indicate that Deans platform is set in jello.

I simply wonder if his supporters truly beleive the crapola he slings, or are too embarassed to admint they are making a bad choice.

Very much like Bush supporters, so sure that WMD's exist, who still refuse to admint they have been ahd and now have to state that getting rid of Saddam was a virtue in iteslef and if the president had to fib to get enough support to do the right thing, then so be it.

One of the most common factors in social psychology.Wen confrontend with the need to change ones stance, or soething someone supports, because facts indicate that the choices one has made are wrong, or to make even more convoluted reasons for not changing, most people will run around searching like hell for reasons to not change, rather than look stupid. Dean relies on that psychogical tendency. AND it also tends to make I clear why the young are are so easily led by him.

THe old cliche about those who are older being inflexible is actually so untrue as to be laughable. It is those who are very young, wo get their muunds set on something, and will support it in spite of all evidence proving tey have made a mistake.

So tell me, what did Dean really support, what was he planning, what would he have done. Because depending on who he was talking to, it is impossible to actually know.

[CTLawGuy]

69. let me take a stab...

"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." "

Here Dean says that he would support disarmament (and disarmament only, which was a central distinction in Biden-Lugar, it gave the president a limited scope for force) if it were proven that Saddam had WMD.


"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." "

Again, this is assuming there is evidence of WMD. Dean believes we have a right to defend ourselves from WMD. Even Bill Clinton took action against Saddams WMD capabilities. Dean has always said there was no credible evidence of WMD, so no need to disarm saddam. He may have said it was likely that saddam did have WMD, in his opinion, but he has always wanted a case to be built that was never built.

"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."

Here Dean is still convinced there is no case for WMD, but would support multilateral action if the UN approves, even without as strong of a case. But for UNILATERAL action, he needs a strong case. He isn't changing his position, he is giving this answer based on the current circumstances, ie, no evidence of WMD.

"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." "

Again, without a case, Dean believes we cannot take unilateral action. With no threat from WMD, we'd need a UN resolution and UN involvement to take action in Iraq. To do as Bush did, and invade a country without credible evidence of WMD and without a SC resolution to do so, is wrong in Dean's eyes.

Dean has always said" the president never made the case". It is not that Dean is a pacifist, but that he wants to go to war for the right reasons. Its a shame that other candidates feared the "unpatriotic" label so much that they couldnt stand with him and ask "where is the case?"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. I think you have shown

I think you have shown that Dean and Kerry's position are not really all that different. Then you ascribed motives to Kerry based on your own assumptions. It's the same old straw man argument.

[CTLawGuy]

73. maybe they arent all that different

but Dean would not have voted for the Authorization without a case or a UN resolution, whereas Kerry did just that . That is my beef with Kerry. Im sure kerry means well, I'm sure he doesn't like unilateral wars, but I think we need a president who is not afraid to stand up for his beliefs when it counts. By saying he would oppose the Authorization, Dean put his neck on the line. If the US had found WMD quickly, Dean would have been dead a long time ago. He is alive now because he was right, there was no case. Kerry voted for the Authorization, I can only speculate why, and it led to this quagmire we have now. I expected more from a prospective president.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. you are just repeating the same mischaracterization over and over

you are just repeating the same mischaracterization over and over.

On edit: check out post 71

[blm]

115. that's what they do....

some of us have been countering it for almost a year.

[Nicholas_J]

96. Again

Where is the evidence

that the act does this...
Dean also has stated that acting without U.N. support is appropraite, if the U.N. chooses not to enforce its own resolutions. Thise resolutions do not all refer to WMD's. Niether does Dean statement. All that Dean says is that the U.S,. is free to act unilaterally if th U.N. does no enforce its own resolutions. There is NO comment in this that Dean is referring only to the situation of WMD's but of Iraq disarming itself, and there is a large difference there. Very large.

You have just l;oaded a large amount of your personal assumptions in order to twist Deans position into one that includes ONLY WMD's and proof of their existance into this quote, and not one word about WMD's or evidence exists within the quote.

[Nicholas_J]

95. They never approved of his going

And the October Resolution was used in a case at the Federal District level to try to get a court injunction to stop Bush of from using force in Iraq....

Dean not only never opposed the war. it took him FIVE MONTHS longer to come to the SAME stance taken in the Resolution to begin with.

Deans statements about the October Resolution giving the president a blank check against the war were disproven by some of the best constitutional lawyers in the country.

Case: John DOe v Bush, Rumsfeld et al.

Sorry, Denas stance is not the point...he kept changing his stance not over a period of months, but from day to day, depending on which he was speaking to.

Deans statement about:

"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." "

does not mention evidence of disarmament or proof of WMD's but clearly states that if the U.N. will not enforce its own resolutions then the U.S. shoud give Iraq thirty to sixty days to disarm and than attack unilaterally...Nothing is mentioned of WMD's at all he does not mention proof of WMD's as a condition at all.

That is your assumption from your BELIEF in Deans consistancy, and you must go ouside of the referenced quote in order to come to that conclusion.

Then the next day Dean reverses this with:

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."

Whis simply says no unilateral action.

Then again:

"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." "


So there is no mention of ANY need for proof of WMDs withiin Dean statements at all. Again yopu go outside of Deans quotes ihn order to make assumptions about what Dena is saying. You are spinning the quotes beyong what is present within them.

Only on the first day, January 31, is their any mention of WMD's...

Now the case in which an injunction was sought against Bush using force in Iraq says of the October Resolution states:

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.

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

This says that there is no way that the act can be construed as giving support for Bush going to war without the assent of the Security Council.

The act is contended to only support war with International Support, and that it can not be read as giving the president such authority as Congress does not have the power to abdicate its non-deligable constitutional power to the president.

The War Powers Resolution itself placs time limit on such actions and limits any such support being granted to the president infoming Congress of his intent to act BEFORE force is used, or as soon as possible after acting, no longer than 48 hours. THe act cannot be construed to have given the president any such support, as he acted outside of the time period that a president must comply with to get contgressional support of use of Force.


Dena is seen to have continually changed his stance, and since there is NO mention of the president PROVING the existance of WMD's as the SOLE reason for going to war, one must assume, without evidence, that this is what Dean means, even though all he has stated is that if the U.N. does not act to enforce its own resolutions (not just those related to WMD's) he supports acting unilaterally.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. You are still leaving a lot out

You are still leaving a lot out. You can say that the resolution was 'voting for an attack on Iraq' however you are still just trying spin it into a simple choice - which it wasn't. These aren't simple issues and Kerry is not a simple man.

Talk about spin! You are somehow saying that I am insulting Kerry if I don't go along with your straw man argument? lol

[sfecap]

15. Listen..go ahead and defend your guy as best you can.

I understand.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Dean Said He Supported The Use Of Force In Iraq

Don't mistake him for a pacifist. Dean supported the use of force under the exact same conditions Kerry did. They both supported the Biden-Lugar resolution. However, Kerry had to actually vote on whether or not to disarm Saddam Hussein. Kerry had been advocating disarmament for years, and although it was not the vote he wanted, he voted voted to do so. Any vote he gave would have been symbolic, as it was clear the resolution would pass, and he choose to go on record for disarming Saddam.

Dean also said repeatedly that Iraq did possess WMDs, although he seems to want to play that down as well. Dean has a knack for playing down uncomfortable positions - like when he puffed himself into THE anti-war candidate (oh well, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun) despite being against only a very specific scenario for invasion. The straight-talker was quoted as saying he was very comfortable with that misperception.

[sfecap]

14. Symbolic vote now, huh? LOL

Uh huh...it was just symbolic. Right.

Absolution!

[DrFunkenstein]

20. What Would A Dean Vote Accomplish?

Just wondering what Dean would have done to stem the tide...

[ModerateMiddle]

16. "Did I mischaracterize his vote?"

Yes, you did. When you said he voted to attack Iraq.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

75. Where's the mischaracterization?

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
.
.
.
a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 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.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. short title and short citation

short title and short citation - if you want to selectively quote something it is easy to mischaracterize it. There is no point in me repeating the same points that have been posted repeatedly in these threads - anyone who reads the whole thread with an open mind will have sufficient information available to arrive at their own conclusions.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. Huh? How about this?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the president "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the president to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the president and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

and Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the president to (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 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.

(b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the president shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The president shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.


Now tell me how this is not a vote to give Shrub the power to declare war on Iraq as he sees fit.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. just read it

just read it. It's right there in black and white. Your mind is obviously made up, so I'm not going to try to change it. I'd advise everyone else to read all that has been written here and think for yourself.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. What's right there in black and white????????????????????????

?

I ask: "Show me where the IWR wasn't a vote to give Shrub the uninfringed power to declare war on Iraq?"

Your answer: "It's right there! Duh, which way did he go George? Which way did he go?"

If people are going to read and decide for themselves, I think you're hurting your cause. Here's my request: Please show me where, in the IWR, that Shrub is in any way infringed in his ability to unilaterally declare war on Iraq. Please! A section. A line. A word. Anything but "It's right there."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. how could I be hurting my cause? The text is there for all to read.

how could I be hurting my cause? The text is there for all to read. I believe in the ability of people to read and think for themselves. I don't think any additional analysis from me is needed, especially considering how many thoughtful and less-than-thoughtful analyses have already been posted in this thread. I believe that there is nothing I could possibly say that would in any way change your mind, so why would I try to do something I think is impossible?

Come November 2004, who will you vote for? Bush or Kerry?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. OK.

My confidence in the intelligence of DU'ers is as strong as yours. We'll leave it at that.


As for the vote, under your hypothetical, I'd happily vote for Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. if you are going to use quotation marks, you should put quotes inside them

if you are going to use quotation marks, you should put quotes inside them.

Edit: toned down my rhetoric

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

84. You understood the gist of the question and still avoided it.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Sorry.

I asked a simple question. You avoided it. I asked the question again, albeit using an inflammatory style, and you avoided it again.

My apologies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. the question has been answered repeatedly

the question has been answered repeatedly. You have a bad case of last-word-itis, that's all. (OK, I guess I've got it too.)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. Answered repeatedly? Point me to the post, please.

Last-word-itis aside, all I see is evasion and rhetoric. Point me to your, or anyone else's post, answering my question and I'll gladly shut up.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. post 63 for one

post 63 for one

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. Nicholas_J?

ROTFLMAO

Goodbye.


On edit: Sorry for the knee-jerk response. N_J tends to do that for several of us here. Read his link: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php and you'll find that the proof is in the pudding.

[Nicholas_J]

97. The proof is in the reading

The plaintifss state there is no constitutional way the act can be used to support BUsh's actions.

The judge ruled against the plaintiffs, niot because of their case, but because the judge claimed that the case was non-jusiticable.

Which means that the courts have no power to rule on non-delagable contitutional powers.

YOu just provided the same link I did, you are just erwading it through a Deanies eye. THe judge did not rule on the Act, but on the fact that the judicial branch has no power to rule on a right constitutionally granted to the president, that is, the power to wage war.

Sorry, since the act was used as an ARGUMENT to stop the president form going to war, and the judge refused to even go that way, and did not rule that the law they used was NOT a valid argument, the judges silence on the matter indicated CONSENT with the use of the act as a valid piece of evidence, not as an invalid argument.Thje case would not have even been allwed before the courts if the legislation gave the president support in going to war.

Otherwise the case to not grant the injunction would have been based on the act giving support to the president, rather than using the case against the president as non-justicable. The fact that the act was allowed to be used in the case is proof that the act did not support the president acting unilaterally. It would have been struck as false evidence.

It sounds like you kow almost nothing about bringing cases to trial. The every fact that the case got to court indicates that the statmeetns that that the plintiffs were making, and the use of the act to gain an injuction was legally valid. The judge again, simply ruled that the court has no jurisdiction in such arguments.

Which is why before cases, judgets and both sides on the case jhave the right to look at all evidence, and can ask for evidence to be removed, anmd arguments to be strck from the record. THis did not happen.

Invalid or false evidence must be removed from a case if the evidence is invalid. Such things are struck from cases all of the time. Since it was not, the judge considered their point valid and the statements that the act did not provide support for the president to act.

Not invalid, but chose to rule against the case becasue he claimed the courts have NO power to judge in such a case(Non Justicable).

Otherwise the plaintiffs would have lost based on the fact that the Resolution gave the president support for the war and therefore to plaintiffs would never have been allowed to bring the case at all Had not case at all. That was NOT the ruling of the judge.

These judges are busy guys. They do not agree to hear arguments unless there is validity to the arguments. Therefore, the case that the Resolution did not support the presidents actions is a point that the judge hearing the case considered VALID.

He ended up throwing the case out because he claimed, as he did in a case against Nixon thirty years ago, that the courts cannot make prhibit the president form excerigin his conmstitutional right to wge war.

[Ishkaboogl]

87. he coulda used force anyways

so no, the resolution didn't really "permit the president to use force," because he already had permission. the war powers act hasn't been enforced in a long long time. the only thing the resolution did was to slow the march to war by emphasizing the UN and a multilateral approach.

look, i didn't support the resolution, and i think that graham's position is the right position, but lets not mischaracterize what this resolution was.

[Nicholas_J]

98. The war powers resolution does not prevent the president from using

Force at all. All the resolution calls for is the president consulting with congress when he decides to use force.

It does not allow them to state that he can or cannot use force at all:


May 31, 2002
"Bush Must Avoid Shortcuts on Road to War"--A Commentary by Prof. Bruce Ackerman

(This essay was originally published in the May 31, 2002, edition of the Los Angeles Times.)

Bush Must Avoid Shortcuts on Road to War: President should not try to sidestep Congress in any action against Iraq.
By Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science

President Bush has been busy reassuring Europeans that he "has no war plans" on his desk for an invasion of Iraq. Such statements can only evoke concern at home. Even when the president receives his plans from the military, he lacks the authority to execute them. The Constitution makes him commander in chief, but only Congress can declare war.

We have been here before.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/255/yls_article.htm

The Power of Congress to Control the President's Discretion.-- Over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution,167 designed to redistribute the war powers between the President and Congress. Although ambiguous in some respects, the Resolution appears to define restrictively the President's powers, to require him to report fully to Congress upon the introduction of troops into foreign areas, to specify a maximum time limitation on the engagement of hostilities absent affirmative congressional action, and to provide a means for Congress to require cessation of hostilities in advance of the time set. The Resolution states that the President's power to commit United States troops into hostilities, or into situations of imminent involvement in hostilities, is limited to instances of (1) a declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.168 In the absence of a declaration of war, a President must within 48 hours report to Congress whenever he introduces troops (1) into hostilities or situations of imminent hostilities, (2) into a foreign nation while equipped for combat, except in certain nonhostile situations, or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States troops equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation.169 The President is required to terminate the use of troops in the reported situation within 60 days of reporting, unless Congress (1) has declared war, (2) has extended the period, or (3) is unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States, but the period can be extended another 30 days by the President's certification to Congress of unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the troops.170 Congress may through the passage of a concurrent resolution require the President to remove the troops sooner.171 The Resolution further states that no legislation, whether enacted prior to or subsequent to passage of the Resolution will be taken to empower the President to use troops abroad unless the legislation specifically does so and that no treaty may so empower the President unless it is supplemented by implementing legislation specifically addressed to the issue.172


Aside from its use as a rhetorical device, the Resolution has been of little worth in reordering presidential-congressional relations in the years since its enactment. All Presidents operating under it have expressly or implicitly considered it to be an unconstitutional infringement on presidential powers, and on each occasion of use abroad of United States troops the President in reporting to Congress has done so ''consistent with'' the reporting section but not pursuant to the provision.173 Upon the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops in 1990, President Bush sought not congressional authorization but a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member Nations. Only at the last moment did the President seek authorization from Congress, he and his officials contending he had the power to act unilaterally.174 Congress after intensive debate voted, 250 to 183 in the House of Representatives and 53 to 46 in the Senate, to authorize the President to use United States troops pursuant to the U. N. resolution and purporting to bring the act within the context of the War Powers Resolution.175


Although there is recurrent talk within Congress and without with regard to amending the War Powers Resolution to strengthen it, no consensus has emerged, and there is little evidence that there exists within Congress the resolve to exercise the responsibility concomitant with strengthening it.176

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/08.html

All this act states is that the president must report to congress within 48 hours of using force, and report to them every 60 days there after as to status of the military engagement.

So short of a declared war,the president cna do whatever he wants.

According to legal experts, The president met all ofthe terms of the War Powers resolution.



American Center for Law & Justice
TO:Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel
FROM:Robert W. Ash, Staff Counsel
DATE:February 10, 2003
QUESTION PRESENTED:Does the President have authority to initiate hostilities against Iraq?

SHORT ANSWER:Yes.

SUMMARY:The Constitution designates the President as Chief Executive of the United States and asCommander in Chief of the armed forces of the Nation. As such, the President has prime responsibility forthe foreign and defense policies of the United States. Although the responsibility for declaring war residessolely in the Congress, if war is thrust upon us, as occurred on September 11, 2001, the President is boundto take all necessary and proper actions to defend the Nation, even absent a Congressional declaration ofwar. See The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1862). Further, when the President does respond to defend the United States, absent a Congressional declaration of war, a subsequent ratificationby Congress, in any form chosen by Congress, cures the legal defect of the President's unilateral action.Seeid.at 671, see also Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611, 615 (D.C.Cir. 1973)...

Page 13
the War Powers Clause in the Constitution.

The lower court held that the war powers issue presented a "nonjusticiable political question" and that the court lacked the resources and expertise to resolve factual issues in the case.


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

Notice in the first section. A president can act unilaterally and AFTER the fact, COngress can decide to, by resolution, cure any legal deficits that may be caused by the presidents actions.

In the recent case, "John Doe v. Bush, Rumsfled, et all, the judget stated the same thing, that the case was non-justiceable, and that no legal question in any case could exist BEFORE, the president actually engaged in hostilities.

The judge allwed the plaintifss argument that the October Resolution ONLY gave the president support to go to war with U.N. support, but again ruled against the case as being non-justicable, as have the numerous cases brought before the court regarding the War Powers resolution.

[revcarol]

3. About 60 days late and $8 Billion short.

.

[JohnKerryAZ04]

22. And your a day late and a dollar short

so where does that put you?

[DrFunkenstein]

24. AZ, Keep It Impersonal

Try not to directly attack people, however much you disagree. That's how your posts get deleted...

[johnkerryArizona04]

49. So personal attacks on Senator Kerry are alright then?

I mean politics is politics, but using a day late and a dollar short, a refrence to idiocy and then multiplying it by 8 billion and 60 million respectfully, thus saying that Kerry has the brain of a wooden chair is okay right?

[blm]

50. actually, yes, anything can be said..

about any politician and so the candidates are fair targets for everyone here. Personal ones aren't allowed as per the rules.

[johnkerryAriz04]

53. I don't know what to say about that, is this Germany 1938?

You can call a Senior Senator and war hero, or for that matter...EVEN Al Sharpton slurs that could get them slapped with a Libel suit if the candidate decided to pursue it and the DU ALLOWS IT!

[blm]

55. well, unfortunately that's true...

I know how you feel. I've been defending Kerry here for over a year. But, most of the candidates get harsh treatment from SOME quarter. This is typical. It's actually beginning to calm down and get less rude, here, so please stick around and share your points.

[blm]

36. revcarol is one of the more respectful posters,

and certainly shouldn't be slammed personally.

[sfecap]

5. "Some in the Democratic party claim that a candidate..."

(snip)

"Some in the Democratic party claim that a candidate who questioned the war cannot lead the party in the great national debate that lies ahead.

I would remind them that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy took on the hawks among the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the "me-too'ers" in Congress. The President and his advisors used toughness, patience, and diplomacy. The missiles came out of Cuba and war was averted.

Last October, four of the major contenders for the Democratic nomination supported the President's preemptive strike resolution five months before we went to war without, as we now realize, knowing the facts.

I stood up against this administration and even when 70% of the American people supported the war, I believed that the evidence was not there and I refused to change my view. As it turned out, I was right. No Democrat can beat George Bush without the same willingness that John F. Kennedy showed in 1962. A President must be tough, patient, and willing to take a course of action based on evidence, and not ideology.

I question the judgment of those who led us into this conflict this unfinished conflict that has made us, on balance, not more secure, but less. Although we may have won the war, we are failing to win the peace."

(more)

Restoring American Leadership:

(Speech to the CFR)

A New Direction for American Foreign Policy

Text Prepared for Presentation by
Governor Howard Dean
June 25, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC

[blm]

10. Could you please reconcile that with Dean's

statement when the war started that those who spoke out against the war never doubted the need for Saddam to be disarmed from WMDs? Or was he just "covering his ass"....hmmm?

[sfecap]

17. OK, you lost me there...

Dean was speaking about someone else, and he's covering his ass?

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Dean's Statement

"Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

Ok, start reconciling.

[dajabr]

27. OK

Dean has acknowledged in many interviews (past and present) that he believed Iraq had WMDs. Maybe he did not and it's a ploy, but that's not really Dean's style.

Difference is, that Dean thought it was best to let inspections continue and use multilateral cooperation (i.e. "containment") to disarm Hussein.

No pre-emptive attack unless we could conclusively prove imminent threat.

[Nicholas_J]

29. Or reconciling this:

"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.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

It took over 4 month fo him to come to this conclusion...
20/ 20 hindsite

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Gee, That Sounds An Awful Lot Like This

"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." Sen. Kerry 10/10/02

Kerry after the Powell presentation:

“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.”

From Dean's statement after the invasion began:

"Those of us who, over the past six months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

From the LA Times 2/11/03:

"Dean's own position is more nuanced than his speeches suggest. In interviews, including one with The Times on Sunday, he has said he would support U.S. military participation if Hussein continues to resist disarmament and the U.N. then votes to invade. But he insists that Iraq does not pose a sufficiently "imminent threat" to American security to justify a unilateral invasion without U.N. approval."

From the Salon article:

"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."

[dajabr]

48. "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." Sen. Kerry 10/10/02

Um, so what was your vote all about? Cause that's what you supported by voting with Bush.

[blm]

51. Technically, it was a multilateral effort...

and the evidence was presented. If evidence hadn't been part of the deal, Bush wouldn't have bothered, but he overreached thanks to that caveat, and now he's in some trouble...ain't he?

[dajabr]

58. Multi-lateral?

C'mon blm, do you really buy that?

NYPD's budget is bigger than millitary spending of the group of countries that backed Bush in the WSJ.

How many troops did they send?

Why am I explaining this to you? That Repug argument faded a while ago.

[blm]

68. Didn't I specify TECHNICALLY?

I'll try again...

TECHNICALLY...IT...WAS...A...MULTILATERAL...EFFORT.

Go check out the transcript from Newshour where Gwen Ifill noted that Dean used the word "unilateral" SIX times in one reply to qualify his position against the war. She said that it had already moved into a multilateral effort. Dean hung onto the word "unilateral" in his interviews and in his speeches like a security blanket.

[dajabr]

72. I heard you the fist time...

Since you're citing it as a "technicality," are you conceding that it was not multilateral?

If so, it's disengenous of you to use it to discredit Dean.

Or, do you want it both ways so you can re-build Kerry's position as well?

[blm]

92. No...I'm telling you that Bush would have had

his technicality with Biden-Lugar and we'd be in Iraq today with Biden-Lugar and Dean supporters would be defending him from Kucinich supporters hammering him with the warmonger label today.

[DrFunkenstein]

79. This Is Kerry's Support For Bush's Invasion

In response to Bush's 48 hours ultimatum 3/17/03:

"I find myself genuinely angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11th.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us - both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq - decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world.

That said, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, truly the personification of evil. He has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, perpetrated environmental disaster, purposefully destabilized an entire region of the world, murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, flouted the will of the United Nations and the world in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, conspired to assassinate the former President of the United States, and provided harbor and support to terrorists bent on destroying us and our friends.

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration - like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building - a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush. In the colloquial, we are where we are.

It will take years to repair the needless damage done by this Administration, damage to our international standing and moral leadership, to traditional and time-tested alliances, to our relations with the Arab world, ultimately to ourselves. Let's finish the process we began twelve years ago of disarming Saddam and ridding the world of this menace. Let's begin to rebuild our sense of national unity. Let's begin the work of building a stronger, safer world, of rebuilding alliances, and staying the course of long term involvement the Middle East in order to reclaim our rightful place of respect in the world order."

[Nicholas_J]

63. But again

It is your opinion that the vote was a vote for the war...

YOu have not proven that case at all....


But the act itself was used in an attempt to get fedasl courts to issue and injunction against the president to stop him from attacking 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.

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

Sorry, if this act was a vote for war, no attorney in their right mind would have predicated and entire case to get the Federal Disctrict Court to issue amn injuction against the president against going to war.

The judge rule against the plaintifss, but for the same reason he also ruled against other cases. That is is NON-JUSTICABLE. That is to say the courts cannot restrict a president form use of his constitutionally appointed power. And that Congress, but legislation, cannot stop a war, but only offer their terms to support a president in a war.

If anyone must bear the most blame for the war, it is Dean, for either throughhis total ignorance of War Powers in the consitution, or his willingness to allow the war to occur to consilidate his hold over anti-war voters, he deliberaltely misled people who were in one way or another against Bush acting as he did, and this prevented a monolithinc opposition to Bushand insistance that he follow the termos of the act through to their final conlusion, which was allowing the U.N. to make the final decision.

The interpretation that deligate its area of war powers to the president is clearly stated to be unconsitutional, andsuch an interpretation. illegal.

Meaning Dean is either stupid, or willfully trying to divide those against the war in order to make sure one got started.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

64. DEAN is to blame for the war?? WTF?

It must be late, because I think Nic_J just blamed Howard Dean for the WAR!

"If anyone must bear the most blame for the war, it is Dean"

ROTFLMAO

Pass the acid, dude...You are officially over the edge.

[Nicholas_J]

101. Exactly

Dean kept the democrats whowere trying to keep Bush within the constraints of only going to war after exhausting diplomatic efforts, and only with a U.N. coalition totally diveded in their efforts to keep Bush dealing withe U.N. instead of walking out on it. By Denas continual repetition of the fact that the vorte was a blank check for the war, the democrats lost all of the public support they had against Bush going to war. Prior to the war, polls stated that 68 percent of the public supported going to war ONLY with U.N. backing, a stance taken by ALL of the Democratic candidates.

Only they they were attacked from two directions, by Dean AND by Bush.. Dean split all the parties who were trying to keep tyhe inspections going and diplomatic peaceful methods operational. Without the war, Dean had No poinst he could make, and it was in his best political interest to have the war start, rather than assit those who were trying to stop it, through use of the document he claimed, without any legal basis, was a vote for war. All that was needed was for rthe democrats to stay firmly united behing their stance that the October Resolution required Bush to have U.N. approval before going to war, and it could have been delayed, if not prevented. WHo was fighting the democrats. Bush of course. And Dean.

This is nothing new for Dean, In Vermont he split the democratic party and weakened it to the point that he barely won his last election , due to defections to the more progressive , Progressive Party. That part of Vermont history is well known in Vermont. Dena isa also blamed by Vermont Democrats for abandoning them in 2002 and not canpaigning for the Democratic party to keep the Democratsi in control of the Governors office. Again, this is a well know trait of Deans he is a divider.


Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

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

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

More Dean divisiveness, and fear mongering among gays:

OITM: When you finally announced your position, you said that gay marriage made you “uncomfortable like everyone else.” Can you clarify what you meant by that and specifically what about gay marriage makes you uncomfortable?

Dean: The truth is that it is the politics that made me uncomfortable. (Personally) I’m sure that I have the same hang-ups that lots of people have on the issue. But it is a matter of equity. I remain convinced that of the 50 percent of people who are opposed to this, that half of those are fundamentally decent human beings and this is just a vast change for them that they’ve never considered before. I consider those people people who will ultimately accept the equality of gays and lesbians and stop marginalizing them. Those are the people that I have to speak to...

There are a number of Democrats and a number of Catholics who I have lost the support of, and I need to get that support back. The biggest problem for me (in November) is (Progressive) Anthony (Pollina). Anthony is going to take votes away from me and he’s not going to take any votes away from (Republican) Ruth (Dwyer). So actually the better he does, the more likely it is that Ruth Dwyer is going to be Governor.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

This again is typical Dean. His conservatism divided the party to such a great degree thant he is held responsible for party losses to the more liberal progressive party. The gays largely supported Anthony Pollina, who opposed Civil Unions and demanded gays be allwed the same privileges as any other citizen, a marriage license.
But Dean used divisive fear tactics to get gay votes. Dean admits that his biggest problem was liberla and progressive politicians, and not republicans. WHat he does not admit to is his role in drivinf people away from the Democratic party because Dean did to it what he is trying to attack the DLC for. Giving in to much to republicans nad not fighting their platforms.

Dean the governor, could never have run on his record as governor, so he invented a character who never existed. Dean the anwer to the weak DLC type candidates whi have allowed the neo-cons to take over the government without opposition. Odd coming from someone so conservataive that he drove people AWAY from the democratic party.

Yes, without Dean in the mix, it is quite likely that the Dems, with international pressure, would have been able to delay, and perhaps even prevent Bush's attack on Iraq. But they were fighting a two front war. One might almost think that Dean was supporting Bush, rather than opposing him. Dean was fighting other democrats trying to oppose Bush in Congress, with far more verve than he was criticising Bush. SO yes, of all the candidates most responsible for allowing the war to occur, Deans dividing the party's strength, is more liable for what happened than any other candidate.

In fact, in 2000 Dean was considered a DLC Icon.


Once again, the state echoes with the anguished bellows of liberals that Pollina's candidacy will install Republican Ruth Dwyer and take Vermont back to medieval darkness. The Progressive Party has refused to stand down. Incumbent Governor Howard Dean is a DLC-type Democrat who never met a corporation he didn't like or a mountaintop he wasn't willing to sell to a ski-resort developer. Pollina, who had led Vermont's successful fight for public financing of statewide elections, became the first to benefit from it. As required by law, he raised $35,000 (from donations averaging $22), then qualified for $265,000 in public money, the only funds he can spend. Pollina was on an equal money footing with Dean. But not for long. A court threw out the law's spending limit, and immediately Dean inoperated years of pious blather about campaign finance reform. Five days after lauding such reform at the Democratic convention, he rejected public financing and put himself back on the block for corporate contributions and soft money from the Democratic Party.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/VoteHopes_NotFears.html

Alex Cocburn is a supporter of progressive party politics, and his view of Dean is pretty much on the money.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

108. Exactly?

Dude...get a grip. Dean is not the "anti-war candidate" (nor is my #2 choice, Kerry -- I think Kucinich is the real anti-war guy), but he is NOT responsible for this war.

You are getting farther and farther from reality with this anti-Dean stuff, but it's kind of fun to watch.

[burr]

61. Typical...

This is why I still haven't picked a candidate yet. At this point in 1991, I was already backing Paul Tsongas. But this waffling around on such critical issues does nothing but destroy the credibility of these candidates.

Dean has stated that we need more troops in Iraq. Kerry now says we need to withdraw from Iraq. Dean can easily make his statement, by stating that he "opposed the war in the first place." Kerry doesn't feel any obligation to rebuild the nation he voted to destroy, because he thinks the "troops come first."

Let's face it, if the troops really came first, we would not have entered this war to begin with. The solution is to help the U.N. provide the Iraqis with the supplies, capital, and assistance they need to govern and rebuild their own nation. Our forces should play the reduced role of protecting the Iraqi borders until their nation is rebuilt, not policing their cities or rebuilding their nation for them. The same is true for Afghanistan.

I do agree with Kerry on this point..it is a mistake to deploy any troops in Liberia, for any purpose until most of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been returned home.

[killbotfactory]

8. Most Dem candidates want the UN to takeover the occupation, don't they?

I know I've heard Dean and Lieberman say pretty much the same thing a while ago.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. yes

Yes. But some Dean supporters basically use any mention of the war to attack Kerry's vote. Whether Dean and Kerry are actually in agreement on the particular issue, is not as important to them as repeating their charges ad nausem. Kind of like a guitarist who only knows one lick so he uses it in every song.

Bottom line, if Gore, Kerry, Dean or ANY OTHER DEM were President we would not be occupying Iraq right now. Is that really in doubt? Let's not forget it.

[sfecap]

19. Actually, I also attack...

Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman, too.

Just to be fair. :-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. fair is fair

fair is fair, although there aren't really a lot of Edwards, Gephardt, or Lieberman threads around here in which to attack, are there? ;-)

Still, I think you are better off promoting what you see as the good things about your own candidate than attacking what you see as the bad things about other candidates. I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss those things but I appreciate your candor in admitting that you also 'attack'. And I think we are mostly sophisticated enough to know the difference. But even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, attacking is not a good tactic in attracting voters to your candidate. It IS a good tactic for discouraging the supporters of your opponent. Hence what I see as a clear divide between the wisdom of attacking other Dems in the primaries and attacking Repubs.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. This Is How Dean Supporters Get Bad Reputations

There are certainly legitimate questions raised in this thread, but there is also alot of arguing for the sake of sounding right - rather than the pursuit of knowledge and amity.

[dsc]

26. the words give me a break come to mind

Just how many times have you directed this type of comment toward a certain Kerry supporter who has been caught mangling quotes, lying about Dean's record, breaking DU copyright rules, and basically invading every Dean thread he could find. Lectures like yours would be vastly easier to take coming from someone who had did that even once.

[Nicholas_J]

31. I assume you are talking about me.

I have never lied about Deans record. Every statement about Dean was validated. You guys had to pull the copyright tack because you were afraid that the complete text show Dean up for the phony he is.
Then I am accused of mangling quotes because I have to limit the number of paragraphs to 4 or less in order to avoid breaking Deans copyright rules...

SO lets state the obvious truths abut Dean...
His economic policies of Fiscal Consevatism increase tax burdens on the por and middle class, while giving his own wealthy class large tax breaks. Dean has used his own position to do very nicely for himself.
Dean was no longtime supporter of civil unions. He got handed an ultimatum be the Vermont Supreme court, and he folled their instructions.

He never provided a universal health care system in Vermont as hepromised, and all the few people who benefited did so under changes to federal plans, not to any chages to Vermont law initiated bt Dean.

Even with this, by the after Dena left office, barely 7 tenths of a percent more people had health insurance than before Dean came into office. None of this can be traced back to any action on Deans part.

By the 2001, a study he ordered of Vermonts Health care stated that the health care systems was in complete crisis and threateing the govenrments ability to pat fo all other government services.

ASside from civil unions, Dean never supported any other progressive legisation offerd in Vermont. He failed to require companies to follow existing environental regulations. The only theing he did environmentally was buy ONE treact of environmentally sensitive land for the future....

AS far as hisblaancing the budget, Dean was not resosible for the plan that balanced it in 1992, as the plan todo this had already been set into motion by the pervious governor, RIchard Snelling.

Every thnig that I provide has been direct quotation from Vermont DEmocrats and progressive. The only positive comments that ytou could find about Dean from other Vermont politicians came from the Republicans who succeeded him.

You must stop lying about Denas record in order to try to convince others to support him. I know it is necessary to do so, as you are all very much fearful of the truth about Dean...

AS a matter of fact, this is largely why Dean must run a campaign based on attacking the DLC and other Democratic candidates. There is little mert to his own political career in order for his own record to be enough to convince others to support him.

Any candidate who has performed their past jobs even adewuately does not even have to speak about other candidates records. Their own records are enough to persuade. In Deans case, his ownrecord is SO bad trhat he must divert attention form it at all costs.




Clever manipulation of the truth, but you have NEVER been able to disprove the articles posted about Dean, and kept citing your own opnions as valid truts. If anyone has mangled the truth here, that distinction goes to Deans supporters.

[dsc]

33. You have said all of the following

and all of it has been untrue.

You claimed he raised the sales tax. False it was 5% when took over and is 5% now. In point of fact he actually cut it my removing it from clothing.

You claimed he brought the death penalty back to Vermont.
False the case you had sited was a federal case brought by Ashcroft's Justice Dept.

You claimed he didn't support civil unions until he signed them into law.
False the day the court decided he came out for civil unions.

You claimed he spent only federal money on Dr. Dynosaur.
False States match Medicaid funding.

All of these are lies plain and simple. They are all things you said and I will research and site each one if you deny you said them. Each one is totally false as a matter of public record. This is off the top of my head at 2:45am.

Oh and one more thing

This is the rule, which has existed since at least 9/13/01 which you were breaking

Don't post entire articles. Instead, post short excerpts (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with links

The rule is crystal clear. It is at least a year and 9 months old. We didn't make it up to stop your posting. Yet another lie.

One last lie I can't believe I left this one out. Voinovich is a liberal. This 'liberal' favors the DP, no enviromenatal regulation, is pro life, cut education funding, cut health care funding, appointed anti gay, anti enviroment, anti black people to his cabinent, and was a friend of every business interest that came down the pike. Plus he called Metzenbaum a child pornographer when he voted against a bill that censored magazines. yeah some liberal.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

34. Dude...don't do this...

You don't want to make us spend a lot of time dredging it up, do you?

How about "Dean tried to get the death penalty reinstated in Vermont, but was shot down." Just off the top of my head. Sorry, not saving links for these things.

And in the above post: "The only positive comments that ytou could find about Dean from other Vermont politicians came from the Republicans who succeeded him." C'mon, Nick...that one's too easy...Dean's had as much positive written about him as negative.

And you don't want me to remind people how you called Dean "a tyrant" "a monster" "a petty mediocrity" and "in a way worse than Bush".

I much prefer to read Dr Funk or other Kerry supporters who have their eyes open about the candidates and post reasonable and relatively non-biased accounts (I say "relatively" only because it's very very difficult I think to be non-biased; even just posting a particular article can appear to be biased).

Bottom line for me is: this is not as black and white as people would like it to be. Dean's not a monster. Kerry's not a warmonger. Nor are either of them saints or saviors. Politics and law-making is far more complicated than many people seem to grasp.

On edit: Thanks DSC for having a list of "misstatements" at your fingertips. I knew someone would.

[DrFunkenstein]

35. To A World Without Monsters

I was going to call it a day somewhat depressed because everyone has been so negative today. I just posted on another thread saying that I couldn't seem to find one statement where I could say, "Dean or Kerry, we're in this together." Thank you so much for making my day!

<>

[Nicholas_J]

56. Cant do it Dr F.

I have made a few erros in posts, and this is how Dean and his followers attack the truth. One erro makes the entire record of dozens of truths false.

Like this:

The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867

And many others like it.

The funniest part to me is trhe claimed made that I said that Dean ised nothing but federal funds to finance Dr Dynasaur. WHich I did not state. Dean used NOTHIND but federal money to EXPAND the program to higher levels over Federal Poverty Levels by using medicaid waivers which allowed him to take unused money that the federal goverment gave for other projects snd using this to find health care for those at higher level. Not one cent of STATE money ernt to this.

And Vermont has never exceeded the 40 percent matching funding for that states must pay against the sixty percent that the feds must provide. Why? Because if they pay more than 50 percent, the feds reduce the amount they pay. SO if Vemront pays 45 percent. The feds drop their portion to 55. I just have so much enjoyed watching Deanies twist in the wind trying to give shape to Deans batch of lies doing what he did in Vermont at the federal level.

I can honestly state that in this Dean is no lying. Since he did absolutely nothing in Vermont, He will easily be able to keep his promise at the federal level:

Here is the request to RENEW federal waiver funds to keep Dr Dynsaur levels higher"

I have also included a statemtn from Deans heathe service requesting the grant finds about the level of the uninsured in ealrly 2002, the date of this request to extend the waiver:


About 51,390 (8.4 percent) of Vermont's 608,829 citizens lack health coverage. The uninsured include people at all income levels; 21.6 percent of the uninsured had incomes below FPL; 29.6 percent had incomes 100­200 percent FPL; 22.3 percent had incomes 200­300 percent FPL; and 26.3 percent had incomes greater than 300 percent FPL. More than three-quarters of the uninsured population were employed; 66.5 percent of the uninsured were working full time and 10.5 percent were working 30 hours or less per week. Most Vermonters believe that the government and employers should be responsible for providing health insurance, although they were wary of a government-only system, such as a single-payer model. Tax credits, subsidies, or other incentives to health insurance elicited concern about "red tape," complicated applications, and inflexible eligibility standards. There was also little support for a low-cost insurance option....

In 1989, Vermont created the Dr. Dynasaur program, which provided state-funded health assistance to children six years and younger, as well as pregnant women who did not qualify for Medicaid up to 200 percent FPL. By 1992, the program had expanded to cover children up to age 17, up to 225 percent FPL, and was integrated into the state Medicaid program. This was later expanded under the CHIP program to cover children up to 300 percent FPL. In 1991, Vermont passed the Act 160 Legislative Initiatives, which required all insurers with small-employer products (50 or fewer workers) to guarantee-issue policies at community rates and committed the state to the goal of universal health insurance coverage. The Vermont Health Access Program (VHAP) was designed to operate under a 1115 Medicaid waiver. The waiver was granted in 1995 and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
91 recently extended to ensure that it would remain operational until at least 2003. VHAP covers custodial parents and caretaker relatives up to 185 percent FPL, noncustodial parents and other adults up to 150 percent FPL, aged and disabled through 105 percent FPL, and pregnant women through 200 percent FPL. The VHAP Pharmacy Programreplaced the V-Script program, initially started in 1989. The programs were initially designed to provide pharmaceuticals to low-income elderly citizens. It has been expanded to cover Medicare beneficiaries up to 175 percent FPL and other individuals with incomes up to 300 percent FPL. Existing Major Access Programs Dr. Dynasaur, VHAP, Medicaid SPG FINDINGS Insurance DataAbout 51,390 (8.4 percent) of Vermont's 608,829 citizens lack health coverage. The uninsured include people at all income levels; 21.6 percent of the uninsured had incomes below FPL; 29.6 percent had incomes 100­200 percent FPL; 22.3 percent had incomes 200­300 percent FPL; and 26.3 percent had incomes greater than 300 percent FPL. More than three-quarters of the uninsured population were employed; 66.5 percent of the uninsured were working full time and 10.5 percent were working 30 hours or less per week. Most Vermonters believe that the government and employers should be responsible for providing health insurance, although they were wary of a government-only system, such as a single-payer model. Tax credits, subsidies, or other incentives to health insurance elicited concern about "red tape," complicated applications, and inflexible eligibility standards. There was also little support for a low-cost insurance option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
92 Employer Role In firms with fewer than five employees, 26.6 percent of workers are offered coverage compared with over 90 percent of workers in firms with more than 50 employees. Employers typically offer one plan, and employees typically pay about 20 percent of the premium. Employers view insurance as one of the most valuable benefits they can offer. Reasons for offering insurance include increasing employee compensation with a tax-free benefit, keeping employees healthy and productive, and having access to group health insurance for themselves. Those who do not offer insurance cite cost-including premium levels, unpredictability of costs in the future, and the time required to research and administer plans-as the primary reason for not doing so. Employers view reducing costs as the key to expanding insurance coverage and show interest in employer tax incentives, more competition in the market, an affordable plan that is free of state-mandated benefits, and pools to negotiate lower rates. State Policy Recommendations A Steering Committee consisting of representatives from the various interest groups met regularly and participated in planning and advising on the different policy recommendations. Based on the evaluation of the different policy options, their specific recommendations are the following: Increase participation among Medicaid/VHAP/Dr. Dynasaur­eligible people: The state could substantially reduce the number of uninsured by increasing enrollment in existing programs. Outreach programs for Dr. Dynasaur in schools and through employers could be expanded, while the premiums for children above 225 percent FPL could be eliminated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
93 Buy in to VHAP: Individuals without access to employer coverage living below 300 percent FPL could be permitted to purchase coverage under the VHAP program by paying a premium. Small employers could also be given the option of purchasing coverage for their employees and dependants through VHAP. While the premium would be equal to the full cost of coverage, this would still likely be lower than purchasing comparable coverage in the private sector. Incrementally expand VHAP up to 300 percent FPL: This would affect primarily adults between the current VHAP eligibility level and 300 percent FPL. Vermont has the option under section 1931(b) of the federal Medicaid law to increase the income level for parents under Medicaid to match the maximum income level at which children are eligible for Dr. Dynasaur (300 percent)
Interim Final Report http://www.statecoverage.net/statereports/vt.pdf March 15, 2002. Final Report http://www.statecoverage.net/statereports/vt7.pdf



http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:6xtlBGAOlUAJ:www.statecoverage.net/statereports/vt11.pdf+%22Vermont%22+%22HRSA%22+%22%22Act+160%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I have made the odd mistake. I read somewheew about Dean reinstating the death penalty. This was a quote form the woman who asked Dean to consider reinstating the penalty, and the woman stated that Dean was symathetic with her and would reinstate it.

Dean supporters are most cunning. They find the odd error that spmepne who is criticising Dean makes, and use these error to attempt invalidate all of the other data and articles that have been critical of Dean.

Example. Tom Paine is one of the most progressive and accurate political journals in the country. But once they are criticla of Dean, supporters attack but still will not, and usually cannot provide counter point to those articles, that come from legitimate political, and particularly progressuve sources. As a matter of fact, Dean supporters are the opned on DU who have most frequently used posts from the most extreme right wing sources to praise Dean or attack other candidates...

Regardless of my own occiasional errors. Dean supporters cannot undo the opinions of many who did not like his performance as governor. It is strange that most of the opposition to Dean did not come from Republicans, but from his own party:


To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.

Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.

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

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

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

Dean supporters cannot STAND seeing thing like this.
THey must either attack them, or attack the person posting them. referrinf to such pasts as bashing. If someone like myself cuts sections that indicate te position of democrats about Dean, his supports attack the person posting secrtions as editorializing. If they then com,ply with DEan supporters by posting significant portios of the articles. THey then attack the person for breaking DU copyrightr rules.

They are so fearful of the what Dean actuallyy did as governor becoming widely known that they must attack it anywhere they see it.

It is odd, that they support Dean attack on the DLC and congressional democray having not done enough to stop re
Vermont is now totally in republican hands. And Republicans owe this alll to Howard Dean.

If you look for praise of Howard Dean in Vermont...little of it comes from either the democratic party or the progressive party.

Even the articles Dean supporters post abour those praising Dean for Vermont being in better shape than the economy would have been in this bad economy comes from the Republican Governor and his Republican staff. Not from democrats.

Notice, the attack came from Dean supporters and they attacked me, and a few things I have said that were wrong based on my quick reading of articles/ But they cant attack the articles, or when trhey do they cannot come up with valid counterpoint to tyhe articles, They just try to shout don any opposition.

They get upset when one points out that before the MoveOn primary. Dena was well over 50 percent, but whenm the primary came, Dean fell below the point needed to get the endorsement. I am glad to see than in some cases, people may have been very active in preventing Dean from winning:

MWU! Helps Defeat Dean in MoveOn Primary
Well, may be we weren't completely responsible for Howard Dean falling short of the 50% he needed in the MoveOn.org virtual primary to gain the group's official endorsement, and all the campaign cash that would have entailed, but we'd like to think we played a small role in his defeat.

Before our expose of the alleged "anti-war" candidate's glaring inconsistencies regarding the Israeli/Palestinian issue and US foreign policy toward Iran, Dean looked like he had a strong chance for a MoveOn endorsement. However, our article, along with others, helped sway potential Dean voters, who began to wonder whether Dean was all that he really claimed to be. Not only does Dean sound hawkish on some foreign policy issues, his positions on the death penalty, welfare "reform," and gun control leave much to be desired.

Yes, Dean was against the invasion of Iraq, but he also leaves the option open for a preemptive strike against Iran. So what gives?

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000130.html

Perhaps if these muslims prayers are anwered, I will become a Muslim in thanks, If by any effort, political or spiritual, Dena can be kept out of office.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

57. Oh well, at least you tried, Dr Funk

...but some hatred runs too deep. LOL.

Where's that picture of Kerry and Dean again? I need to feel the love...

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Actually, I Have Spoken With Nicholas_J

Asking him to use his considerable talents in a more positive fashion to promote the many excellent things about Kerry that need to come to light. However, I am honestly unaware of him ever mangling quotes or such. I tend not to go into the details of other candidates' particular weaknesses, preferring to focus on Kerry's strengths. You'll have to take it up with him, I'm afraid. Am I my brother's keeper?

[dsc]

39. Yes you are

When you take it upon yourself to sanctimoniously lecture Dean supporters for their conduct then you have decided to become your brother's keeper. You can't now pick and choose which brother to keep.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

40. Now, now

I appreciate another Kerry supporter like Dr Funk trying to steer Nic_J in the right direction. He can't control whether Nic listens to him or not, but I do appreciate his efforts. It also reminds the rest of us that Nic_J doesn't represent all Kerry supporters.

Plus he keeps posting that cool picture of Kerry and Dean, you gotta love that!

[dsc]

42. Yes he does

He is way better than Nick. But my point remains in that if one is going to criticise Dean supporters on grounds of behavior then one needs to do that to his own candidate's supporters. A standard which I do live up to BTW.

I just get tired of the constant Dean supporters are evil cultists out to destroy public discourse nonsense that seems so common here. Not only do we deserve better but so does Kerry.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. I Always Am Clear That It Is Not Indicative of All Dean Supporters

Look back at my original post:

"This Is How Dean Supporters Get Bad Reputations

There are certainly legitimate questions raised in this thread, but there is also alot of arguing for the sake of sounding right - rather than the pursuit of knowledge and amity."

I was trying to honestly point out to Dean supporters that the "win at all costs" attitude of some the over-zealous here has and will continue to alienate those they are trying to convert.

I have a record of speaking to supporters of ALL candidates, including Kerry, about keeping positive within the party. I think convincing people that your campaign is the best to join is more important than winning a single argument.

I also have a record of accepting criticism of Kerry's Iraq vote, so long as it is done in the "pursuit of knowledge and amity." (Don't ask me where the hell I came up with that).

I am not responsible for anyone else, but I will comment when I feel that people are alienating me. Even this is done in the spirit of making Dean's campaign better. After all, I may have to vote for him down the road - and I don't want to do it with a bitter taste in my mouth.

[DrFunkenstein]

45. Check Out Post #24

I didn't notice that before, but there's an example of me asking a fellow Kerry supporter to play nice.

[Nicholas_J]

99. And i have over twenty times

Told Dean supporters, if they started playing nice, I would stop attacking. I will not stop posting articles that indicate inconsistancies in Deans stance, most particularly while he engages in negative attack politics, but when he stops, so will I.

WHen those Dean supporters who state they canot get other Dean supporters to stop attacking other candidates, I have offered individual truces. I owuld not attack their individual posts if the would not attack mine. So no go there either.I jhave made them repeatedly, as long ago as Centuar Mys's posting, as well as many other Dean supporters who have been particularly vicious when attacking any questioning of Dean's past record as opposed to his present statements.

After all, while he is now stating that he is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts, it is a reasonable thing to ask how this statement compares to actions regarding taxation in the past. He has threatened to veto income tax increases on the wealth, while raising more regressive forms of taxation like property taxes and other consumption taxes.

His stance on the death penalty show profoundly bad knowledge of many aspects of the law, as well as the fact that the very stance that he is proposing is being attacked as being unconstitutional in a number of states.

There is a difference between bashing, and providing information about Deans past actions, to see how they square with his present statements. This is not bashing. But is sets one up for massive attack by Dean supporters.

The very statments that Dean made regarding the October Resolution,as being a vote for war, created a climate that made it much more difficult for those who signed the act to use it as intended, to prevent president from going to war wiuth Iraq without exhausting peaceful and diplomatic means. Dean places his own desires to attack the other candidates and misrepresent their intend and desire to stop the president into political capital that made it impossibel for the others to keep Bush on the tract of international and diplomatic means. Dean needed this war more than Bush did, and he managed to prevent the other candidates in Congress from using all of their resources to stop it. A concerted effort by dems to insist that the president had not exhausted all diplomatic means was perwvented by Dean convincing the anti-war movement that the other candidates were not trying to box Bush into a corner. Which was the itent of the act.

[Duder]

47. Tit for tat

If there are more tits than tats then when a tat attacks the tit there will usually be more blowback on the tat. A couple of tat supporters have publicly announced a crusade to smear the tit and tit supporters, which then means tat gets equal treatment in response. The majority of tit and tat supporters are good posters although there are times when piling on occurs due to an emotional reaction to an event by a tit or tat and also there's the occasional cheap shots which probably are sadly to be expected. Imo, it's the dedicated tit stalkers that seem less genuine in their representations but I'm sure it happens with some of the tits as well. Some are guilty of omission, such as McCain is good friends with tat or that Hart is working with tat's campaign, but I suppose that could be excused as positive propaganda for tat except it seems less than honest when used attacking the tit. Since negativity feeds negativity, it would be wrong to single out either tits or tats since each feeds upon each. Mostly I agree with you although from a reverse perspective.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. Too many code words.

Too many code words. I can't tell what you are trying to say.

[Nicholas_J]

65. Actually

DSChas frequently mangled my statements.

For example my statement aboujt Dean and taxation stated that

Dean has refused progressive taxation such as income taxes or threatened to veto them, but has always used consumtion taxes, taxes like property taxes, sales taxes, and so on, which favor those with more money and place a greater burden on the poor. Which is true of Dean and his fiscal policies. He has alway oppoosed income taxes, and raied taxes which hurt those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
But Dean supporters pick, choose and reinterpret statements as they choose, and ignore many of Dean's numerous changes of position.

I said one tihng about Dena reinstating the Deanth penalty, which was a quote from an individual who was peading with Dena to reinstate the penalty and she reported that Dena said he would reinstate it. Shortly afterwards, Dean did his usual vague waffle by stating he now supports the death penalty, but didnt think it was right for Vermont. AND when I went back and looked at it after someone pointe put my error, I told them in a post that they were correct and I made an error.

At the same time, while republicans were trying to reinstate it in the House, Dena refused to answer any questions about it. Dean always falls back on the "I dont want to discuss it while it is in court" but that this another case of Dean trying to hedge his bets. Until he knows what the result will be, and how te polls will look, Dean wont say a word. As is most unusual, as most executives always let the public know how they stand on all such issues and cases.

This is typical of many Dean suporters. If they find a typo in an article that is against Dean, they use it to state that the article is not factual.

[burr]

66. I thought Vermont did have an Income Tax.

Has it always relied exclusively on a state sales tax to raise revenue?

[Nicholas_J]

102. No

It has an income tax, but tax analysts looking at state tax policies have always pointed to the imbalance in the total taxation in Vermont. I know you hate seeing it but:

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

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


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


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

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

While stating that Vermonts taxation was moderately fair the ITEP suggests that when thinking about taxation, Vermont should look making sure that the overall taxation is based on ability to pay them.

Vermonts tax base is heavily loaded at the property tax level.
Income taxes do not amount to a large portion of the states tax revenues, while property taxes,. sales taxes, taxes, gasoline taxes, and so on are the basis for its revenues. Which again, tends to be more of a burden on the poor and middle class than the rich.
There are also taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, tobacco, hotel rooms and restaurant meals, and so on. What ITEP suggests is a reversal of this, so that the rich bear a fairer burden, or at least even an equal burden.

Dean has always opposed such a reversal and fair system of taxation.

Odd, as it was such a tax that enebled him to take credit for getting rid of his inherited deficit. But he also inherited Snellings three tiered increse in income taxes (rich paid a higher rate, middle class a little less, the poor even less).

But Dean rolled those taxes back as soon as the deficit was over. I am not sure f this is true, so do not quote me on it, but I think I have read that Dean was the person who presided over Vermont having a property tax:

Last February, the Vermont Supreme Court threw out the state's system for education funding and ordered the legislature to erase the inequities of a system that had been largely based on a town's property wealth.

In the following four months, legislators scrambled to rewrite the system to enact a new statewide property tax and other reforms in education programs.

Shortly after Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, signed the legislation into law last June, residents of those towns banded together to oppose the measure. Several have filed lawsuits seeking to overturn the law. Late last year, Gov. Dean said he planned to propose changes to ease the tax burden on the wealthy towns.

http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98/states/vt-s.htm

I am not sure if this means Dean started a property tax system, or just precided over sweeping changes, but that comment about removing the Burden on the wealthy REALLY rankles.

Yet when the progressive tried to raise income tax rate, in order to cope with the budget deficits rthat Veroont was facing Dean oppopsed it and stated that the rich were already taxed too highly(at the same time the ITEP reported exactly the oppoisted):....

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

Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.

Currently, Vermont’s highest income tax rate is 9.5 percent. That is the rate paid on taxable income above $283,000. Under the plan the Progressives proposed Thursday, the highest Vermont tax rate would be 11.88 percent.

The coalition also called for a change in the tax on capital gains. Currently, Vermont treats long-term capital gains as the federal government does and taxes it at a lower rate. The highest rate Vermont collects on capital gains is 4.8 percent.

The Progressives said Thursday that gains on investments should be treated the same as salaries and wages that people are paid for their labor. They said the tax rate should for capital gains should be the same as it is for ordinary income.

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

Deans solutions were massive cuts to health care benefits and even his few democratic allies had to part with hin on this:

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

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

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

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

Here, Dean is lumped in with republicans witrh his ideas on fiscal conservatism...yet Dean does suggest taking away some exemptions that SOME people he defines as wealthy received under the property tax laws:

Wealthier Vermonters who receive state services, or tax benefits, will have to pay more money for some of those benefits.

For instance, Act 60 provides families with income of up to $75,000 several money-saving options for calculating their statewide property tax. That benefit needs trimming, lawmakers said.

Come on now. Cutting some exemptions form some people who earn less than 75 thousand dollars is considered taxing the wealthy by Dean, yet raising the income taxes on people earning over 158 thousand by a few percent was opposed because the richj already paid too much accoring to Dean.

When will you see the disconnect in this logic?

Bottom line is that right now, Dean is stating that he is going to repeal Bush's tax cuts, which for all intents in purposes, is RAISING taxes. Particularly on the wealthy. Where in Deans past record can you locate any benavior that indicates he will do this or is consistant with the political, and economic ideas that he has refused to budge on for since the first day he held political office.

What, other than Deans flair for convincing public speaking do you judge this belief in. I hear lots of people stating that you can trust Dean. But why? What has he actually DONE to earn that trust. On the national level, he has done nothing by which anyone can tell if he wil be as good as his word. And his record as governor does not even under the slightest scrutiny, show that he has ever done anything that vaguely resembles what his campaign platform says.

He certainly has opposed almost all progressive or liberal legislation presented to him as governor. He signed the Civil Union Act, but as governor, he had eight years to do something legislatively that would have accomplished the same thing that it took a law suit and the supreme court to do. Where was Dean before the law suit was filed. Why did he not do what he had the power to do between 1992 AND 2000.


If all one does is listen to Dean speak, He sure sounds great. I supported Dean until January of 2003, when I joined DU. I do not but they ever changing support of Dean DU'ers. WHen I first heard Dean, he came across totally as a progressive, he did some minor talk abnout "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY" that has only turned to fiscal conservatism in the last few months. I pay close attention, and Dean made every effort to make it appear that he was some kind of super progressive who was careful with money, but used it fairly and justly.
Dean did a lot of deceiving by omission. It too little looking into his record to see that he was not very compassionate as governor, was all to willing to sacrifice the poorest, and weakest citizens of Vermont to keep conservatives happy and the books balanced, even when there were other reasonable alternatives.

No overall, Vermonts system of taxes is heavily weighted towards property taxes, then comsumption taxes, and last income taxes.

[burr]

104. This is far more progressive than most states...

such as Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, or Arkansas. Vermont may not be perfect, but it sounds far more progressive than most state tax systems. I have yet to see a state that does not depend heavily on property taxes or a regressive sales tax to raise revenue.

What worries me even more is what states are doing to crush our liberities!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

67. Sorry, but...

it falls on deaf ears when you accuse Dean supporters of having blinders on, because you are so vehemently anti-Dean.

You have to realize that your posts are not read as one would read a typical post from someone about Dean. You will be scrutinized and critized, because you are so blatantly anti-Dean, calling him a "petty mediocrity" "a tyrant" "in a way worse than Bush" etc.

A few minutes ago in this topic you posted that "If anyone must bear the most blame for the war, it is Dean". Huh?

C'mon, Nick...people are not going to read your posts and think "Here's a guy who can give me some objective information about Howard Dean!"

[dajabr]

28. Sound alot like what Dean proposed back on April 9, 2003

Since Dean has already been brought up in this thread - I'll chime in...

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

And now Kerry's quoting Truman?

[blm]

37. Kerry planned post Saddam Iraq with Bill Clinton

back in 1998.

I am quite certain that John Kerry doesn't need to crib ANYTHING from Howard "Gary, what should I do?" Dean.

[dajabr]

59. And when the wind started blowing the right way...

And it was resonably "safe," Kerry started attacking - good for him!

[blm]

93. My ass...go check out what HE had to say

after Tora Bora compared to what Howard "Gary, what should I do?" Dean had to say. Kerry was on Bush SUBSTANTIVELY long before Dean ever spoke up.

[polpilot]

89. Kerry was promoting this war in '98????????????? No wonder he fell

over himself to vote with Chimpy's crew. 1998. Damn. John Kerry: Pro war anti-war..''withdraw from Iraq...I mean bomb the hell out of 'em.' I'm votin' for this war but I don't want to go to war...I wanna be president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Kerry:... Up, down...all around.

Dean '04...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. No Kerry was not promoting 'this war' he was in favor of disarming Saddam

No Kerry was not promoting 'this war' he was in favor of disarming Saddam through the framework of the UN.

[blm]

112. and preserving the UN

as an international institution.

[polpilot]

113. so he voted with Chimpy and BANG!!! we got a war!!

Dean '04

[blm]

114. he NEGOTIATED to save the UN

and if you can't understand that, then you have a debilitating blind spot.

[Andy_Stephenson]

41. Isn't this a bit like....

Closing the barn door after the cow is already gone?

[DrFunkenstein]

46. When Would Dean Have Closed The Door?

I'm still not clear what Dean would have done to thwart the Administration. Would he have magically brought the Biden-Lugar back onto the table?

Kerry has been on the record for years supporting two positions 1) disarming Saddam Hussein, 2) multilateralism generally, and specifically to disarmament.

He only got one shot at voting. He chose to vote with #1, but made it loud and clear since the beginning that he opposed the same exact conditions that Dean opposed.

So, again, what would have Dean done to "close the door" in Kerry's place?

[DrFunkenstein]

52. Still Waiting For An Answer Since Post #20

WWDD (What Would Dean Do)? Beyond registering a protest vote, Dean would have done _________ in Kerry's shoes.

[Duder]

54. What do you think he would have done Dr.?

Perhaps he would have stood on the floor with Byrd and expressed concerns about the rush to war and the silence of the senate, but your guess is as good as mine.

[dajabr]

60. Well, since it was going to pass anyway...

Take a principled stand, vote "No," and take his chances on getting elected.

After the vote, find some cameras, and start screaming like hell that the president should be forced to come back to Congress before force was used.

It's that simple.

[DrFunkenstein]

71. You're Living In La-La Land

First of all, Kerry voted for the enforced disarmament of Iraq, a policy that he has held unwaveringly since the late 90's - that was his principled stand.

With C-Span cameras rolling, on the Senate floor he made it perfectly clear that should Bush deviate at all from the course of exhausting the UN route before force was used, he would be the first to raise his voice - a promise kept.

How much more unambiguous than, "Mr. President, do not rush to war," can you get?

Except for a symbolic protest vote, there is absolutely nothing Dean could have done differently to actually change anything. All he could do would be complain publicly about the rush to war - just as Kerry did.

There was no way the President was going to forced back to Congress, further proof that Dean is living in Biden-Lugar la-la land (if that is his position, not just your brainstorm). It's that simple.

As for principled stands, at least Kerry was up front about the conditions to which he supported disarmament. Dean willfully misled the anti-war movement by playing down the conditions of his own support for disarmament.

In the early stages of the race, Dean touted himself as THE anti-war candidate (much to the surprise of Kucinich, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun), not to mention THE Democratic wing of the party (much to the surprise of Wellstone progressives).

He was not forthcoming in the least about his support for multilateral disarmament, at least not until he had developed enough support to be considered a contender.

There are many examples of Kerry openly telling anti-war crowds that he always supported multilateral disarmament - a real crowd pleaser. I doubt you can say the same for Dean. He was too busy playing "the game," as he coyly tells it to Salon.

And Dean is supposed to be the principled one? Well, at least he is a crowd pleaser.

[AmyStrange]

94. Good to hear...

atleast I'm willing to give credit where credit is due,




Dave (AmyStrange.com)
http://www.SeattleActivist.org/MyLifeStory.html
DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762

[George_Bonanza]

103. Hello I'm new here

I just wanted to say that I'm a Canadian that's behind John Kerry. Although my age and home renders my opinion pretty worthless in the game, I still wanted to say that.

For those thinking of him as a flip-flopper, take note of his career. If there's anything he has been, he's been a stander-upper, one who was never afraid to expose corruption in the senate. His legacy as a senator is not so much in legislature as it is in investigating. He was brave enough to fight in a messy war, and then he was brave enough to oppose it afterwards. He has been a very strong environmentalist since the early 70's, has been a strong gay civil rights advocater (he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, voted to include anti-gay crime as hate crime, and voted to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the job-place), and has made a recent statement that's good news to me: He'll filibuster any anti-abortion supreme court justice appointee. As for the sticky Iraq resolution vote, I learned a lot from here. But it's a clear fact that Kerry was against any kind of unprecedented attack on Iraq without international support and good reason. As someone said, Kerry was never one to back down from criticizing Bush after Sept. 11. Perhaps he voted with his head rather than his heart.

As for Howard Dean, I think he was an excellent governor and he'd be my #2 choice. However, as someone pointed out, what would Howard Dean have done if he actually had to formally pitch-in his opinion, as in a senatorial vote? After all, numerous people have pointed out Dean and Kerry's similar stance on Iraq, long before 2003. It's all hypothetical, and it's impossible to predict or know. I can't think of anything too bad about Dean, other than the fact that he was inaccurately portrayed as some wild-wing socialist to the rest's centrism, an image he has verbally refuted but has undoubtedly helped his success. Some dumbass' signature was "Nader/Dean in 2004." Tsk tsk...

[DrFunkenstein]

105. I'm Sorry - We don't Like Canadians

Just kidding. Glad to have ya aboard the S.S. Democraticunderground.com!

[AmyStrange]

106. Has anyone started calling them freedom Canadians yet? (n/t)

[blm]

109. *snort*

heheh...good one.

[AmyStrange]

107. !!! Welcome to the DU !!!

Here's a DU slang Dictionary that might be of some help in your trip around the DU:

DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/



Dave (AmyStrange.com)
http://www.SeattleActivist.org/MyLifeStory.html
DU (slang/ folklore) Glossary (Dictionary): http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/
Index of WMD Articles: http://WMD.SeattleActivist.org/

Here are some excellent resources and timelines of quotes and interviews and newspaper article quotes documenting the different things Bush and Co did and said for the last two plus years concerning the war in Iraq and WMDs (and other fun things) from the Howard Dean Website---even if you're not a Dean Fan, these are still excellent resources:

The Bush Administration And WMDs: Then And Now:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=bush_wmd_summary

Niger-Uranium Timeline:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline

Bush and WMD: Assumptions vs. Reality:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Bush_-_Iraq_-_Side_by_Side.pdf?docID=781

The Bush Administration and WMD: What did they know and when did they know it?:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/TikTok_-_Administration_-_Iraq_Deception.pdf?docID=762

[Madball02]

110. excellent!

I love John Kerry

[DrFunkenstein]

111. Are You Canadian?

We don't like those guys. They're like half-French. And Kerry looks French. We don't like French-looking people either. You don't look French, do you?

Just yanking yer chain. Except the part about Canadians. But welcome to DU!