Kerry argues that Gore backed 'wrong Howard Dean'

[Khephra]

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said Wednesday that Al Gore endorsed "the wrong Howard Dean," accusing the front-runner of flip-flopping on the Iraq war.

A day after a debate dominated by the former vice president's endorsement of Dean, Kerry argued that the former Vermont governor tried to have it both ways on Iraq -- casting himself as an anti-war candidate even as he embraced a congressional resolution that would have authorized President Bush to go to war.

"I think the great missing story of this campaign is in fact the truth about Howard Dean's statements about the war," Kerry said. "I don't know which judgment Al Gore endorsed yesterday."

The Massachusetts senator said Dean backed the resolution by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joe Biden, D-Del., that would have urged Bush to get a new U.N. resolution to enforce weapons inspections in Iraq. If the United Nations had declined, the president would have had to make a formal determination that the Iraqi threat was so serious that the use of military force would be necessary.

more..................

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/10/politics1100EST0581.DTL

[Larkspur]

1. Biden-Lugar would also have forced Bush back to Congress

to prove his case, which was a fraud and was a known fraud at the time.

Kerry is sucking lemons and spitting out pits.

[sandnsea]

3. With a determination, not a certification

The IWR that passed required a Determination and Bush gave it to Congress. Dean is misrepresenting what a Determination is.

[hey2370]

5. Okey dokey

Is Dean against the Iraq War? Does he think it was a really bad idea? Did he always think it was probably a really bad idea?

Really, are the nits picked yet?

[sandnsea]

9. So did Kerry

Always thought it was a really bad idea unless the UN supported it or inspectors found WMD which made it a necessity. That's the whole point.

[wtmusic]

11. No, the whole point is he put his John Hancock on the piece of paper

that abdicated Congress' complete control over a declaration of war. Is that really hard to understand?

[sandnsea]

17. Not going there

The point is Biden-Lugar would have allowed a war and Dean supported that. He was NOT anti-war from the start if he supported a resolution that called for war.

Besides, Biden-Lugar would have given Bush the same kind of go ahead without a further vote from Congress.

Is that really hard to understand?

[wtmusic]

23. What part of Biden-Lugar would have authorized the war?

[sandnsea]

25. It was a resolution authorizing war

The whole goddamn thing. That's what it was. A resolution authorizing war if Bush determined Saddam's WMD was a grave danger to the U.S. or the region. That's what Bush did.

[wtmusic]

28. What's missing is that

it's not Bush's determination whether or not the threat is grave.

[sandnsea]

36. That's what Biden-Lugar called for

Bush's Determination that the threat was grave. That's what Dean supported, giving Bush that determination.

[wtmusic]

7. They're misrepresenting what B/L says

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

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

[sandnsea]

12. Bush did what Biden-Lugar said

Dean supported that approach.

[wtmusic]

13. Bush secured the destruction of Iraq's WMD's?

Do you know something I don't?

[killbotfactory]

18. Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction!

Oh wait, he's missing too.

[Clark4Prez]

55. That is funny!!!!

Thanks for that, I am going to steal that joke (I will give you credit, however!)

[sandnsea]

19. Biden-Lugar didn't call for that

It called for a Determination that Bush had sought a UN resolution and gotten it. OR that he had sought a resolution and the threat from WMD was a grave danger that required military action.

The Determination that Bush gave Congress said diplomacy had failed and Iraq was a continuing danger that required military action. He DID GET a UN resolution, he tried to get a second one, and all he would have had to do is substitute the word grave for continuing.

Dean has been full of it on this war vote. Kucinich has been saying so all along. Are you calling Kucinich a liar?

[mzmolly]

31. Biden-Lugar DID call for that.

It limited the mission to the destruction of WMD's. It also forced * back to the UN to request a specific resolution granting us the authority to do just that. * could not have told the UN to F-off and then proceed with a regime change based on nothing.

Kerry knows this and he's now trying to cover ass.

[sandnsea]

38. He got a UN resolution

And they were working with the UN to try to get a second one. It DID NOT require an actual resolution, only Bush's Determination that he tried to get one and failed and that the threat from Iraq required military action. Bush did absolutely everything required by Biden-Lugar. The point is, Dean could not possibly have been against the war from the start if he supported ANY resolution that would have allowed war without UN authorization. Kucinich never supported any sort of war and called for diplomacy from the start.

[mzmolly]

39. Read up on B/L will you?

He didn't get a new resolution, he used an existing one to wrongly justify his actions.

Bush would have had to TRY to get the blessing of the UN and await a response from them. HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GIVE THEM THE BIG F-U without proving their lack of cooperation to congress. And the part you most like to overlook is that the mission would have been limited to the destruction of WMD's PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS "CONTINUED INSPECTIONS" - which were accomplishing just that.

John Kerry prefered Biden/Lugar tell me why?

I'm out for now.

:hi:

Carry on!

[sandnsea]

43. Just not true

He only had to make a Determination. That's what he did, that's it, that's all.

Kerry preferred Biden-Lugar because it was limited to WMD. Bush followed it in the end anyway. And if Howard *knew* there were no WMD from the start, why'd he support a resolution on WMD anyway. That really makes no sense.

[mzmolly]

56. Just not true...

Gephardt Caves

HOUSE MINORITY Leader Richard A. Gephardt acceded to the drums of war on Wednesday, agreeing to an overly broad resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to attack Iraq. In the process, Mr. Gephardt undermined efforts in the Senate to limit the war authority to disarmament, rather than regime change.

Mr. Gephardt -- who was joined by other centrist Democrats, including Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut -- claimed to have won important concessions from Mr. Bush, and waxed on about how "this should not be about politics." But the concessions he won were minor, and his actions appear to be driven by the political imperatives of the coming election.

A far better proposal by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would limit the war authorization to enforcement of the resolutions requiring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Like other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry was deeply upset by this over-quick acquiescence.

Iraq Stance Challenges Gephardt's Campaign

Gephardt staunchly defended his stance, which makes him, along with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the most outspoken ally of Bush's policy in the big Democratic field. Lieberman and Sens. John F. Kerry and John Edwards voted for the companion Senate resolution, but none played as prominent a leadership role in getting it through as Gephardt did.

When a questioner said Kerry implied that Gephardt had compromised too easily with the White House, Gephardt replied that the president had made it clear he would not accept a "two-step" process that required him to come back to Congress for authorization of force.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Kerry should have stood his ground, he wouldn't be back peddling today.

[sistersofmercy]

15. No I think you should reread the OR part of the passage and what

follows. But I do think your missing the point entirely.

[wtmusic]

22. I agree it's a fine line

but it's a critical fine line.

In B/L, force is authorized 'in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.'

It doesn't acknowledge a grave threat--and that's the distinction. Biden-Lugar was doomed specifically *because* it did not give Bush the power he needed to attack Iraq unilaterally.

[sandnsea]

26. Yes it did

All he had to do is give Congress a Determination that said what you just quoted.

[blm]

4. HAHAH....yeah, with his own "determination" that force was needed.

Hasn't that sunk in yet? That was ALL Bush had to do. Dean supported that and then attacked the others for allowing Bush to make that determination in IWR.

[wtmusic]

10. The truth has not yet sunk in with blm

Please see #7.

[Rose Siding]

2. Nuanced

[TexasPatriot]

6. hrm

Kucinich came out with a broadside on this yesterday, and Redqueen hammered it home on the P/C board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=98377

it's been around out there for a long time - but Gore really exacerbated the problem when he cited Dean's stance for the reason he got the endorsement. I still say full points to Dean for getting the endorsement, but they'd had months to figure out the best phrasing there and they could have done it a lot better.

[Metrix]

8. So what does t his mean?

"Biden-Lugar required the president to come back to Congress -- not for a vote," but only to certify that a number of actions were taken, including more diplomacy, Dean said.

"Had the president done that, we would not have gone to war, because then he would have been forced to certify with his word ... all the claims he made that were not true," he said.

Is Dean saying that Bush is incapable of lying to Congress? Sounds like a bunch of Hooey.

[joefree1]

14. The Washington elite can kiss my asses

[Cocoa]

33. that's no way to speak about Gore

he's Washington elite, but he's a good guy.

[joefree1]

51. Gore is not a part of the Washington Elite

The DLC and Holy Joe are and they're pissed at Dean and Gore.

[goforit]

49. BOOM BOOM..........GO DEAN ........THANK YOU GORE!!!!!!

:bounce:

[killbotfactory]

16. Dean: clearly against the Iraq war. Kerry: Clearly not.

Mr. John "When the president made the decision I supported him" Kerry can bitch and moan all he wants, the truth is Dean is not trying to have it both ways. That distinction lies with Kerry, who was vocally against rushing to war until Bush actually did.

Dean stuck to his guns on opposing the war, even when the statue was toppled and everyone was writing him off as a saddam-loving pinko. If he was trying to have it both ways, that would have been the time to switch. Dean didn't, because he has integrity and won't back down from positions he thinks is right, no matter how many blowhard pundits proclaim him wrong.

Dean was a leader during one of the most shameful periods of time in our nations history. Kerry wasn't.

Dean was right. Kerry was wrong.

[sandnsea]

20. What decision?

You want to put that quote in full context.

[killbotfactory]

24. Sure.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

May 4th, 2004

That's the entire exchange on the subject.

[sandnsea]

35. To disarm Saddam

Yes he supports the decision to disarm Saddam, the whole reason for the vote was to confront Saddam on the WMD.

But that doesn't mean he supported the actual kind of unilateral war that Bush executed or anything else Bush did leading up to the war or after the war. Just the fact of Saddam being disarmed.

[killbotfactory]

41. Then why not say that?

Instead of pretending to support the president?

[sandnsea]

44. He did

Why did Dean say "I think you have to trust the President" if he really didn't trust the President at all?

We had troops on the ground and it's important for those troops not to have someone of Kerry's stature ripping them apart. He has to be careful with his words. He still has to be more careful with his words than Howard Dean because his words still carry more weight around the world than Howard's. Pretty sad commentary for the frontrunner for President, nobody gives a shit what he has to say.

[killbotfactory]

48. Where?

Can you please find me a citation where Kerry says something along the lines of "Invading Iraq is the wrong thing to do and I oppose President Bush" before or during the war?

[tsipple]

21. Why Does John Kerry Keep Talking About Iraq?

I'm talking politics now.

Kerry's problem is that people don't want to vote FOR him. It's difficult to see at all how his criticizing Howard Dean is going to get him any votes, because people who are voting based on that issue aren't going to support the guy who voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution.

Look, it's pretty simple. Dean's not a pacifist -- I'm certainly not either -- but he didn't support THAT war at THAT time (and said he would have voted NEA on the IWR). Kerry voted YEA.

Sorry, Senator Kerry, but it's a binary decision. And, just as the people who wrote the Constitution imagined, you're going to be held accountable if you vote against the wishes of your constituents. If you're wrong, you get to pay the political price.

To be blunt: Boo, hoo. Suck it up.

[seaglass]

30. What makes you think he voted against the wishes of his

constituents? In the 2002 Senate race Kerry got 80% of the vote.

[tsipple]

40. Apples Meet Oranges

I'm stating the obvious, of course.

[The Animator]

27. John Kerry said Wednesday that Al Gore...

...endorsed "the wrong Howard Dean,"

...

Are there two Howard Deans running for President? If so, which Howard Dean should Gore have endorsed?

[killbotfactory]

32. Kerry prefers "flat howard" I guess

He's a hit with our veterens.

[DemonFighterLives]

29. Let's see if I got this right

The UN never gave Georgie the go ahead. The IWR did. It was not wrong for Dean to want the UN to do it's work first(and congress etal). W did not wait around, but followed his preemptive PNAC agenda as was already planned.
If there were a danger there and the Weapons inspectors would have found anything, we would proceed to war with our allies intact and blessings from the UN. :nopity:

[mzmolly]

34. Bush to Congress - "Dont Tie My Hands"

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/bush.iraq/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush warned Congress Tuesday not to limit his options on Iraq as the Senate prepared to debate whether to endorse military action to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"We'll continue to work with the members of Congress, but I don't want to get a resolution that ties my hands," Bush said.

Dean supported tying Bush's hands
Kerry supported UNTYING them
Gore supported THE RIGHT CANDIDATE!

[sandnsea]

37. Bush determined Iraq's WMD was a threat

That's what the Determination he gave to Congress said. The same determination Biden-Lugar called for.

[mzmolly]

42. Ah NOPE.

The mission was about "regime change, liberation, and perhaps a coupla WMD's." Biden Lugar would have tied Bush's hands... You know it, I know it, Kerry knew it, Dean knew it, and BUSH KNEW IT.

Your playing dumb S, just like Kerry, and it's not workin for either of you.

[sandnsea]

45. No, Bush would have lied

You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. This was a media war, it played out in the media. Would have been exactly the same under Biden-Lugar.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Plus the fact that there was nothing at all wrong with threatening force

just to get inspectors in there so that all the i's and t's could be crossed and future concerns eliminated. Geez, even Clark first said "I probably would have supported IWR".

[RetroLounge]

52. You know, if you stamp your feet and cry

while repeating the same falsehood over and over, it may work.

Nah, my mistake, I was thinking of my 5 year old...

:cry:

[mzmolly]

57. BULL. Kerry knew Dems caved and was rightfully angry about it at the

time. But, Kerry caved right along with them, against his own better judgement.

Additionally if Bush had LIED it would have been up to congress to 'examine' the evidence and make a decision accordingly. And, he'd have had hell to pay today for not finding any WMD's. Doesn't matter now does it?? WMD or no WMD Bush is off the hook.

Also, the fact that Saddam allowed inspections to continue would have meant we had no reason to invade to "disarm" *given B/L limited the agenda* to doing JUST that! Saddam was 'disarming' inspections were continuing and * would have had no justification for war-end of story.

Spin and lie all you wish, those are the facts regardless what you and/or a few Kerry prone pundits profess.

Comparison here...

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

[goforit]

47. Hello Kerry?.......The race is against Bush......not Dean!!!

A good reason why failure is knocking at your door!

[MaineDem]

50. I disagree

Dean and Kerry (and the other 7) are all going for the same thing. After one is selected THEN the race is against Bush. Not until then.

It's very simple, actually. But people don't seem to get it.

[RetroLounge]

53. After one is selected...

Selected? Scary choice of words.

I prefer elected.

[glitch]

54. IMO whoever aims the debate at * is the one that will be elected nt

edited: changed to 'fire' to 'debate'

[belab13]

59. in this round, the race is against Dean

no apologies.

[belab13]

58. I personally think that Kerry has a point.

This argument has always been a point of convenience for the Dean camp.

edited for fun on a wednesday evening

[Chomskyite]

60. The more Kerry attacks Dean, the better Dean does

. . . and the worse Kerry does.

He just doesn't learn, does he?

[stickdog]

61. Kerry: Dean was ALMOST as big of an idiot as I was on Iraq!

Try, try again, John.