Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[Cha]

1. I believe sadam could have been taken care of through the UN..

With a multilateral coalition. Not the way bush did it, killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and hundreds of our Soldiers!

It was WRONG!

[WilliamPitt]

2. Two things, from a Kerry supporter

1. If he was warning for years, he was warning against a threat that has not existed for a while now, thus adding to the cacaphony. If there was data available to contradict those warnings, his credibility would be less at stake than it is now if he had followed that data.

2. His campaign should not be, "I was fooled." It should be "I was lied to."

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[blm]

5. Kerry also said last June that "If the president lied

(about WMD) then he lied to me personally."

[tsipple]

8. Bob Byrd Had It Right

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to decide whether the nation goes to war. The founding fathers did not want any one individual to have that power because of the potential for abuse.

Kerry should not have "empowered" the president. That's not consistent with Constitutional principles. It's Congress that must have the final say. Kerry could have empowered the president by saying simply, "When the president asks for a vote, I'll take that request seriously. Saddam should know this is his last chance." Instead, he jumped to the vote. And he was wrong. So it goes.

[Cha]

16. I like the site..."Pilots for Dean"!

[Jacobin]

11. Going to war on a whim is not "erring on the side of caution"

We can spin Kerry night and day, but the sad truth is he voted to give Smirk the authority to invade Iraq. I got his emails from last fall justifying his vote. Many of us faxed emailed and phoned Kerry and others to try to give them the counter-vailing view.

He was watching his political barometer and it was wrong.

[indictrichardperle]

12. im curious about that Will

based on your writings regarding the illegal, immoral Iraq war-which i agree with 110 %, i cant see how you support Kerry ?........Kerry lost me on that issue.

I can only guess its because you think Kerry has the best chance to win the general election. Im a Dean supporter, but im starting to give Kerry a second look. Kerry is an internationalist, which is a pretty good thing right about now......Howard needs to articulate his middle east/I-P policy, its making me a little nervous.

[WilliamPitt]

23. "Kerry has the best chance to win.."

IMHO, that's the deal.

"Kerry is an internationalist, which is a pretty good thing right about now" is also important.

[indictrichardperle]

33. i have to admit

im starting to give Kerry a second look, i dont necessarily agree he gives us the best chance to win, Dean has energized the base about 100 times more, Kerry also can be painted/smeared as a northeastern liberal, just as easily as Dean.

Im starting to be concerned Gorossman, the former head of AIPAC, is influencing Dean's foreign policy views quite a bit. Thats not going to get America back on the right track, Kerry on the other hand is much more likely to follow international law and go through the UN.........ie) he is a known commodity. Dean got my support because he went after Junior and the neo-con cabal when all of the other Dems(other than DK) were too chicken shit to say a peep. It paid off big time for Dean, which is the real "poll". I think its useful to question murky -unstated stances by Dean, to flesh them out..........if we question it, he is much more likely to address this issue.

[sandnsea]

30. What you heed, what you ignore

How does a Senator decide that. There *was* intelligence indicating Saddam was continuing with behavior that would indicate he was building weapons. Manufacturing huge amounts of chlorine for instance. Rebuilding sites that had traditionally only been used for weapons development. Seeking uranium from an African country (keep reading). Senator Kerry clearly believed this intelligence and supported confronting Saddam because of it. He did not support war because of imminent threat, war for the purpose of regime change, or anything else along those lines. He only support the threat of force in order to get inspectors back into Iraq and enforce UN disarmament resolutions.

On the point of the uranium, he was lied to. To what extent other claims that he believed were actually lies, only he can state. It is unfortunate that the campaign rhetoric by some is making the lies difficult to investigate.

On the other hand, there is the rest of the intelligence which appears to be just plain wrong. What it said and how it was interpreted to and by Congress is critical. Was Kerry and the rest of Congress fooled by it and if so why? And does he care enough about the country to put the investigation of the intelligence before his Presidential campaign?

I've read all of his statements and believe that his views are the most coherent and consistent of anyone's. To just dismiss Saddam Hussein is actually a bit ridiculous. But allowing the Administration to launch a war on lies and manufactured intelligence is more dangerous than not dealing with Saddam Hussein. I really hope he decides to take this on the way he has other investigations in the past. No matter what it does to his Presidential campaign.

[newsguyatl]

4. i'm sorry, but kerry and all the others

have blood on their hands...

...(and their tutu's)

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

53. That is a silly game to play

Im sure we all have some kind of blood on our hands in some way shape or form. Heck its our tax money being used to fund this war. Kerry's vote was the best vote to make for him, for the party, and for the left. The world isnt good an evil. I thought only republicans were silly enough to push that kind of a simplistic view.

[Sweetpea]

6. Thank You Thank You Thank You

[Pastiche423]

9. Reality Check: Kerry voted for the slaughter

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Pastiche423]

17. Did he or did he not

vote for the War Resolution?

I heard his speech on October 10, 2002. I heard his vote on October 11, 2002.

KERRY VOTE FOR THE WAR RESOLUTION!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Pastiche423]

29. Slaughter is my word for what would

have happened and what did happen as a consequence of the War Resolution vote.

Use whichever word makes you feel better. Kerry vote YES for the War Resolution.

He most certainly did have a choice. No one was holding a gun to his head. His constinuents begged him to vote NO.

Kerry voted YES for the War Resolution. No pretty words are going to change that fact.

[sangh0]

58. At least you admit to making stuff up

like "resolution = slaughter"

[TLM]

84. Are you saying that Kerry is so stupid that

he did not know that the war he voted for would result in the slaughter of Iraqis?

WTF, did he think those bombs were filled with, jello?


The fact is Kerry voted for the war for one reason, to cover his ass in the election so republicans couldn’t accuse him of being unpatriotic. He didn’t care one bit about the people who would die or the power his frat brother would abuse... he cared only about his own career.

[sangh0]

91. No

but if you want to know who I think is stupid, PM me, and I'll tell you.

[Pastiche423]

I made nothing up

Re-read my post.

[Cha]

19. Kerry had a choice! There were other Senators who voted NO!

And they shall forever be conscience free!


The truth is there was a "slaughter" and it was voted on in the House and the Senate!

And most of us participated in the Protests of that vote and that Attack! And we shall never forget being ignored for bush.

[blm]

Really? Which of them were negotiating along with Kerry?

Don't you understand that those stuck doing the negotiating to prevent the real blank check that Bush wanted HAD to support the resolution? The other Senators know this and will not blame those doing the negotiating. They know how government works and know that those Dem lawmakers were getting the better bill for ALL of us....and the rest of the world.

[wroberts189]

10. Is Kerry that naive????

Is he a fool?

I have heard this from him as well. Well if thats the case why give
did he give bush a blank check to wage war ? Does he not know better???

There was no UN mandate in the bill he voted for!!!

Is he a just damn fool? Is that his lame excuse??

As a constituent of his I begged and pleaded for him to vote no as well as many others. He knew damn well what that vote was about.

What he did'nt know was how wrong he was to vote for it. Now he is paying for it and I am quite happy to see him squirm and slither.

IMHO Kerry is nothing but another political hack that holds his finger to what he thinks is the wind and makes strategic decisions based on what direction he thinks it will blow. There is no personal integrity here. No standing up for what is RIGHT OR JUST!!!! Iraq was not a threat and the whole friggin world knew it ..How could he not?

Whatever the reason for his vote it highlights his cluelessness.

Ill be damned if I ever vote for him a again.





---------------------------------
2. His current explanation of the vote is not "I was fooled". It's "I voted to give the president backbone to give Saddam an ultimatum and to use the U.N. as a vehicle to disarm the Iraqi regime, but the president bungled the diplomacy." (My paraphrase)

[Postman]

13. It's too late to parse his words now....

according to Scott Ritter, Iraq was not a threat after 1991 including all the years up to 1998. Even then, after the inspectors were kicked out....AH, AH,....just kidding..after they LEFT before Operation Desert Fox, Ritter claimed that Saddam was not the threat PNAC made him out to be...So there were open sources that these Senators could have gone to that were counter-balancing what PNAC was claiming. I mean I'd take Scott Ritter's knowledge over a hellbent-on-war organization planning an Iraq invasion before the election machines were put away.....

Kerry is doing nothing more than CYA at this point and I ain't buying his "excuses"

It turns out Saddam was the paper tiger PNAC always knew he was but claimed otherwise to advance their imperialist-fascist agenda. End of story.

[dajabr]

15. Take a trip to the Prize Closet!

Right on the nose - You're a winner!

Ding ding ding...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[wuushew]

20. So Kerry was speaking for all democrats and republicans when he said that?

?

[Cha]

27. Yeah! I'd like to have someone explain that, too! Not that I

trust it just because it's in the NYT!

[Postman]

32. I'll take a stab at it....

My take on it is that Saddam was seen by the Clinton administration to be a stabilizing force within Iraq itself and a buffer to the still potentially dangerous Islamic state of Iran....Iraq was to be disarmed but not completely. A kick-ass-and-take-names kind of guy like Ritter was nice to have in a war, but maybe a pain in the ass when it came to the give and take geo-political post-war Middle East situation. A Marine tasked with disarming Iraq rightfully believed that THAT meant DISARMING Iraq, this may have flown in the face at various times as to the shifting policy towards Iraq that was the 1990's.

I believe Ritter, after leaving UNSCOM must have had an epiphany, as many of us do once we leave the military and begin to read and see things that you normally are not exposed to. I can't say for sure but maybe he put 2 and 2 together. He seen the effect the sanctions had on the people for all those years and the recurring bombing campaigns in the "NO-FLY ZONES" and the radical turn in policy with the incoming administration.

[blm]

26. Ritter's testimony to Kerry in 98 was a different story.

They were on the same page then.

[sandnsea]

37. He said six months

Sept 3 1998
http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

SEN. BROWNBACK: And yet you were stopped on two occasions. In your opinion, in the absence of a robust inspection regime, how quickly could Iraq restart its weapons of mass destruction program?

MR. RITTER: Iraq has -- in my opinion, within a period of six months, simply put. Six months.

SEN. BROWNBACK: Do you have any information as to whether they are continuing with it to even today?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. BROWNBACK: You do?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.

SEN. BROWNBACK: What's your opinion about that continuation of their weapons-of-mass-destruction program today?

MR. RITTER: They're -- Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.

[Postman]

45. like I said, ...a gung-ho Marine....

Iraq obviously, as we see with our own eyes now, did not have the capability to reconstitute a damn thing.

[sandnsea]

50. I don't understand your posts

Is Scott Ritter an 'open source(s) that these Senators could have gone to that were counter-balancing what PNAC was claiming' Did you mean it when you said 'I mean I'd take Scott Ritter's knowledge over a hellbent-on-war organization planning an Iraq invasion before the election machines were put away.'

Just what were you trying to say about Scott Ritter and the available information in October of 2002? I really don't understand.

[sangh0]

59. Dean also thought that Saddam was a threat

If Kerry was wrong for that, so was Dean.

[molly]

71. The difference being Kerry had to vote - Dean did not

so Dean can say anything he wants now.

[TLM]

104. What does having to vote have to do with it???

The fact that Kerry had to vote didn’t mean he had to vote FOR the war.

[sangh0]

170. Dean didn't have to vote at all

and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it

[TLM]

230. So are you saying that Kerry voted yes because his constituents

wanted him to vote yes?



Dean was on the right side of this issue without regard for polls... are you saying that Kerry simply voted based on what direction the political winds were blowing that day?


You're making my point for me that Kerry has no spine and voted to cover his ass, not to do what was right.

[sangh0]

239. What a cowardly tactic you use

Instead of responding to what I said, you cover your ass and keep trying to put words in my mouth

[TLM]

259. You said Dean did not have to answer to his

as a way of defending Kerry voting for war while Dean openly opposed it.


SO I want to know are you saying Kerry only voted for war because he did have to answer to his constituents?

[sangh0]

296. Still trying to put words in my mouth?

Keep trying.

[TLM]

308. I am quoting exactly what you said...

"Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it"



And Kerry did have to answer to his constituents... so is that why he voted for war?

IF that's not what you are saying, then tell me what you are saying when you claim that "Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it"

[sangh0]

323. I am saying

Dean didn't have to vote at all and he didn't have to answer to his constituents for it.

Which word are you having trouble with?

[TLM]

333. So what.. what does that change?

Dean's position was clear and consistant and based on objecting to what was clearly an unjust war.

How does Dean or Kerry's constituents change the war being right or wrong?

[TLM]

99. Nobody says Saddam was not "a threat"

the question was, to whom and how much of an immanent threat.

Dean has been clear that we need to take actions to disarm Iraq, but that we need to do so through the UN and robust inspections because the threat that Saddam posed was to his neighbors and it wasn’t immanent.

Kerry on the other hand sound like one of those PNAC jerks claiming that Saddam is 30 seconds from dropping a nuke on Manhattan.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

116. Yeah I did...

And Dean has stayed consistant with his statement, while Kerry voted for a war based on the claim that saddam was an immanent threat.

[poskonig]

21. If millions of people around the world knew that Bush was lying,

including 23 Democratic Senators Kerry wouldn't stand with, why couldn't Kerry, the dude who claims we don't need a foreign policy "learning curve," figure it out?

A: Political whoring. I bet Kerry likes watching the White Sox at US Sell-Your-Soul Field.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

115. If Bush was lying... there was no threat to his constituents!

That's the point. Other folks in congress knew it and stood up to vote against W's war. But Kerry did not.

So either Kerry supported this war or he voted for it to cover his ass.

[sandnsea]

44. What France said

Don't forget, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 give Iraq "a final opportunity to comply." They didn't do that for kicks. The world did not think Bush was lying in October 2002.

Oct 8 2002 - Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Prime Minister, to the National Assembly

http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2002/raffarin101002.asp

First point: Iraq indisputably presents a potential threat to the region’s security. Admittedly, she’s not the only country where the issue of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction arises. But she’s the one on which, because of her past conduct – especially since the Gulf War – the international community has imposed the most restrictive obligations. We can’t forget that Iraq didn’t hesitate to use chemical weapons against her own people, and also against Iran, when use of these weapons is prohibited by the international conventions. The investigations carried out by the United Nations after the liberation of Kuwait revealed previously unsuspected nuclear and biological programmes. They exposed flagrant concealment of these activities.

The nearly four-year absence of the United Nations inspectors has intensified the uncertainties regarding the actual state of the programmes for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So our concern is legitimate. With her delaying tactics and evasion, Iraq has too long defied the will of the Security Council. In addition to the risks of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction this entails, the authority of the Security Council, keystone of the international security system, is at stake. This situation can’t go on.

[sangh0]

60. Dean didn't know that Bush* was lying

Dean said that he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt". To this day, Dean has still NOT said that Bush* was lying. If Kerry is wrong on this, then so was Dean.

[TLM]

122. I guess we can give you the benefit of the doubt

And assume you just had bad intelligence, and were not lying when you said that Dean has not called bush on his lying.


http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7147&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

DEAN TO PRESIDENT BUSH: "IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH."
Friday July 25, 2003
By: Press Office

"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent."

[sangh0]

209. That was after the vote

And at the same time, Dean was saying that we should find out who "misled Bush*".

[TLM]

231. Before the vote he was saying over and over again...

that W had not mode the case for war.



And obviously someone misled Bush... bush is a fucking moron. You don't think he doctored the intel himself, do you? No he just said what he keepers told him to say.

[sangh0]

240. He said Bush* shou;d get "the benefit of the doubt"

Now spin that

[TLM]

267. Simple... DEan 's position was that

before we accuse Bush of lying, we need to make sure he knew the info was false.

When we knew Bush knew the info was false, then DEan accused him of lying to the US.

[sangh0]

298. Dean didn't say that

and if he had thought that, then he was being dishonest.

When we knew Bush knew the info was false, then DEan accused him of lying to the US.

You mean AFTER Kerry publicly stated that "Bush* misled", Dean played catch-up.

[TLM]

312. On the contrary... Dean was saying Bush had not made the case

when Kerry was voting for the war as if Bush had.


SO please cite the date Kerry changed his position and accused Bush of lying.

[sangh0]

325. He said Bush* gets "the benefit of the doubt"

and he didn't say that Bush* was lying.

[TLM]

336. Again we see why you can not quote the whole statement....

LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.



Clearly Dean is holding back on accusing the president of outright dishonesty until there was proof that W did know the info was false.

[shugah]

24. he did vote

giving whistle-ass carte-blanche, didn't he? i'm hard pressed to care what his reasons were. does he lie awake in bed at night thinking about all the dead?

c'mon! either our sons should be dying in iraq or they shouldn't.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

31. And "the president(sic)" Did Not make the case!

[sangh0]

61. Dean said there's "no question that Saddam is a threat"

Nice editing out of context

[jcgadfly]

110. You also edited out of context

The quote again

"There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case."

[sangh0]

143. Right

People here have criticized Kery because he believed that Saddam was a threat because Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's. Both Kerry and Dean believed that Saddam was a threat, but they only criticize Kerry for it, and not Dean.

If their criticism was based on Kerry's thinking that the threat was "immediate" (which Kerry never said) while Dean did not, then the part about the immediacy of the threat would be relevant. Because the criticism is based on Kerry's believing that Saddam was a threat, and that Saddam was trying to acquire WMD's, comments about the immedidacy of the threat are not pertinent.

The bottom line is that that's what happens when you rely on propoganda like "voted for war" and "blank check", etc. When you resort to slogans and rhetoric, you lose the ability to make subtle distinctions. Though there are differences between Dean and Kerry's Iraq stance, they are not as incomparable as some would make it out to be.

[TLM]

228. Nice spin... you must be dizzy...

Dean was clear over and over again that he did not see Saddam as an immediate threat to the US, or to his neighbors.

Kerry said pretty much the same thing.

Then Kerry voted for this war that was prefaced on the lie that Saddam was an immediate threat.

Dean did not.

See the difference?

Both agreed Saddam was a bad man who did have to be dealth with. But Dean felt we could contain him and disarm him through the UN. Kerry felt we needed to invade and take over right now.

Kerry's actions were not consistant with his words...

[sangh0]

242. Dean didn't vote either way

He just sat on his ass and said what he wanted to do, but couldn't, because he never had to.

[TLM]

260. He was openly against the war

since when is one only allowed an opinion if they have a vote?


And Dean was far from sitting on his ass... he was all over the place speaking out against the war and saying Bush had not made the case for war.

How does Dean not having to vote change anything?

[sangh0]

299. Dean gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

and was saying that "Saddam is a threat"

[TLM]

318. How many times will you repeat your lies?

Dean said Saddam was a threat to the region, not to the US and as such the UN needed to deal with Saddam, and the US had no business attacking unilaterially?


Do you think the posters here are too stupid to see you are editing quotes and lying about Dean's stated positions?

[sangh0]

326. Dean said Bush* gets "the benefit of the doubt"

and did not say Bush* was lying. He wouldn't say that until after Kerry showed him how it's done.

[TLM]

349. Let me know when you can quote a whole sentence...

until then nothing you say has any credibilty at all. You just keep repeating the same lies and edited quotes.

[TLM]

127. Talk about editing out of context... why not post the whole quote?

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

[sangh0]

144. Dean said ""Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat"

.

[TLM]

234. to nations in the region." The fact you have to edit the quote

proves how dishonest your position is. Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, but not the US. We had no business invading Iraq.

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

[sangh0]

243. You edited the quote also

You left out the part where Dean says "Right now, in my view, SADDAM IS A THREAT"

[TLM]

262. I posted the part you left out from that statement in the subject line.

Then I quoted the whole thing in the body of the post.

Why are you lying and saying i did not post this?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=239647&mesg_id=242886&page=

"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

[sangh0]

300. "Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat "

That's what Dean said

[TLM]

314. "Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region."

This is what DEan said, and the fact you have to edit out the part about THE REGION proves you know your position is weak and dishoenst.


"Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region. The United Nations' job is to disarm Saddam so that he will not be a threat to nations in the region. It is our job to protect ourselves. Going into Iraq has very little do to with protecting the United States of America, and that's why I think this is a job for the United Nations and not for the United States of America."

[shugah]

34. yep, i don't know how difficult that vote was for him

and at the end of the day, i hope he agonizes as much as the mothers of the dead. pro-war/anti-war is indeed black and white for me. i am a mother of only sons, and a buddhist.

i'm not a deany-baby by a long shot. in fact, the followers of dean scare me! but unless kerry can step up to the plate and offer some kind of real apology... :shrug:

[Cha]

36. Sorry, you are so "scared" of us! We're really not that scary!

We have a passion for our candidate because we believe he is the
best one to lead us out of this mess that the bushitistas have gotten us into.

I'm not a ABB person! I don't want just anybody! I want a real person to be our President in 2005! :kick:

[indictrichardperle]

39. well Zidzi

You can be a little scarey :evilgrin:

Its that Dean Kool-aid.

[shugah]

46. sorry, zidzi!

didn't mean i was skeered 'o you! i admire your passion, and your commitment, and i wish you the best. i'm just not all that on dean's boat...y'know?

[oasis]

35. Those seeing issues only in" black and white" could be said to have

a "Bushlike" mentality? I know many of these posters here are a lot wiser than that. As for me, I'm seeing lots of gray to work with on the question of Kerry's vote, but then, I've been an open minded Dem for a long time now.

[Cha]

38. You're either dead or your not! I think that is what the poster

meant by "black and white"!

You either drop the bomb or you don't!

You either strike with those cluster bombs or ya don't.

You either lie or you don't!

[oasis]

270. "calculations far more complex...nuances challenging": post # 28

I was refering to that particular post. Kerry made a difficult decision after careful consideration. If it was up to Kerry, Hans Blix would stiil be in Iraq looking for WMD instead to the "Bush Doctrine" invasion.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Bush is the one who lied. His minions pressure the sheeple to think in terms of "black and white".

"You're either with us or with the terrorist" I was never for this invasion or occupation but that doesn't make me a terrorist.

[Dhalgren]

109. Look, the problem with Kerry's vote

is that other senators and congresspersons voted against the resolution. They were just as concerned for the safety of their country as was Kerry. He looked at the evidence, weighed the politics and decided to vote in favor of the resolution. Others did the same thing and voted "no". Now, Kerry has to say that he was correct in his vote, here's why, and that's that; or he has to say that he was wrong and he regrets the vote and her's why. It's one of the two.

Every politician is not right all the time. If he has changed his views between then and now, he needs to articulate it better than he has. If he was right back in Oct. 2002, he needs to state that and move on.

[dfong63]

40. should not be a consideration

Kerry had warned of the danger from Saddam for many years. He was on record in the late 90's advocating for the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. Short of using his vote to send a purely political message to Bush, how could he maintain his credibility and vote AGAINST the resolution?

when lives are at stake, let alone the future of our nation, how dare any decision-maker think for even one second about something petty like his personal "credibility" ??? any senator who'd put his "credibility" above the national good, is not worthy of the title. and certainly not someone i'd trust with greater power.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

56. If all democrats decided to fck politics and just vote concience

they would all make horrible political mistakes and lose elections and not be there to fight the battles.

We seriously have to stop villianizing our politicians for doing their jobs. I would love as much as the next guy to live in a utopia where politicians didnt worry about getting elected and the electorate voted intelligently and rationally. But we dont. If we want things to change we need to let our politicians play the game and not get on thier backs when they do.

[IndianaGreen]

41. According to Stephen Zunes, it was Kerry's lies about Iraq!

Published on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes
by Stephen Zunes

In a cynical effort to take advantage of Americans’ post-9/11 fears, Kerry went on to claim that “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.”

Despite repeated calls to his Senate office, no one on Kerry’s staff has been able to answer my questions as to what happened to all these alleged Iraqi weapons and delivery systems that supposedly threatened our national security.

In the months prior to the U.S. invasion, rather than challenging the lies of the Bush Administration, Senator Kerry rushed to its defense, claiming that “The President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community.”

The reality, however, was that President Bush’s case was incredibly weak and was repeatedly challenged by leading arms control experts, including current and former UN inspectors.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

48. Well, I haven't seen it before! I don't believe everything I read

or hear...I would have to investigate it further.

[killbotfactory]

47. If Iraq was not an imminent threat...

Then giving Bush the authority to invade whenever he felt like it was innappropriate. Bush didn't need that authority to get Iraq to allow inspectors.

And five months after the vote Kerry supported the war, even though Bush cut short inspections (which were working and had turned up nothing!), and despite the UAV claim being discredited by inspectors, and the niger documents being exposed as forgeries, and no evidence of a nuclear program, and Bush being scared to get a final UN vote, and Powell's lame evidnece (using OBL condemning Saddam as proof tht they were working together, for one instance), Kerry was apparently convinced that an invasion was okay, as he clearly stated during the SC debates, even though he didn't like the way Bush went about it. To me, that is unacceptable.

Kerry screwed up, that's all there is to it. All his attempts at justification for his position just end up infuriating me.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

63. No one will respond to that

It clearly works against the argument that Dean is comparable to Kerry, and the argument that "Kerry voted for war". Like the religious fundamentalist, they will ignore that which contradicts their doctrines.

[TLM]

149. Kerry voted for war, Dean was against it.

Seems to be their positions we not the same, since Kerry clearly felt there was a good reason to let BUsh kill Iraqi civilians and take over iraq, while Dean did not.

Dean said Iraq was a threat to the region, but not an immanent threat, and not a threat to the US.

Kerry seemed to beleive otherwise.

[sangh0]

171. You see what I mean, Pete?

They can't address the issues you raise, so they repeat their slogans

[TLM]

235. I addressed the issue... Dean and Kerry stated simialr positions.

However Kerry voted for a war that was prefaced on the lie that iraq WAS an immanent threat to the US... even after saying he did not think Iraq was an immanent threat to the US.


Dean was consistant, and Kerry was not.

[sangh0]

301. Dean said that "Saddam is a threat"

but then didn't want to do anything about it. Dean has been inconsistent.

[TLM]

316. ""Right now, in my view, Saddam is a threat to nations in the region.

As for not wanting to do anything... he also said clearly that we need to work with the UN and not simply make a unilaterial attack.

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. "


Why are you lying like this...

[killbotfactory]

332. Kerry shouldn't have voted yest to the resolution...

If he did not believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

The claim that he did it only to give Bush the muscle to enforce the UN resolutions is nonsense since the resolution allowed Bush to go to war at any time.

[dudeness]

49. did the Democratic party have a position?

and i do not mean individuals ..i mean the party as a whole..maybe we are an anti-war party..we do not believe in pre-emptive strikes and we will use our huge military and economic force in the interests of world peace and the UN is the vehicle will use..is this a possibility?

[killbotfactory]

51. The "position" was...

Bush is too strong, get Iraq off the table ASAP, and then focus on social programs, don't rock the boat.

Genius, wasn't it?

[jos]

54. The vote was a test. One that Kerry failed

You can rationalize and exceptionalize all you want, but in the end Kerry had a choice. He could vote for or against authorizing what was an illegal and unnecessary war. He voted for it. This was a test of leadership, political courage and commitment to progressive principles. Kerry failed the test. It's that simple.

[blm]

62. Baloney. Where would we be WITHOUT any Dem negotiating

for the better bill? BOMBING SYRIA AND IRAN RIGHT AFTER THEY TOOK BAGHDAD.

Where would Bush's credibility be if no Dem bothered to negotiate the presentation of evidence to the UN? That requirement forced Bush to over reach and his credibility took a major hit.

[jos]

73. Rationalize away

And introduce a parade of horribles all you want. The choice was there. And Kerry chose wrong.

[blm]

75. Then you WANTED Bush to have a REAL blank check.

THAT was the ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

NO negotiations = A REAL blank check.

Only those completely ignorant of the way government works would demand that NO Dem lawmaker negotiate for the better option.

[jos]

79. One can "negotiate" for a "better" option

and still vote against the final product. Speaking of ignorance!

If Kerry was so concerned about including the international community, he could have voted against it on the grounds that the language in the resolution wasn't explicit enough.

Your attempted rationalizations are lame. Either he was in favor of granting congressional "authorization" for war, or he wasn't.

[sangh0]

82. Not true

The way to get the better deal is to promise to vote for the final product. Speaking of ignorance.

[blm]

86. They give their word

and it is supposed to mean something. That's why they are the ones in a position to say that they were lied to. Why do you think Bushies are frantic to make Iran and Syria APPEAR to need invading? Notice that the American people are so far not accepting that characterization.

[jos]

106. Reality check II

You really think John Kerry voting for the resolution would stop the Bush junta from invading Iran or Syria? Please!

[sangh0]

125. Reality check

The resolution DID stop an invasion of Iran AND (not or) Syria.

[jos]

147. How naive

You just don't understand the true nature of this administration if you think a piece of paper would stop them from doing what they want.

[sangh0]

172. How foolish

You admit that a No vote on the resolution wouldn't have stopped anything, and yet you insist the vote was important.

[jos]

244. Obviously

if there are more yes than no votes, it won't "stop" it. But it doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote no. If that were that case, you'd have unanimous votes on most proposals.

[sangh0]

246. So what?

But it doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote no.

It also doesn't follow that you shouldn't vote yes.

[jos]

107. Reality check I

So the Bush junta just melted because John Kerry said he would vote for the resolution? Ah, I don't think so.

[sangh0]

126. Reality Check II

The Bush* junta's plan to invade Iran and Syria was stopped by the resolution, which originally included approval for Bush* to invade ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS. If Dems like Kerry and Daschle hadn't been willing to compromise and vote for a resolution, then the original resolution, the one that included approval for Bush* to invade ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS, would've been passed by the Republican majority, resulting in our soldiers being killed in several Arab nations, and not just one.

[blm]

83. Black and white works on stupid Limbaugh listeners.

YOU want to make it black and white. That kind of thinking is what KILLS real progressivism.

[jos]

101. Sometimes there's no middle ground

In the end, it was an either/or proposition. Is that not the truth?

[sangh0]

129. No, that is not the truth

There is always a third option.

[blm]

289. You believe in dereliction of duty.

I do not.

[TLM]

138. This was a time to stand up and say NO!

And Kerry folded and voted for war to cover his own ass.

Kerry voted for war in Iraq. He voted to turn over congress' authority to Bush.

There is no excuse. There is no rationalization.


Are you actually trying to defend his actions by saying that Kerry voted to only let bush kill Iraqi civilians and take over Iraq?

That's like saying that if I want to kill your whole family, and some cop bargains me down to just killing your mother by offering to let me use his gun to do it, that the cop's actions were responsible and honorable.

[blm]

200. Iran and Syria would have thanked you

for your understanding and concern.

The dissolved UN would have thanked you as well.

[TLM]

236. Oh now that's just pathetic....

So the UN would have been dissolved if Kerry stood up and voted NO on this war?

LOL! Now you're just desperate BLM.

[blm]

294. So, you've forgotten the

full court press the rightwing was playing against the UN and its "relevance" at the time?

Sorry to hear you're having memory problems. To refresh...the right has been working to dissolve the UN for over a decade. Every move they were making during the Iraq talk was meant to undermine the UN.

Remember all those polls on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox asking if the UN has lost its relevance? Do you think those polls were written in a vacuum with no intent of purpose?

[K-W]

65. Actually it was none of those things

it wasnt even a vote for war. You people who are demonizing him for this vote are the ones who are failing progressive principles. You are furthering the republican control of this country with simplistic black and white views, unfair judgements based on hindsight, and a complete inability to recognize that to work towards our ideals we have to work with the system and our fellow Americans. But I suppose some people relish the opportunity to sit with thier pure ideals and pass judgement on people who actually have done something to make this country more progressive.

[helleborient]

68. We're raising questions...

And many of us haven't heard satisfactory answers...or good campaigning answers either...

I completely agree with Will, that if Kerry's point of view is genuinely that he was fooled...he should be saying he was lied to...who wants a President that can be fooled so easily?

And it seems to me if it wasn't a vote to go to war...Kerry should have been front and center screaming when we actually went to war...I didn't vote for this! This war is wrong!!

Did he?

[K-W]

133. Once again

Kerry's job is not to be an outspoken progressive voice. There is a reason Dennis Kucinich is a long shot. While there is a strong progressive faction in the party, an extreme left winger is not going to win the general election. Not only that but an extreme left winger can not win many other national elections.

The party needs people like kucinich and the progressive caucus. The fact that he is in this race is excellent, but as extreme liberals we have to recognize that in order to advance our ideas we have to work with the rest of the country. We also need people like Kerry who dont go out screaming about things. Who the non progressives in this country can relate to.

Even now after its been clearly shown that this war was a complete farce, how many people still think we did the right thing? An aweful lot. We need democrats who are good politicians. Who compromise and act in moderation. If every democratic politician was an extreme leftist, we would have no party. Kerry is a politician. He is a liberal, but he is a smart and experienced politician. We need smart and experienced politician who can hold offices and win presidencies. Every single one of the current contenders took the same route pre-war, even dean. It was really the only viable political stance to take.

We have to face the facts that calling Bush a liar is going to put people off our candidate. We have to let our guys be free to be politicians. The country is currently entirely conservatively controlled. Right now we need to win elections. Lets get democrats in office, then we can work in the party to push more progressiveness. The only way we can work to improve this country is by working with the system, not cursing the system and abandoning democrats because they work in it.

Kerry's personal feelings are not an issue. It doesnt matter if he thought Bush was lying. He has to make decisions based on waht is going to result in the best outcome for himself, his constituancy, and the democratic party. I think he did and continued to make the right decision. He is now in a great position to pounce on Bush. He has positioned himself on the war issue exactly with the voters we need to get to win this election. The people who trusted our president, bought into the propaganda, supported the war, but now are slowly coming around. These people will not relate to someone who is screaming about lies and a wrong war. They will relate to someone who can say "I, like you trusted our president, but like you I now know that I was mislead" Thats who swing voters are going to vote for.

The strong anti-war people need to realize that moral indignation isnt going to accomplish anything. Lets put the man who is most likely to win the general election in office, and make this country a whole lot better.

[TLM]

141. Voting against the war was not a far left position...

"Kerry's personal feelings are not an issue. It doesnt matter if he thought Bush was lying. He has to make decisions based on waht is going to result in the best outcome for himself, his constituancy, and the democratic party."


And what about his obligation to the dead solders and dead civilians that he helped to kill?

[K-W]

146. He didnt help kill anyone

and last time I checked there was not a single dead soldier when he cast this vote.

I dont know how this rumor started but let me set the record straight. JOHN KERRY IS NOT A PSYCHIC AND CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE.

I hope that clears things up for you. But im sure youd rather just use 20/20 hindsight to irrationally and unfairly judge his actions.

And being extremely against the war was an extreme position. A large majority of this country was not ardently anti-war. And the resolution he voted for called for what most americans wanted.

[TLM]

237. It doesn't take a psychic to know war will kill people...

If Kerry did not know his vote for war would result in the deaths of US solders and Iraqi people, he is too damn stupid to serve as janitor in the capital building, let alone any elected office.

It is amazing the lengths his supporters will go to in order to defend this war monger.

[TLM]

140. How did the murder of Iraqis ...

and the take over of IRaq make this nation more progressive?


You want to excuse a man who voted for war, who helped his frat borther take over another nation.

Yours is the mentaility that will not hold men like Kerry responsable for their actions... and that is what helps republicans.

[jos]

152. "Hindsight"?

Bullshit. Those that opposed this unnecessary war made the same points before the war that they are making now. No "hindsight" was involved.

[K-W]

159. Wrong

You may have been 100% sure before the war that saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, that he had no ties to al queda, and that after the war things would get messy and americans would start to question the war.

John Kerry had to make a decisions based on the information he had and the situation at the time. At the time he had every reason to think there was a good chance wed find weapons in Iraq. At the time there seemed a reasonable chance that this war would be popular. At the time most americans thought saddam had weapons.

[jos]

165. Even if he did have weapons,

there was no reason for the war. The inspection process was continuing, and there was no credible evidence that any such weapons posed a threat to the U.S.

Are you supposed to send people to die in a war on a hunch?

[K-W]

173. Kerry didnt send them over

Bush did. I was anti-war as well. But I recognize that the war was going to happen whether the democrats voted for it or not. If kerry could have stopped the war by voting no, I would be screaming louder than any of you. But he couldnt have, he did the best thing he could in the situation, he compromised a little and maneuvered himself into a good position to defend his seat and now to battle Bush for control of this country. He did the best thing for us.

[helleborient]

55. What I don't get is...

Why did Kerry vote AGAINST the first Gulf War and then vote with Bush this time?

It seems to me if he believed Saddam Hussein was a real danger (part of his reasoning for the most recent vote)...wouldn't he have voted for the first Gulf War?

This is where I sense political expediency rather than "I was fooled." It sounds to me like he was calculating both times...the first time seeking hardcore liberal support in Mass. (so voting against the war was a safe political bet)...and the second time seeking national support (so voting in favor of Bush was a safer bet)

Do I have this all wrong?

[jos]

57. Another way to look at it

The first vote was out of principle. The second out of political expediency.

[blm]

66. It's wrong.

The reason he voted against the first war is not because he didn't think Saddam should be brought down, but, because Bush1 did not make the case to the American people.

[helleborient]

67. and Bush 2 did???

I'm still lost...

[blm]

118. Pre 9-11 dynamic vs post 9-11 dynamic.

The American people were more willing to give Bush2 the benefit of the doubt.

[jos]

74. Absurd

I echo posts 67 and 69. No case was made when a sovereign country was invaded. But a case was made on disputed and, as it turns out, falsified intelligence.

Give me a break!

[KoKo]

69. helleborient, this is the major reason I have trouble with Kerry......

exactly. Votes No on first Gulf War where there was enough reason at the time to believe Saddam had invaded Kuwait (now there is evidence that maybe even that war was based on false info.) but votes no for that on and then votes yes for this one when even we here thought the information was "sexed up" or false. And, Robert Byrd day after day on the Senate floor was tell ing them.........He didn't listen. And, if Graham had problems with the intelligence leading up to "Invasion" why didn't Kerry?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[helleborient]

95. Then we do disagree with him...and thanks for clearing that up

If he truly voted his conscience both times...I think I disagreed with him twice on very important issues...and a lot of us here did as well.

It sounds like Kerry is trying to excuse the second vote in his campaign.

I will give him points for having the guts to do it if he stands up and says voting with Bush was a vote of conscience, but I will vehemently disagree with his decision.

[helleborient]

64. More from Kerry's speech

Prompted by your post, I went back to read more closely Kerry's speech from last October...and was particularly interested in this section:

"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. "



I disagree with John Kerry's decision that speaking with "one voice" was more important than continuing to oppose a Bush administration about which he admittedly had grave concerns.

I disagree that he was "the first to speak out" when the Bush administration failed much of what Kerry said they should be held to...even his final part about acting with allies at our side...are Australia, the UK, and Spain good enough as allies for John Kerry? I disagree.

For me, a close reading of his statement even more firmly puts me in Howard Dean's camp.

[KoKo]

72. Yes, reading this again, how can one argue that Kerry himself has not been

the first to speak out about what's now gone wrong in Iraq. And, speaking with "one voice" made us Dems and those who didn't vote with him look like they were "traitors to their party." Byrd was a "traitor" to his party because he raised questions and tried to amend the vote......Levin was a "traitor" because he tried to amend the resolution prior to the vote......the party didn't speak with one voice but,Kerry's vote yes made it look like he wanted that one voice for himself as a road to the Presidency.

Some of us cannot accept his reasoning. And, so it's our consciences that have made us seek a candidate who will address what we felt when we were being called traitors as we held our signs in protest against this "Invasion."

[blm]

78. Then GO AHEAD, let Bush have a REAL Blank check.

Go on record and state that YOU would prefer NO Democrat negotiate for any option.

State that you prefer Bush not include the UN at all. And that Bush NOT be prevented from invading Iran and Syria, too.

Go ahead. Because THAT was the reality faced by those lawmakers stuck doing the negotiating with the White House.

[CWebster]

70. Excuses, excuses, excuses

.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

108. Okay

1). The evidence was to the contrary and he chose to ignore it. Not wise.
2). He trusted the president and the president "fooled him". Not wise.
3). Except Dean said the case wasn't made and wouldn't endorse the vote. It doesn't matter what kerry said, it is what he did.


What more do you want?

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

128. Geez Pete

1).The "evidence" was a load of manure, remember? Bush wanted his 911 fifteen minutes extended and there were agendas that coincided--It was Kerry's responsibility to make a reality check and do the job he was elected to do instead of letting the old man, Byrd plea out there alone. In addition, and I don't know how many times I've repeated this, Kerry was given the opportunity to redeem himself and sign on the Kennedy-Byrd second resolution- when it was UNDENIABLE that it was all going wrong and Bush stayed on right on his intended schedule. Kerry refused.

2). Who didn't know the president was a bungler?

3). Whoopieedo, he warned the president not to abuse his authority.

LOL. That's pathetic, Pete. And no, I don't want some aging war hero harking back to his glory days and dreaming of heroic battles for a rise to be Commander.

No thanks.

[sangh0]

132. Geez, webbie

1) Dean believed the evidence. See the Dean quotes in the initial post.

2) Dean didn't. Dean said he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

3) Dean didn't even do that

[TLM]

158. What a load of desperate crap...

"1) Dean believed the evidence. See the Dean quotes in the initial post."

You mean the quote where he says that Saddam is not an immanent threat to the US as W was saying?


"2) Dean didn't. Dean said he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"


"By now, we all know that President Bush misled the American people on the rationale for war with Iraq. We now know that the Niger uranium claim was discredited, that evidence regarding aluminum tubes was highly questionable, and that the link to al Qaeda was virtually non-existent. "

[sangh0]

174. Dean said Saddam is a threat

Bush said he gives Bush* "the benefit of the doubt" The only thing your quotes prove is that Dean is all over the map trying to pander and be all things to all people.

Wait until Bush* starts talking about Iran and NK. Then we'll see if you can keep defending Dean

[CWebster]

202. initial reaction

He couldn't exactly come out of the box with a reckless charge, without setting a diplomatic tone. His subsequent comment noted that were the president lying it would indeed be very serious. Of course you took a partial quote out of context and attempted to apply it as conclusive. Deceptive.

[sangh0]

211. Dean and Kerry said the same thing

Kerry came out and said that Bush* "misled" weeks before Dean did.

[CWebster]

232. Sorry

Dean wasn't fooled and neither were we.

The case was never made and Bush should be strung out to dry for it, instead of tip-toeing around it because some of the Dems have found their cynical political calculations coming back to roost.

[sangh0]

245. The Dean lied

If Dean thought Bush* was lying, he never mentioned it to anyone. He concealed what he thought, and that's lying.

[TLM]

271. You are just desperate here to defend Kerry's war support.

Dean was very clear that Bush had not made the case for war. Then when it came out that Bush knew the intel was false, he called bush on having misled the US.

[CWebster]

281. Ho hum

I guess you were just holding that trump card 'til last. As if it means anything. Dean is constantly challenging Bush on every level, loudly, consistantly. How many times has he repeated how each argument used as evidence in Iraq was a crock? But, I must write myself a note to contact the Dean campaign and express how Sangy would surely be one happy camper were the Doctor to actually utter the word "lie".

[sangh0]

302. Is Dean challenging Bush* on Cuba?

On military spending?
On criminal justice?
On Capital Punishment?
On right-wing judges?
School vouchers?
AA?
Gay marriage?
Palestine?

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

238. The fact you have to edit the quote proves it is you who are dishonest

Dean said that saddam was a threat TO THE REGION, NOT TO THE US.


THe fact you have to edit that part out proves you know how weak and dishonest your position defending Kerry's war mongering is.

[sangh0]

248. The fact you have to edit the quote proves it is you who are dishonest

Dean said "Right now....Saddam is a threat"

You left that part out, and that proves you know how weak and dishonest your position defending Dean's pandering is.

[TLM]

269. I left nothing out...

as I said I posted the part of the statement you edited out in the subject line, then I posted the whole quote in the body of the text.

Here is the link that proves you are lying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=239647&mesg_id=242886&page=

[sangh0]

303. You left it out of your subject

I posted the part I wanted, just like you. The full quote is in the first post for anyone who wants to read.

This is much better than editing out the context of the events surrounding Iraq and the resolution and instead focusing on the vote only, as you dishonestly do.

[TLM]

322. I posted the part you edit out...

then I posted the whole quote in the body of the post.

You continue to try and lie and misrepresent DEan;s position by editing out the fact he was talking about saddam being a threat to the region, not the US.

But then, lying is the only way one can defend Kerry voting to support Bush's oil war.

[blm]

185. Then why did Dean assert that he "never doubted the need

to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction" the day that the war started?

[CWebster]

206. if the UN Inspectors( remember them)

had been given the opportunity to complete their....mission....

[blm]

221. Dean: "never doubted the need"

HAHAH. You can't change his carefully worded statement.

[CWebster]

241. LAME

first one must build the case that he has them. Inspectors--REMEMBER?????
You know, the ones Bush claimed Saddam wouldn't allow in and there was NOT A WORD in the media or from the congress about that or when Bush claimed we found the WMDs--the balloon trucks. Not. A. Word.

[TLM]

252. Can you cite that quote?

Given how much you and other Kerry supporters have been editing quotes and lying about what was said, i simply can;t trust you are providing an accurate quote.

I googled "dean" and "never doubted the need to disarm Saddam" and got nothing.

SO please provide a link to this quote.

[blm]

291. It's at his site.

Go to his statement from the day the war started. Plenty of people here posted it at the time.

[TLM]

293. I could not find it on his site....

please cite a link.


I searched the site for "never doubted the need" and found nothing at all. SO where can i find this exact carefully worded quote you are listing?

The closest thing I found was this... which seems to show you are lying about Dean's position.

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. "


"We need... well, I disagree with unilateral war. At this point, I don't think it's justified and I don't think the case has been made. I don't disagree with disarming Saddam. I support that. I think the proper folks to do that are the United Nations, and we should be part of that. "

[blm]

297. Why would Dean remove that statement from his site?

He issued it the night Bush started bombing.

[TLM]

324. Then cite it... I do not think anything was removed....

I doubt he said what you claim. You bashers have been lying your asses off about things Dean said, edit quotes, and outright lying.

So I want to see a link.

I can't find that quote on Dean's site or google.

If he said it and people quoted it all over as you claim, then where did it go?

Cite the quote. I think you are misquoting him and that's why it is not showing up in a term serch.

[blm]

345. Name ONE lie

I have made about Dean.

[TLM]

350. Sure... right after you cite a link to the quote you claimed Dean said

still waiting.

[blm]

351. Where is Dean's statement from that day?

Why is it removed?

I believe it was March 17, wasn't it? This is from Dean's own page of released statements articles. Nothing from March 10 to April 9?????
..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

[TLM]

355. Oh I see, so make up a quote... then when you can't cite it

just claim that it was removed.


If Dean said that, the quote qould not be limited to his site.

So WHERE IS IT?

[TLM]

356. I did you work for you BLM, and as usual you were wrong.

Dean did not say what you claimed and your quote was wrong.

Here is Dean's statement.

Once again we see that bashers have to twist quotes and lie about context. Dean clearly says that he favors the UN disarming Saddam and that Bush's actions were wrong.

_____________________________________________________________
By Gov. Dean from deanforamerica.org March 17, 2003

Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. 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.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

Sincerely, Governor Howard Dean M.D.
________________________________________________________________

[blm]

360. My paraphrase made the same point, TLM

"have never been in doubt....the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

Why does that mean something different to you?

Why did the campaign take almost a month of statements and articles from that period off their site?

[TLM]

366. NO, it did not... you still have to cut the quote appart.

""have never been in doubt....the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

FOLLOWED BY... "Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war"

You tried to make is sound like Dean was supporting Bush's claims of the threat Saddam posed and supporting the war... after Dean clearly said Bush had not made the case for war, and in the part of his statement you edited out for effect, in fact had supported disarming saddam through the UN without war.

Not only did you lie about the quote, you turned around and made a point of saying how Dean carefuly choose that phrasing, when the fact is you had edited it.

And now you're lying again about this...

"Why did the campaign take almost a month of statements and articles from that period off their site?"


Here is the link to the correct statement on Dean's site. When you search for a quote that is not edited, it is easy to find.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363

[blm]

369. I didn't edit it...

I shortened it. The whole sentence was available, I connected it for the major point, but the meaning did NOT change.

This is from the archives, eh? Why isn't it with his other statements and articles? Why does Dean's page look like this:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

[blm]

357. "never been in doubt..."

I was close on the quote from the top of my head, but, then shouldn't a knowledgeable Dean supporter like you have known it by heart?

You might ask yourself why Dean's campaign thought it important to remove almost a month of statements and articles from that time.

btw....I really had to dig to find it on a gay political site.

http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/March%202003/Statement%20by%20Gov.%20Howard%20Dean%20on%20the%20President's%20decision.htm

Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. 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.

[TLM]

359. And you still cut out the part about the UN disarming Iraq without war...

"I was close on the quote from the top of my head"

No you were not. You were way off, and acting as if the quote was saying that the war was justified, which is did not.

And even above you purposfully cut out the second paragraph where dean points out that he is supporting the UN disarming Saddam without war... as well as ignoring the parts about the abuse of international law and the mistreatment of alliesm.


______________________________________________________________
Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. 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.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."
_______________________________________________________________


Let me know when you can defend Kerry's war support without lying about Howard Dean.

[blm]

361. I did NOT.

I said that he stated that he never doubted the need to remove the weapons of mass destruction.

You are trying to change the point to fit YOUR point and cover for your own ignorance. Hell...you're supposed to know everything about Dean, and you didn't even remember this statement.

And you have NO answer why the campaign scrubbed almost a MONTH of statements and articles from his site.

[TLM]

365. Why do you continue to lie BLM nothing is scrubed from the site.

"I said that he stated that he never doubted the need to remove the weapons of mass destruction."


No, what you said was "Then why did Dean assert that he "never doubted the need to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction" the day that the war started?" In response to someone pointing out that bush's evidence was junk.

You cut the quote apart, removed half the sentence, and ignored the whole part about the UN, to present the quote as if Dean was agreeing with Bush's claims about WMD and supporting the war.

When what Dean was saying is that the UN needed to be in there to disarm saddam, INSTEAD of going to war.





"You are trying to change the point to fit YOUR point and cover for your own ignorance."

No, I'm calling you out for once again misrepresenting the truth to try and spin a Dean quote as sayign something it did not say.



"Hell...you're supposed to know everything about Dean, and you didn't even remember this statement."


Because what you quoted, was not what he said. Can't find a quote in a quote search when the quote is wrong.


"And you have NO answer why the campaign scrubbed almost a MONTH of statements and articles from his site."


As a matter of fact I do have an answer... YOU'RE LYING. And here's proof. Here is the link to that statement on Dean's site... the one you claim was scrubed.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363



Why are you lying like this?

[blm]

368. It wasn't with the others and you know it.

I copied it exactly the way it was on the page. The statements go from March 10 to April 9.

Did they archive it so it wasn't easily accessed? Why?

And my paraphrase was the same meaning as Dean's exact words. No matter how you spin it. Dean said he was never in doubt about the need to disarm Saddam.

[sangh0]

130. Dean did the same as #1 & #2

and wrt #3, Dean did nothing. He sat out the vote.

[TLM]

155. To sit out a vote... like Kerry say out the PBA ban vote...

you first must be able to vote in the first place.


Dean was not in congress to vote, but he was clear about his objection to the vote from the get go.

[sangh0]

176. Dean sat out the vote

I'm glad you admit that.

[TLM]

274. One more time... you can not sit out a vote...

when you are not a member of the voting body.

[sangh0]

305. Dean sat out the vote

and pandered

[TLM]

329. To sit out a vote, one must be a member of the voting body.

Since DEan is not in congress, he can not sit out a congressional vote.


You are again lying because you have no substantive argument to defend Kerry's war support.

[sangh0]

342. Dean sat out the vote

and pandered

[TLM]

352. So you're going to just repeat the same crap...

and ignore the fact that what you claim is a bold faced lie?

[blm]

204. Biden-Lugar. Dean supported a variation of the resolution.

Dean is a hawk. He sure won't mind supporting Sharon if Sharon wants Iran and Syria invaded.

[TLM]

276. Glad to see you stopped witht he "slight difference" crap.

However what Dean supported was UN backed action prefaced on there being an immanent threat.

[BurtWorm]

77. Kerry and others who voted yes wrote Bush a blank check.

2. His current explanation of the vote is not "I was fooled". It's "I voted to give the president backbone to give Saddam an ultimatum and to use the U.N. as a vehicle to disarm the Iraqi regime, but the president bungled the diplomacy." (My paraphrase)


Kerry had to have known--because most of us at DU knew--that the Military Force Authorization was essentially a blank check from the Congress to the White House to wage whatever war in whatever way it wanted. True, there is a section mentioning "support" for the "pres"'s diplomatic actions, but the authorization essentially says, do what you will, Bush. We wash our hands of it. How could Kerry not see that that was what he was voting for. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the legislation:

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001152.html


Here is the text of H. J. RES. 114 JOINT RESOLUTION passed by the House October 10:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) 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 regarding Iraq .

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 thereafter 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 joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist 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 joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- 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 3 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 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- 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 the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (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 such resolution.
Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Source: Thomas, Federal Legislation Server.

[jos]

80. Kerry knew full well what he was doing

At least his supporters should be honest about that.

People at DU and elsewhere (Bob Byrd), were screaming that Bush was fabricating the evidence, and there was not sufficient reason to go to war.

[blm]

81. A REAL blank check = invasion of Iraq, Syria and Iran

A REAL blank check would have meant NO presentation of evidence to the UN which forced Bush to overreach and made a huge dent in his credibility as president.

If that is what you prefer, than be honest about it.

[helleborient]

85. Real peace heroism would have been...

Following the lead of Sens. Byrd and Levin

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[helleborient]

100. When people choose heros..they choose them for reasons they admire.

Warriors are not heros to me.

Those who wage peace are.

Kerry fought in a war he didn't have to...he was not drafted, he enlisted.

He opposed a war when a sovereign nation was invaded.

He supported a war against a sovereign nation with no proof of threat against us.

Why do I have to say someone who willingly picks up a gun to kill other people is a hero?

[blm]

120. Suit yourself.

That's your intent.

[TLM]

167. BLM if you support the murder of civilians and the take over

of another nation to steal their oil resources... why not just say so?


THat's what Kerry voted for. Kerry voted to give massive power to his frat brother who he knew would abuse that power.

[blm]

188. TLM, YOU wanted Syria and Iran invaded, too.

And you wanted the UN to be skipped altogether...just like Bush did.

Same premise.

[sangh0]

192. TLM also think Iraqi children are more important than

Cuban children.

[TLM]

255. Huh? WHat is the last time we bombed the shit out of Cuba?

[sangh0]

306. Dean supports the Cuban embargo

which kills children just as surely as the Iraqi sanctions killed Iraqi children. But you won't complain about the Cuban children because Dr Weenie is OK with that.

[TLM]

327. And Kerry is against he Cuban embargo?

you're trying to change the subject because you can;t defend Kerry.

[sangh0]

328. Dean supports the Cuban embargo

which kills Cuban children, but you'll keep quiet to protect your favorites career.

[TLM]

337. DOes Kerry oppose the embargo?

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

[TLM]

257. No I wanted no war, in Iraq period.

Because there was no proof they were an immanent threat to the US.


However you seemed to be OK with going to war with Iraq despite that fact, simply because it made bush look bad.

[BurtWorm]

88. So Kerry voted for the military authorization act to trap Bush?

Look at the resolution, blm. It says "support for diplomatic efforts." But we all know that Bush quit with the diplomacy after his first visit to the UN in September. Is Bush therefore in violation of the Act that Kerry voted for? If so, can he be impeached for violating the act?

Full disclosure: Kerry is my second choice for pres. Even though I have problems with his behavior around this, I voted for Kerry in his first run for Senate, and I admire enough about him to let this act of cowardice or calculation slide.

[blm]

121. NO...to get a BETTER bill than Bush wanted!

Obviously YOU prefer Bush have a real blank check and opposed ANY Dem seeking to temper that bill.

[BurtWorm]

124. No, I prefer Dems voting on the basic principle

that Bush, being illegitimately selected, ought not be given any powers beyond what come with the office he stole. Of course I don't expect them to say this out loud, but it ought to be on the forefront of their minds, that you have to be careful with the powers you authorize for an illegitimate "president." Didn't the Dems have enough information in October 2002 to know the Bushists were following their own private agenda in Iraq? I think they did. Most of the world was clued into that.

[blm]

195. That's why it was important to curtail that power.

Bush had the votes already for HIS way, or are you forgetting Zell Miller, Lieberman and other centrist Dems?

Some Dems HAD to negotiate for better. Those were the ONLY two alternatives for those doing the negotiating.

If you didn't want the better bill, then why didn't you DEMAND the Dems not negotiate at all, and just let Bush have his invasion 100% the way he wanted? I'm sure you would have felt better about the results.

[BurtWorm]

219. Was the resolution a greenlight or not?

Should your Senators have voted to give the greenlight or not? Or should they have obstructed the Bushists using all means at their disposal?

[sangh0]

250. Not a green light

Please try to rely less on slogans and empty rhetoric. IMO, you'd make better points if you describe what happened accurately, and not rely on euphemisms like "green light"

[BurtWorm]

280. What was it, then, Sangha? Just gas? Just empty posturing?

[sangh0]

309. Political PR.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

[BurtWorm]

310. A lot of good it did Kerry, then!

[sangh0]

319. You mean

"President-elect Kerry"

[blm]

315. The resolution was a guideline.

Biden-Lugar was a variation on that guideline. Yet, somehow everyone manages to ignore that Dean was FOR that variation of the resolution.

[TLM]

180. So again we see that Kerry's idea of compromise...

is to only let W murder the civilians of one nation at a time.

[TLM]

164. More excuses for Kerry's war mongering.... backing Bush

"A REAL blank check would have meant NO presentation of evidence to the UN which forced Bush to overreach and made a huge dent in his credibility as president."

So the death of 10,000 civilians and hundreds of US soldiers and the destruction of our nation's reputation around the world is all worth it because it made W look bad.

Nice.

He should have voted NO, and he should have stood up with Byrd and called Bush out on his lies. But Kerry wasn;t interested in doing what was right... he was interested in doing what was best for his political career.

[K-W]

168. What is best for Kerry's political career

is waht is best for us. You would rather bush win that the democratic party do what it takes to get elected. You would rather live in a country entirely controlled by republicans but where the democrats never thought about politics or tailored thier actions and words to anyone other than you.

You are arguing for the status quo, for an america where liberals hand the country over to people who are destroying it.

[TLM]

184. Bullshit... if dems vote for Bush agenda...

then the republicans have already won. What good is Kerry if he is going along with W war?

"You are arguing for the status quo, for an america where liberals hand the country over to people who are destroying it."

Handing the country over to those who are destroying it, is EXACTLY what Kerry did.

[K-W]

191. What good is kerry?

He is a strong candidate for the presidency. He will keep his seat in congress.

That is the good he is and that is as good as we can ask.

Kerry didnt hand over the country to anyone. They already had the country. What on earth are you talking about? Did you miss the 2000 election?

Republicans controlled the house, the senate, the white house and the supreme court. Kerry did what he should have done, put himself in the best position to fight to get power back for the democrats.

Its a good thing people like him are around to get political power for people like you, too bad you curse him for it.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

92. So is Bush in violation of the Act?

[helleborient]

103. And where was his vocal opposition he claims in his speech?!

He claims in his speech explaining his vote that he will be the first to oppose Bush if he does not follow the resolution.

No standing up in opposition seems to imply to me that Bush followed what Kerry was voting for...going to war...

If he had vocally spoken against it when so many of us were protesting in the streets, I would probably feel differently. It looks like tacit approval or calculated political expediency to me.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

89. Kerry voted FOR the War resolution!!!

.

[sangh0]

93. Gasp!

You don't say. Thanks for informing us. I'm sure none of us knew that

[robbedvoter]

96. From the memory hole (another "irresponsible article"):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4

Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
Kennedy's would require new votes in
Congress before doing so.

But the chance of approval for either
measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
congressional leaders.

The bills aren't supported by any of the
four Democratic members of Congress running for
president: Sens. John Kerry of
Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
Connecticut and John Edwards of North
Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
voting record) of Missouri.

"We authorized the president as commander in
chief to take action," Lieberman said. "These
decisions ultimately can't be made by 535
members" of Congress.

At a news conference Thursday, Byrd and
Kennedy conceded that most senators don't
support their proposals, but said they hope
that will change as debate continues.

"We're not in a minority out there where the
people are," Byrd said.


--

[BurtWorm]

97. Thank you!

[jos]

98. Thank you

Reality bites. No revisionist history here.

[Terwilliger]

102. "Yeah...ok Bob...

be a nice old Senator and head back to your seat...we have a fascist twit to give our support to"

[KoKo]

111. Thank you for posting this! DU'ers who followed all of this remember

but other's who couldn't may not realize all that went on during the Iraq Resolution debates.

Those of us who could followed the debates on C-Span every day and heard most of the speeches and followed the amendments........

Those of us who posted on "running threads" giving the "blow by blow" of the debates probably are now Dean/Kucinich supporters because of our experience. If they had found WMD in IRAQ and we weren't loosing troops every day then we probably would be more open to Kerry or Edwards. I certainly was before I watched those debates.

As it stands now we who made up our minds based on information and watching the Debates, really want a candidate who did not support this "Invasion" and Bush and the weak kneed Dems who gave him total support for devastating a country. FGS our own country is devasted by Bush.....he didn't need help from our party but some gave it to him.

That's why some of us gave up on Kerry/Edwards. It was their stand on the "Resolution."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Hung on his own words.

“Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq FAILS THE TEST. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is NOT IMMINENT. NONE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE REPORTS suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region…The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime.” (emphasis mine)

If, by his own words, he admits that Iraq wasn't an IMMINENT threat based on intelligence, then why did he vote for an invasion that he admits was NOT justified?

In fact he admits that he voted for the invasion knowing that it was unjustified.

"I voted to give the president backbone to give Saddam an ultimatum and to use the U.N. as a vehicle to disarm the Iraqi regime, but the president bungled the diplomacy."

Backbone? Ulitmatum? BushCorp was telling the world that he would bypass the UN if they didn't go along with the aggression. Kuwait was bulging with American troops. Warships were filling up the surrounding sea. The "no fly zone" planes were shooting up the countryside and generals were all over the TV telling how the invasion was going to be done.

Bush didn't "bungle" the diplomacy. The UN refused to cave in. Apparently, Kerry wished they had rubber stamped the invasion, thus justifying his vote.

23 other senators sent a "purely political message" opposing the slaughter. What other kind of message was there to send? Kerry and the other 3 sent a "purely political message" backing the fratboy warrior's invasion.

Maintained his credibility? Your citing of his own words disproves that.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

119. PeteNYC, would you have voted for the resolution?

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

134. I'm critical of Kerry on this one vote. But I don't view him as evil.

And I will vote for him and support him if he wins the nomination, which I would not see as being a bad thing. But I'm supporting Dean now.

On this vote, I believe Kerry had the opportunity to just say no to an illegitimate "president." I'm deeply disappointed that he didn't. Not quite as disappointed in Kerry as I am in Clinton, however. But I'd support Hillary, too, if by some miracle she were nominated in 2004.

[sangh0]

135. I would have voted for it.

Voting against it, contrary to most people's opinion, would have done nothing to stop the invasion, and would have cut off the possibility of Bush*'s needing to go to the UN. Voting for it resulted in limiting the invasion to Iraq and pushed Bush* into the UN where Powell lied, which might end up leading to Bush*'s impeachment, and has definitely led to a drop in Bush*'s perceived credibility.

Voting against would have accomplished NOTHING. I have yet to hear any DUer explain how a No vote would have helped anything or anyone.

[BurtWorm]

137. Imagine if in 2004, voters saw a stark line drawn between

the Iraq mess party and the anti-Iraq mess party.

[sangh0]

148. Imagine that?

I can imagine all sorts of things, and not all of them are as pleasant as that. I'd prefer to hear about your ideas, and arguments. Your dreams, while pleasant, do little to relieve my concerns.

[BurtWorm]

156. Hey, we all imagine. Even you!

Voting against it, contrary to most people's opinion, would have done nothing to stop the invasion, and would have cut off the possibility of Bush*'s needing to go to the UN. Voting for it resulted in limiting the invasion to Iraq and pushed Bush* into the UN where Powell lied, which might end up leading to Bush*'s impeachment, and has definitely led to a drop in Bush*'s perceived credibility.

Voting against would have accomplished NOTHING. I have yet to hear any DUer explain how a No vote would have helped anything or anyone.


Your imagination is just a bit more sour than mine.

[sangh0]

178. Even Dean supporters agree with me

that voting the resolution down would not have stopped Bush* from invading Iraq.

[BurtWorm]

190. So voting against the Civil Rights Act made no difference

because the Civil Rights Act passed anyway?

[sangh0]

193. Breaking news

You can't undo an invasion. You can undo legislation.

[BurtWorm]

215. The question I'm asking is how much a Senator should be held accountable

for his or her votes. Perhaps you agree with me that Kerry should be held accountable for his vote in favor of the resolution, but we disagree on whether or not that was an honorable vote. You may believe in the alleged principles that the Bushists were pushing to drag the country into war. I do not. You may believe that Kerry's vote was in support of principles voiced in the resolution allegedly different from the ones the Bushists made loud and clear they were hawking. But it was clear that the resolution authorized the Bushists to do as they pleased with Iraq. Kerry, in essence, voted to allow an illegitimate regime virtually unchecked power to wage war. That was the subtext of the resolution, and it was a subtext that everyone watching and paying attention understood clear as a bell.

[sangh0]

256. No, that's not the question.

Read the thread again. The question is "What is Kerry's position on the Iraq resolution"

And the resolution, like all resolutions, has no legal standing. It changes nothing, and more importantly, AUTHORIZES nothing. POTUS's AUTHORITY to invade another nation comes from the Constitution which makes POTUS the CINC of the US military.

[BurtWorm]

266. What is the meaning of Sec 3?

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 .

[sangh0]

311. It means

that POTUS is authorized to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines ....blah, blah, blah"

It doesn't give Bush* authority. It notes that he already has that authority, and that Congress supports his using that authority.

[TLM]

358. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces

Kerry signed off on granting W the authority to use the armed forces as he saw fit so congress could avoid having to issue a declaration of war.

[Andy_Stephenson]

346. POTUS has no power to wage war...

Only Congress can declare war. Might want to reread the Constitution.

[sangh0]

347. You are wrong

as demonstrated by your changing "wage war" to "declare war"

You might want to reread the Constitution, which gives Congress no role when it comes to waging war

[K-W]

139. I probably would have voted yes too

It would of course fully depend on my position. If I were elected as a major progressive with a very anti-war constiuency, I would vote no. But if I was a democrat elected by a moderate constiuncy, I would have voted yes. A no vote would accomplish nothing whatsoever. A yes vote would accomplish a little and put me in the best position to defend my seat in the next election.

Voting no, accomplishing nothing, and risking handing my seat to a republican would not in any way help the party or the cause.

[jos]

145. Profile in courage are you?

:eyes: Have you ever heard of taking a stand?

Voting against it would have put one on record as being against the actions that followed. A very important vote.

Are members of Congress supposed to follow the dictates of the "king"? Or are they part of a separate branch of government?

[K-W]

151. Democrats wont be any part of governement

if you have your way. They will all be voted out as extremists and we will become a one party country.

Being put on the record as being against the actions that followed accomplishes nothing for our cause.

[jos]

157. I wouldn't want them to be part of any government

that engaged in this war. A war built on lies, and one that was totally unnecessary. And whose repercussions will be felt, negatively, for years to come.

[K-W]

163. So you dont want to be a part of the US government.

Thats fine and dandy, but why are you on this forum. Why are you voting in any elections, and why havent you expatriated?

Some of us would rather fix the country than to abandon it on moral grounds.

[jos]

169. What are you saying?

That the "US government" is a permanent "war" government? That there's no hope of changing current policies? If you are, I have to ask you why you bother to vote?

[K-W]

177. No, that is what you are saying.

You are saying that you wouldnt want to be a part of any governement that would do that. Well guess what, your government is currently doing that. So you can either leave the country and no longer be a part of this government, or you can make the moves that will most likely effect change.

[jos]

179. No. No

I want to change the goverment. That's why I wouldn't have voted to give support to its policies.

[K-W]

187. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

The best way to change the governement is to get more democrats in congress and a democrat in the white house. The best way to do that is to make smart political moves.

In Kerry's position, the smart political move was to vote yes. QUite simply, if the war went bad for bush, he could take the stand he has taken now, which is politically strong, and if the war went good for bush he wouldnt have destroyed his political carreer.

You have to choose one or the other.

[jos]

253. Two points

What's the point of changing the government if you don't change the policies?

As it turned out, Kerry made a dumb political move that conceivably cost him the nomination. I don't think Dean would be doing as well had Kerry came out against the war resolution.

[sangh0]

153. Shameless, aren't you?

Instead of refuting what I said, you launch a personal attack concerning my courage. How nice.

Voting against it would have put one on record as being against the actions that followed.

So what?

Are members of Congress supposed to follow the dictates of the "king"? Or are they part of a separate branch of government?

Members of Congress are supposed to serve their constituents, which is why I would have voted for the resolution. Voting against it would not have done any good for any individual, and you have yet to offer any evidence or argument that voting against would do any good.

[jos]

161. Unbelievable!

A member of Congress is supposed to represent his or her constituents. If any vote, a vote for war or peace should require a representative to vote his or her conscience. Not to go along with the crowd. Those that went on record against the war are the real heroes because they stood up for what was right, and let the country know that not everyone was buying the Bush line. Voting for an illegal and unnecessary war because "it wouldn't have done any good," or mattered, which is what you're really saying, was a totally craven action.

[sangh0]

182. Wrong

A member of Congress is supposed to represent his or her constituents.

Congresspersons are supposed to SERVE their constituents, not represent them. This is particularly true for the Senate.

If any vote, a vote for war or peace should require a representative to vote his or her conscience.

Now you're contradicting yourself. A politician can't both represent their constituents AND vote their conscience.

[jos]

249. Represent them

by giving their best judgment. Not by being some internet poll. Why do you think they call it the House of Representatives?

[sangh0]

258. That's not "representation", and you know it

That's "service", which is what *I* pointed out is a Senators main job.

Why do you think they call it the House of Representatives?

Umm, Kerry is in the Senate, and the Senate was designed to be a bulwark against popular opinion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

160. 23 senators thought it would accomplish something.

Perhaps just the ability to look themselves in the mirror in the morning.

Did their "no" votes accomplish anything? I think so. It showed the world that there are American politicians who were courageous enough to risk their seats to oppose evil. Most of those 23, being Democrats, were able to exhibit to the party, that their votes were too valuable to expend for the sake of political expediency. Extrapolating from there, what did France, Russia, and Germany "accomplish" by opposing the invasion? Do you think that they should have approved it because the invasion was inevitable?

If Kerry was concerned about the need to go to the UN, why didn't he support Byrd's amendment? What did he "accomplish" by that?

As for the "possible impeachment", I have yet to hear Kerry calling for it, despite claiming to have been lied to. When do think he will do so?

I would think that what has led to a drop in Bush's credibility has a lot more to do with American casualties and the $1bil+ per week pricetag of "liberating" Iraq, than with Kerry's support of the invasion.

[K-W]

181. If we forced all democrats to act like those 23,

wed only have 23 senators. Guess what friend, we need democrats elected by moderate and even conservative constiuencies. And in presidential races we need a candidate that appeals to moderates.

But Im sure you are right and making bad politica moves is the right way for the democratic party. I'm sure america will get alot better when we start losing seats because we refuse to compromise or play politics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

208. The bogey man will get you.

Funny, one of my senators (Patty Murray) voted against it, and I fully expect she will be reelected in '04. As did my rep.

"compromise or play politics". How very practical. How very easily you dismiss the deaths of thousands in the name of political expediency.

This same tune was sung in the '60s and '70s by some Democrats. "If we don't support our troops in Vietnam we'll lose the moderate vote." Go along to get along.

Our vote is our voice. Our chance to influence our party, our government. You are suggesting that we should be willing to vote for the occupation and repression of a sovereign people, expend their blood, so that "moderate" democrats might be elected.

You say that, "we need democrats elected by moderate and even conservative constiuencies." Who is "we"? The Democratic Party? Why? Is the Democratic Party merely a collection of disparate voices all clamoring for attention? Or, is it supposed to actually stand for something? I would prefer that the Democratic Party stand against the slaughter of innocents however politically expedient it might be in the polls.

You sell your vote very cheaply.

[K-W]

229. Hindsight Hindsight Hindsight Hindsight Hindsight Hindsight

Stop using what we know now to judge decisions made then.

If right now the Iraq war was widely popular would Patty Murray still be looking forward to reelection in '04? If the country right now saw the war as having saved america she would have no shot at all of keeping her seat.

Sell my vote?
... right

You are making one giant mistake. John Kerry is not pro war. If we elect him he wont make more war. That is the gaping hole in your argument. your argument only works if John Kerry is actually pro war.

Voting for John Kerry is not voting for more war or more deaths. And if John Kerry is running agaisnt bush, voting for Kerry is voting for less war and less deaths.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

247. What we know now.

What we know now is that the "war" is going sour. Patty Murray voted against the "war" because it was wrong. She, and a lot of other people knew then, that it was wrong. The evidence was there, at the time. It is not "hindsight". Millions of people in this country and worldwide knew that it was wrong and protested agains it - at that time.

"John Kerry is not pro war"

Then why the hell did he vote FOR it?

Why should I vote for someone who backed the invasion when there are candidates available who were against it?

Oh yeah, I forgot. It was in the name of "pragmatic" politics and compromise. Kerry himself said that there wasn't enough justification for the invasion. But, being a pragmatic politician who saw the need of gaining "moderate" votes, he voted for the slaughter anyway. Tell that to the families of the Iraqi civilians who were massacred. "Sorry, but we had to get the votes of moderates and conservatives so we voted to have your family killed."

[jos]

284. Foresight, foresight, foresight

That's what Kerry, and others, were lacking in that vote.

[Andy_Stephenson]

348. No but voting for Kerry is a validation of his

war vote. Something I hope to god I don't have to do.

[sangh0]

183. So what did it accomplish?

It showed the world that there are American politicians who were courageous enough to risk their seats to oppose evil.

I'm not interested in dog and pony shows. I'm interested in making a difference. Voting No would not have made any difference. Voting Yes resulted in limiting the invasion, and led Bush* to lie to the UN, for which he may someday be impeached.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

224. Dog and pony show.

"Voting Yes resulted in limiting the invasion, and led Bush* to lie to the UN, for which he may someday be impeached."

Limiting the invasion? What limits? In case you haven't noticed the invasion was made, Iraq is now occupied and governed by the US.

Impeached? Who is calling for his impeachment? Kerry? Lieberman? Gephardt? Edwards? When is it to occur?

How did voting "yes" make a difference. Bush went ahead without UN approval. The invasion took place, thousands died, Iraq is occupied and subjugated by military force. Bush can proudly claim that the crime was authorized by congress.

Dog and Pony show? You equate opposing the slaughter of thousands with a mere show? Those senators and representatives risked their seats in opposing the invasion in the face of the polls that showed that the public supported it. What had they to gain by their oppostion?

Your ability to overlook the consequences of that vote is astounding.

[sangh0]

261. re:Limits

The original resolution that Bush* proposed had language approving invasions of ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS. The one that was voted on limited the action to Iraq.

Impeached? Who is calling for his impeachment? Kerry? Lieberman? Gephardt? Edwards? When is it to occur?

Pay attention. I spoke of a potential impeachment.

How did voting "yes" make a difference. Bush went ahead without UN approval. The invasion took place, thousands died, Iraq is occupied and subjugated by military force. Bush can proudly claim that the crime was authorized by congress.

Voting "yes" limited the resolution to Iraq, and not to ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS.

Dog and Pony show? You equate opposing the slaughter of thousands with a mere show?

No, I equate do-no-good-for-anyone symbolic acts of opposition to be a mere show. People who engage in that are only interested in salving their own conscience, and have no concern for the consequences of their actions.

And you still haven't pointed out one benefit to voting "no"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

295. Symbolic acts. That's right.

"The original resolution that Bush* proposed had language approving invasions of ANY AND ALL ARAB NATIONS. The one that was voted on limited the action to Iraq."

And, considering how much attention Bush paid to the UN, I'm sure that we can be comforted that he will abide by the resolution that Kerry voted for. Under what threat? What will Kerry do if the fratboy decides that Syria is next? Hold his breath and turn blue?
The reason that the invasion has been "limited" is that BushWarInc can't even control the mess in Iraq, let alone take on another one.


Well, you seem to being a good job of salving yours. Mine remains in no need of salve over the slaughter in Iraq.

"symbolic acts of opposition" You mean like sitting in at segregated lunch counters in the south? Trowing one's (or, Kerry's case someone else'smedals) over the white house fence? Perhaps all of the hopeless strikes in the early days of the labor movenment? Fulbright's opposition to the war in Vietnam? (It cost him his seat.)
In all of those cases these were "symbolic acts", and the ones making those "synbolic acts" were warned that they were meaningless in the face of overwhelming power and would threaten moderates.

"And you still haven't pointed out one benefit to voting "no".

See above paragraph. By elected officials voting in opposition to the war, they gave credence to that position. Just as Kerry's vote in favor of the war gave credence to bush's reasons for the war.

Salving one's conscience: Well, you seem to being a good job of salving yours by justifying Kerry's vote. Mine remains in no need of salve over the slaughter in Iraq, I opposed it from the beginning of the charade.

[sangh0]

317. Not "symbolic acts". They were "ineffective symbolic acts"

And, considering how much attention Bush paid to the UN, I'm sure that we can be comforted that he will abide by the resolution that Kerry voted for.

Then why be concerned at all with the resolution vote?

"symbolic acts of opposition" You mean like sitting in at segregated lunch counters in the south?

Not at all the same. Those sit-ins were effective, and not merely symbolic.

In all of those cases these were "symbolic acts", and the ones making those "synbolic acts" were warned that they were meaningless in the face of overwhelming power and would threaten moderates.

And all of those people knew that those acts were more than just "symbolic"; they were effective.

See above paragraph. By elected officials voting in opposition to the war, they gave credence to that position. Just as Kerry's vote in favor of the war gave credence to bush's reasons for the war.

It gave "credence" to the war? Really?

Did your opinion change because Kerry voted yes on the resolution?

Mine remains in no need of salve over the slaughter in Iraq, I opposed it from the beginning of the charade.

Like I said, people like care more about your own consciences than doing actual good for the people of Iraq. Your opposition may salve your conscience, but like the No vote on the resolution, you can't explain how it helps the Iraqis; Only how it helps yourself.

[TLM]

189. Here's an idea...

If Kerry had voted no, stood up and did what was right instead of folding for W... he'd be the front runner in this election, and he'd be in a position to boot Bush out with ease.

But because he showed himself to be just another coward republican enabler, he lost a massive ammount of support.

[robbedvoter]

150. I don't even lump Lieberman with Bushco - any Dem is light years above

any GOP-er. (Just as most GOP-ers are light years above BFEE) Morally, intellectually - in every way.
That being said, in the primaries, i cannot posibly support any candidate who supported this abomination . I don't even want to think about the general election via this aspect - I bget stomach pain at the mere thought.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. Would like to point out to you

that Iraq has been invaded. There are now 130,000 US troops in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.

A minimum of 6113 Iraqi civilians have been killed to date, over 20,000 wounded. Not to mention what happened to an ill-armed, practically defenseless Iraqi military, that posed little threat to anyone, steamrollered by the worlds most powerful military.

Sounds like an "invasion" and "slaughter" to me.

However you and Kerry may like to tapdance your way around those facts, his (and the others in the senate and house) vote enabled Bush to "pre-emptively strike" and inflict "collateral damage".

[K-W]

136. You are the only one tapdancing

are you suggesting that John Kerry has a crystal ball? Because you are using facts that were not available to him at the time to critisize his position. If what we know now was known then, I have no doubt he would have voted no. But he didnt have a crystal ball. He had every reason to believe that saddam had weapons, he had every reason to suspect that there were terrorist links. He had to vote then based on what was known then, and the way america felt then. Not what is known now.

You are being so completely and recklessly unfair.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. Crystal ball? No, I'm suggesting that he had eyes and ears.

And the ability to use them. In his own words, he said that there was not justification for the use of force because, even if Iraq had WMD, it didn't pose an imminent threat. The facts were available then, and a hell of lot of us, and 23 other senators, saw them.

"and the way america felt then"

I assume by that, that you mean the majority of the American people according to the polls. The majority of the American people still support the invasion. Does that mean that we should cease opposition because of the way that "america feels"?

Unfair? How so? You said that he "had to vote" in favor of the resolution. Since when? The last I checked senators are allowed to vote yea or nay. How is it "unfair" to point out that Kerry voted for the invasion while others opposed it?

Your pleas that he was either ignorant or responding to the polls does little to improve his stature.

[K-W]

198. You might as well register republican

You seem to desperately want them to win.

"I assume by that, that you mean the majority of the American people according to the polls. The majority of the American people still support the invasion. Does that mean that we should cease opposition because of the way that "america feels"?"

No, what I am saying is that we need to tailor and moderate our message so that people who still support the invasion and people who did supppor the invasion will vote for us. When they vote for us we get power. When we get power we can stop the threat of endless war and push our agenda. Its amazing how this country works isnt it?

God forbid we actually get democrats elected. What an ugly day that would be huh?

"Unfair? How so? You said that he "had to vote" in favor of the resolution. Since when? The last I checked senators are allowed to vote yea or nay. How is it "unfair" to point out that Kerry voted for the invasion while others opposed it? "

It is unfair to point out that there were no WMD or terrorist ties when discussing that vote because tehre was no way in hell to be certain that that was teh case when that vote happened. And most of the country thought that there were WMD's and ties

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

233. So opposing the war means that we want the repubs to win?

"we need to tailor and moderate our message"

Wouldn't be easier to say that we need to lie and become more like republicans?

"It is unfair to point out that there were no WMD or terrorist ties when discussing that vote because tehre was no way in hell to be certain that that was teh case when that vote happened. And most of the country thought that there were WMD's and ties"

I didn't say that. I didn't point out that there were no WMD or terrorist ties. In fact I think that there were both. The question was "was there an imminent threat justifying the use of force?" Even Kerry believed that not to be the case, but voted for the invasion anyway.

I've been voting for Democrats since 1966. So I must not think it a bad idea for them to win. If I had wanted Republicans to win, I would have voted for them.

I didn't vote in favor of Republican policies - Kerry did. So, maybe he should register as a Republican?

[TLM]

194. Bullshit... others knew the intel was false....

and Kerry had the advantage of knowing the Bush family are all criminal liars, since he investigated them.

He did not need a crystal ball... he needed only eyes and ears.


Hell we here on DU knew that this was bullshit. I personaly spoke with Scott Ritter about Iraq and PNAC... are you telling me I have better access to information than Kerry?

[sangh0]

199. Dean didn't know

He said he "Saddam is a threat" and that he gave Bush* "the benefit of the doubt"

are you telling me I have better access to information than Kerry?

And Dean. Don't forget Dean. Dean, like Kerry, thought Saddam had WMD's and thougth "Saddam is a threat"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

251. Dean and Kerry both knew and said so.

Both agreed that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat. Kerry voted to back Bush's invasion anyway.

[sangh0]

264. Be honest

They both said " Saddam is a threat". Neither said that Bush* was lying.

[TLM]

265. you be honest... and post the whole quote...

both said saddam was a threat to the region, not to the US and that he was not an immanent threat.

[sangh0]

331. Be honest. Dean didn't say Bush* was lying

.

[TLM]

338. He did say that Bush misled the american people...

I don;t know if he used the term "lie" but he has said bush was dishonest and misled the people.

[sangh0]

343. Kerry said it first

Dean didn't say it until Kerry showed him how it's done

[TLM]

353. Cite the date that Kerry made that statement...

And if Kerry knew Bush was lying... why'd he vote for the war?

[K-W]

205. Ugh, its like talking to a wall

YOu simply dont get it. He could not be anywhere near 100% certain that there were 0 weapons and 0 al queda ties. Scott Ritter wasnt 100% certain. Yes the Bush administration was lying a ton, yes the intelligence was bad, but anyone claiming that they knew 100% that there would be no weapons found and no terrorist links found was a liar.

Kerry could have gambled on the odds. Voted no hoping that the war went bad, but why in gods name would he do that? Why would he gamble with his political career for absolutely no reason. You and I are better off with John Kerry in officer than out. Why would you want him to gamble with his seat for NO reason?

[sangh0]

216. Not true

Walls make more sense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

254. No reason?

How about integrity? Not a terribly popular word for pragmatists.

[TLM]

278. Standing up against an illegal war and criminal administration

isn't NO REASON.


But I guess you'd rather have a spineless coward more interested in keeping his job that doing what is right.

[blm]

313. If Dean believed the war was illegal

then why didn't he join with Kucinich and others who made legal attempts to stop it?

[TLM]

339. Because Dean's not in congress...

he's not in a position to do what kucinich was. All Dean could do was speak out, and that's what he did.


Funny though you attack Dean for not taking legal action to stop the war... but defend Kerry for VOTING FOR THE WAR!

[blm]

363. Doesn't mean he can't join in a legal suit.

I'm attacking YOUR point that the war was illegal. Did Dean think it was illegal? If he did what did he do to stop it? If he felt so strongly against the war then why did he stay away from EVERY rally?

[jos]

282. Gamble with his seat?

:crazy:

He's got a safe seat in what is perhaps the most liberal state in the country. How would a no vote have hurt him there?

[welshTerrier2]

114. Kerry was tapdancing

Looking only at what Kerry said, and not what he did, those are sure some fine words he uttered ...

too bad he didn't back them up with his vote !!!

the Iraq Resolution, be it legally binding or be it symbolic, should never have been supported by any democrat ... what kind of judgment did Kerry use in voting to put the muscle of the Congress and the american military behind bush's sinister plans ??!! i'd say really bad judgment ... the Iraq Resolution should have been rejected by democrats because it failed to acknowledge that bush had no use for the U.N. and he had no use for further diplomacy ... and it failed to REQUIRE him to respect the wishes of the U.N. as long as there was no "imminent threat" to the U.S. or its allies ... pretty talk in the resolution about recommending diplomacy and working with the U.N. was easily side-stepped by bush and his hawkish cronies ... what a surprise !!! did Kerry honestly believe bush would do otherwise ???

from a previous post i made on this subject:


sadly, we continue to hear from certain democrats that the war was justified ... some make the argument, which has some merit but misses the greater point, that Saddam was evil and we and the Iraqi people are better off without him. it still mystifies me that any democrat could have "gone along" with bush ... implicit in the "authorization" they provided to him, be it legal or symbolic, was that they trusted bush to "do the right thing" ... this should never have happened ...

there is no question about the tragic failure of bush's Iraq strategy ... it was the wrong policy from day one ... it failed to respect the U.N.'s role in international diplomacy and failed to respect the sovereignty of Iraq ... the entire case against Saddam was an ends looking for a means to justify it ... the PNAC'ers pushed this agenda with Clinton ... they achieved it with bush ...

where the real questions remain is why some democrats sunk so low that they believed supporting bush was necessary ... or why they felt that the threat from Saddam was so great as to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation against the wishes of the U.N. ... or what they envisioned would be the future of post-war Iraq ... we're Democrats ... we are not weak on defense ... we don't shy away from protecting our country ... but did the pro-war democrats really believe this invasion would make us safer? did they believe that war was the way to "free" the Iraqi people and provide them with better lives ...

[K-W]

142. Its almost like you want bush to win

so you can continue to be the riteous minority. Its amazing that people who clearly have strong convictions are actually putting themselves in the way of making the country better because they are so caught up in thier ideals.

[robbedvoter]

154. Earth to K-W: these are the primaries - meant to enable us to pick

the BEST candidate. In this contest, your reprimand sounds like: "Why do you hate Amerika so much"?

[K-W]

212. Erm?

What are you talking about?

I am arguing that we need to pick the candidate who is best equiped to win a general election. And not critisize democrats for making moves that help them stay in power and possibly increase their(and our) power.

Please explain how that means any of what you said.

[Dhalgren]

162. Well,

at least you have the correct avatar.

[K-W]

214. Would you care to

try and tell me how I'm wrong?

[Dhalgren]

321. If, in order for Democrats

to "stay" in power, they have to adopt Republican issues and ideas, programs and policies, then some would rightly say they are little better than Repupicans, themselves.

[TLM]

196. How did voting for the war in Iraq make this country better?

How did Kerry bending over for his frat borother make this nation better?

[sangh0]

201. It sent Bush* to the UN, and prevented a wider war

with the entire Arab world.

[welshTerrier2]

217. yes it did ...

it sent Powell to the U.N. with his sack of lies ... it let bush put on his little dog and pony show and then completely ignore the will of the U.N. knowing he had the full support of the american congress backing him up ....

hardly a proud moment for democrats who supported him ...

[TLM]

220. No it didn't.... Bush only had to give lipservice to the UN...

because there was no mandate, and it left the decision up to Bush to decide if all diplomatic efforts were made.


And it did not prevent war in other arab states... it simply delayed it. Bush will be moving into other nations, claiming that fighters are coming from those nations to attack our troops in Iraq.



And again if I want to kill your whole family, and some cop bargins me down to just killing you... would you say the cop did a good job?

[sangh0]

334. Bush* didn't go to the UN?

In which dimension?

Bush will be moving into other nations,

Another lie, or is your crystal ball certified?

And BTW, why isn't Dean warning us about Bush* future plans to invade more Arab states?

[welshTerrier2]

207. what's really amazing is your logic

sooooo, let me see if i understand you ...

first, you stated that i "almost" want bush to win ... interesting ... let's see ... i argued that when bush wanted the congress to go along with him, democrats should have said "NO FUCKING WAY !!!" ... you apparently have no criticism of Kerry's Iraq vote that gave bush a "WIN" in the congress ... and yet you conclude that i want bush to win ... hmmmm ... it seems like you're the one supporting candidates who voted WITH bush ....

secondly, you seem to believe that just because i opposed the war and i'm critical of pro-war democrats, that i "almost want" bush to win ... take a course in logic, will ya ... let me give you a hint ... i want a democrat to win who did not support bush's insane invasion of iraq !!! through what sort of pretzel logic do you derive this to mean i want bush to win ... do you not believe a democrat who opposed bush can win??

finally, your post is totally vacuous ... it offers no information whatsoever ... you make no argument at all to respond to the arguments i provided in my post ... and let me suggest to you that the people who stood in the way of "making the country better" were those who provided "aid and comfort" to bush in support of his demonic Iraq policies ... and sadly, some of those were democrats ... open your eyes ... when democrats commit such folly, we must be honest enough to say so ...

it's not about wanting them to lose; it's about wanting them to be responsive to their base ... it's about not wanting them to take those who called them and asked them to oppose the war for granted ... when i called kerry's office, i was told his calls were running 20-1 against the resolution ... he has every right to vote his conscience ... but so do I !!!! or was Kerry just "too caught up in his ideals" ???

[K-W]

226. Give me a break

You dont even phrase my arguments properly and you are critisizing my logic?

You argue that the democrats should have denied Bush the ability to go to war. Do you honestly believe that democrats voting now would have stopped Bush??

I never argued that because you are critical of pro war democrats you want Bush to win. Why dont you take a reading course.

I really dont know how much simpler I can make this.

Each democrat had to make a choice. Im sure they all suspected the intelligence to some degree or another. But there is no way they could be sure taht it was all completely false. If they just stand up and fight tooth and nail against the war this is what would happen.
1. They would more than likely lose the battle and we would still go to war.
2. They would provide an unending supply of fodder for the conservative media, since most of the country wasnt ardently anti war, most of the country would disagree with teh democrats. That would give the republicans and extremely good position to attack and politically wound the democrats a great deal. The democrats would, as a party, be seen as extremists by most of the country.

Then the war would happen, and if they found some weapons or some terrorists or made it very clean, the war would seem like it was right to alot of americans. The war would be popular and all of the democrats would have destroyed their careers. They would be the party that opposed the war that saved america.

THe democratic party would go into the 2004 election decimated. Bush would be easily realected with even the worst economy ever. We would lose seats and we would put the republicans in such an entrenched position of control they might not ever get out.

I am pretty happy that Kerry and others didnt take that risk. It wasnt a good risk to take.

[DavidNY]

330. I think requiring the US to get UN permission would have gone too far...

though I agree that getting UN permission was highly desirable and that at least getting broader international support (whether or not within the forum of the UN) was vitally important.

The UN is, fundamentally, a highly antidemocratic body. In the General Assembly tiny dictatorships get the same vote as giant democracies, and in the Security Council that same flaw is true of the temporary members and is joined by the fact that nothing can happen without the permission of Russia, China, France, the U.K. _and_ the U.S.. I don't want to sound like a right-wing France-basher, but there's no logical reason why France, Russia or China should have a single-handed and absolute veto over our foreign policy. It's not as if we were defying the wishes of an uber-democracy in which democracies vote according to their population. (Probably most countries wouldn't agree to the establishment of such a "weighted democratic U.N." anyway because of how much power India would gain.)

This is a large part of why I agree with what I take to be Kerry's position on the war. I think forcibly enforcing the Gulf War I ceasefire provisions on weapons of mass destruction was a good idea in principle, provided that it was based on honest information, accompanied by a good-faith effort to obtain international support (even if no UN resolution ultimately passed), and done competently with sufficient planning for the postwar situation. That doesn't change the fact that this administration's execution of the idea was horribly dishonest, unnecessarily unilateral, and incredibly incompetent.

In context, the "invasion of a sovereign nation" objection seems weak to me. As a matter of principle (ignoring for the moment the flaws in the execution), when you engage in a legitimate war of collective self-defense to repel unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state (Gulf War I), and the ceasefire terms require the aggressor to take certain steps to limit his future dangerousness, violation of those terms needs to be dealt with forcibly. Iraq forfeited some of its rights to object to violation of its sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait in violation of _Kuwait's_ sovereignty, and it agreed to certain terms when bargaining for an end to the resulting justified war. Violation of those terms reinstates, in principle, the Gulf War I justification for invading Iraq.

Some posters have commented that the problem with Kerry's vote was not so much the substantive policy it supported as the way in which it empowered the President-- I think someone used the phrase "handing a lunatic a loaded gun". I understand that concern, but I think it is reasonable for a Senator confronted with a vote that will _in practice_ make no difference (given that Bush was going to be empowered anyway) to vote based on what he believes to be the right answer _in principle_. (In other contexts, many here seem also to be extolling the primacy of principle.) And _in principle_, I think a war with Iraq-- though not _this_ war with Iraq as it was carried out-- was justified.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. Hindsight Is 20-20

I was ambivalent about the war. I don't know how I would have voted if I was a senator. Saddam was a particulary odious fella but no more odious than Kim Jong Il. And if it becomes American foreign policy to take out every malodorous dictator there will be no end to it.

I don't think John Kerry could envision the debacle this war has become:

no wmds

no sadaam

no peace

the entry of foreign terrorists in Iraq to confront America

IMHO,John Kerry's vote cost him any shot at the nomination. I think it's a safe bet he loses N.H. Where does he go from there losing his neighboring state?

It's sad.... John Kerry's a bright guy and a brave guy too. He has the three Purple Hearts to prove it along with a Bronze Star and Silver Star.

And the guy who put him in a pink tutu should ask what he would have done if he was a young man in John Kerry's shoes

[robbedvoter]

197. What about the "focus groups"? All his constituents calling, writing

him! Out of all Senators running he was the only one without opposition - he went AGAINST the constituency's wishes! I remember they organized a write-in campaign against him.
And, I agree, he was a good guy in his earlier years.

[Terwilliger]

263. I would have protested the war

not become a willing participant in the machine that makes it happen

[Andy_Stephenson]

186. It's all acedemic now anyway.

Kerry is going down in flames. Or so it would seem. I for one could not be happier.

[molly]

203. Going down in flames?

:shrug: How so?

[TLM]

213. He's spending more money...

and still falling in the polls.

[blm]

222. Corporate media fawning over Dean is a BIG PLUS.

In the short term.

[TLM]

225. Yeah BLM blame the media...

Because obviously anybody who does not agree with your support for Kerry and his support for Bush’s war, is just a moron being fooled by the media, right. We're all too stupid to think for ourselves and too dumb to understand Kerry can do no wrong and he is entitled to the nomination.

It couldn't have anything to do with people being upset that Kerry has rolled over for Bush more often than Buddy the dog in the last three years. It couldn’t be that most people are not willing to bullshit themselves into believing that Kerry's vote for the war was anything but a callous act of political cowardice from a man more interested in reelection than in the thousands he helped Bush to murder.

[helleborient]

268. Old stupid argument...give us the link and evidence here!

You've posted this so many times...what evidence do you have that corporate media have somehow selected Howard Dean?

He showed up on the covers of major news magazines after his campaign raised the most money in the 2nd quarter and after he won the moveon.org primary and after he emerged in first place in polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He was really showing movement...something no other would-be Democratic nominee has done. This was not corporate manipulation...unless there is some behemoth corporation lurking behind moveon.org and the war protesters.

Get a grip on reality!

[blm]

307. Fineman was pushing him early.

I'm sure you trust him. I don't.

Go look at both Kucinich and Dean's press early on. If you can compare them as being treated the same when it was Kucinich leading the antiwar rallies while Dean chose to abstain, but Dean received all the credit as the "staunch, antiwar candidate." ,,,well...that's YOUR sense of perception.

[helleborient]

344. No links...no specifics...no credibility

I don't even know what you mean by early on...what press you are talking about.

This argument has no credibility whatsoever.

Dean won the primary at moveon.org...the largest ad hoc organization opposing the war in the U.S.

[blm]

364. Early on last January.

I lost my links in a lightning strike, but, you can access all of Fineman's articles back then at msnbc.com. They had been posted here many times when they came out. Fineman pegged Dean early on....that is....after Dean came out swinging against the other Democratic candidates.

[molly]

227. He's hardly spent any money - YET!

[TLM]

279. He has spent almost half what he has raised.

where have you been?

He has like 12 million and has spent more than 5 mil of it.

[helleborient]

272. Poll numbers have dropped significantly in New Hampshire

If the Zogby poll has any crediblity...he and Gephardt have lost significant amounts of their support along with Dean gaining

[helleborient]

273. Poll numbers have dropped significantly in New Hampshire

If the Zogby poll has any crediblity...he and Gephardt have lost significant amounts of their support along with Dean gaining

[TLM]

210. I second that...

And it is a shame to see someone who was once respectable become such a spineless sell-out to the Bush administration. But what is worse is seeing all these supposed progressives trying to defend his vote enabling this disgusting slaughter of Iraqi people, US solders, and take over of a sovereign nation.

It makes me ill to see people actually seriously suggesting that Kerry’s vote was OK, because allowing W to commit this horrible act of destruction has hurt his reputation. Yeah, tell that to the mother who’s kid comes home in a pine box.


No war voter is going to be my first choice for president... that vote knocks them out of the first place slot.

[blm]

218. Hardly.

But you're welcome to your delusional fantasy. steeped in irrational hatred.

YOU wanted Bush to have a real blank check to avoid the UN altogether and invade Iran and Syria, too. So sorry that Kerry disappointed you and negotiated against the blank check.

[TLM]

223. Kerry is way behind in the polls and spending more money...

he is toast.

You wanted Bush to invade Iraq and kill civilians, and take over another nation in violation of international law based on lies... you wanted our troops to get senselessly slaughtered for Bush's profits. That's why you support Kerry's vote for the war, BLM. Why not just admit that you supported the take over and slaughter of Iraq?

So sorry to disappoint you that most people around the world did not support this the way you and John "can do no wrong" Kerry do.

[Nancy Waterman]

275. If I remember correctly,

Bush wanted to go into Iraq without the UN. Congress (Dems especially) pushed for going in only with the UN. Bush insisted on a war resolution behind him when he went to the UN to help him negotiate for support in his plan to disarm Saddam. He presented it to Congress like he had to have the War Resolution to strengthen his hand at the UN. This put the Demsin the position of voting for the War Rsolution so they could vote for the UN alliance. Then, after he'd gotten his vote, Bush went on to sabotage all efforts to delay his war. He kept accusing Saddam of lying. It turns out what Saddam said was true. He had nothing.

Another point: according to the Sidney Blumenthal article a while back, BushCo was hyping the dangers of Saddam mightily to Congress, in closed door sessions. There was one with Powell just before the vote on the War Resolution that was packed with all the lies about Saddam's WMD, including the bogus nuke program.

[molly]

286. Bush would have gone to Iraq WITHOUT the resolution

that is what I remember. I remember thinking at the time the resolution passed, that bush would not dare go in without the UN - I'm sure many others thought the same thing.

[welshTerrier2]

290. do the lies as justification not matter to Kerry ??

the problem i have with this line of reasoning is as follows:

the line says that the dems were lied to ... it says that the dems were given even more "inside info" than the public and that the evidence was overwhelming ... and also that the evidence came from a wide array of respected intelligence sources ...

well, who could blame the democrats for going along if this was the best available evidence on the threat posed by Saddam ???

HOWEVER ... it is clear from his statements that Kerry did NOT BELIEVE Saddam was an imminent threat ... and furthermore, even if he and the other resolution supporters did believe all the evidence that was presented, how can they justify their current statements ??!!

it is one thing to be critical of the "misstatement" made by bush ... it would be nice to just call them lies and blatant propaganda ... but the problem I have with Kerry is that he does not link these lies to the wrongness of invading Iraq ... bush lied but the war was still justified ... is that his position ??? it seems to be ...

so, regardless of the evidence, and even though bush just blew off the U.N., and even though Saddam did not pose an imminent threat, kerry still believes the war was justified??? how the hell did he arrive at that conclusion !!!

if i've misstated Kerry's positions, please explain ...

[welshTerrier2]

283. questions for blm

hi blm ...

let me ask you a few questions ...

what was your opinion (at the time) of the evidence Powell presented to the U.N. and what did Kerry say about Powell's presentation ???

please correct me if I'm misstating Kerry's position, but I believe he said Powell presented "strong evidence" ...

you frequently point out that Kerry is very experienced, works on key intelligence committees and has key contacts so that he often has far more information than we do ...

personally (at the time), i thought Powell's arguments were an "ends looking for a means" to justify going to war ... it "felt" like propaganda ... the administration had zero credibility in this area ... soooooo, do you think Kerry actually believed Powell? why was he not critical of bush's propaganda machine? or was he?

i had several miles of tolerance for Kerry's Iraq vote IF, when the whole bush policy collapsed, Kerry would have acknowledged that the war was wrong because there was no imminent threat and that bush had lied ... i've heard his criticisms of bush but he always stops way short of saying the war was unjustified ... and i've given up hope that he ever will ...

for me, the judgment Kerry showed by giving bush the authority, be it legal or symbolic, was inexcusable ... i hope you can understand how those of us who wanted desperately to educate the american people on the wrongness of this war felt betrayed by those democrats who "gave bush what he wanted" ... the arguments about "forcing" bush into the U.N. are all well and good ... we can argue about them all day ... so bush sent Powell along with his sack of lies ... and eventually bypassed the will of the U.N. ... and Kerry said what ??? what did Kerry say after Powell presented his sack of lies ?? what did Kerry say when bush "totally ignored" the will of the U.N. ??? what does Kerry say about the wrongness of the war today ??

Did he say that, because there was no imminent threat, the U.S. had no justification to ignore the U.N. vote?? because that's exactly what he should have said ... i have no problem with the argument that the U.S. should make its own policy ... even if that policy ignores the U.N. ... but in matters of war and national security, the standard for doing so must be the standard of "imminent threat" ... and it is clear that Kerry did not believe Iraq was an imminent threat ...

i must tell you that I would have far more respect for arguments that say that Kerry fucked up on Iraq but that we should look at his overall record ... i have virtually no respect for arguments that try to defend his Iraq position ... voting to give a madman the support of the Congress was unconcionable ... as always, i'd be interested in hearing your analysis of these issues ...

[killbotfactory]

341. Kerry had five months to speak out againt invading Iraq...

Why didn't he?

Why didn't he speak up when the inspectors revealed that the UAV was really a balsa wood RC plane?

Why didn't he speak up when the Niger documents were revealed to be forgeries?

Why didn't he speak up when Powell tried to link Saddam and OBL by playing a tape of OBL condemning Saddam?

Why didn't he speak up when inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear program?

Why didn't he speak up when inspectors discredited the aluminum tube theory?

Why didn't he speak up when it was revealed that a supposed WMD lab, that wasn't even in territory controlled by Saddam, turned out to be a bombed out bakery?

Why did Kerry call for more time for inspections, yet still supported the invasion, even though he made repeated claims that war should only be a last resort?

All of this was revealed before the war. Why didn't Kerry speak out against the invasion?

[Andy_Stephenson]

354. "Why didn't Kerry speak out against the invasion?"

Cause he is a chickenshit?

[helleborient]

277. The length of this thread seems to indicate...

The war vote is a serious issue for the Kerry campaign...will he speak to this when he announces his campaign?

Or will he ignore our concerns?

[molly]

285. Most of this thread is the Deanies bashing Kerry

and the Kerryclan fighting back - with the truth.

[helleborient]

287. Thanks for not answering my question and calling me a liar

I entered the thread to ask questions...because it seemed like a thread that was addressing the issue of Kerry's vote.

I was shocked and dismayed when all of the Democratic presidential candidates voted in favor of Bush's approach last October. This seemed like a good place to ask questions...but apparently asking questions is bashing.

Showing emotion about being anti-war and feeling betrayed is apparently bashing as well.

Basically, it seemed to me this is a real issue for Kerry...if it is not, that's fine. I'll continue to do my work for Dean...and look again at Kerry if he wins the nomination.

I don't know if you've noticed how many Dean, Kucinich, and Clark supporters list Kerry as their second choice...do you wonder how many of us would list him first if he seemed to adequately answer our questions about war?

For me, I think I have it answered now...that a number of Kerry's supporters consider him a bit of a hawk, and that's not for me. I don't need to argue about that, but I would consider Kerry a candidate with a lot of guts if he seemed to sincerely address this issue in a public way.

I do resent that it seems whenever Dean supporters ask questions about other candidates, we are bashers...and we're too defensive when we think Dean is being attacked.

[disgruntella]

288. will Kerry ignore your concerns? ha ha ha

The real question is, will the people on this thread who use the war vote as Kerry's litmus test listen to anything Kerry says?

[helleborient]

292. I will

And yes, I've been using Kerry's vote as a litmus test, and this thread did help broaden my view of the entire issue.

Now, I would like to hear from him specifically addressing it...will probably go back digging at his web site and hope he understands it is a very important issue to a number of us.

And no, I can't vouch for anyone else, only myself...but the one voice does mean the answer to your question is yes.

[disgruntella]

304. oh, all right, you've spoiled my 8-ball fun

Sorry about that - I'm just being a wise-ass (as opposed to whistle-ass)

Seriously, I'm glad you're willing to listen. It just seems that a lot of people in the threads above this one who do use it as a litmus test are not.

[TLM]

362. Yeah I listen to what he says....

Like when he says we need to "get over it." Or when his campaign manager says Dean isn;t fit to serve becase he wanted the UN behind any action that meant troops being sent to Iraq.


I listen to Kerry says and then I notice when what he does has nothing to do with what he said. Like when he said iraq is not an immanent threat, and voted to go to war with them as if they were.

[onehandle]

335. Can't we all get along....

...and agree that Nader is a Liberal's best choice.

Ha ha.

Seriously. This much strife this early in the campaign is just too much. Gonna be a Lot of disappointed folks around here when their favorite candidate loses the nomination.

Me. I'll support and work for the candidate, no matter who it is.

And next Fall, I'll look for the D and Punch It!



Bush is the Only enemy.

[jos]

340. Will someone please put this thread out of its misery

Too long.:argh:

[molly]

367. The reason this thread will not rest is the simple fact that the

"Deanies" got into ATTACK mode a long time ago. They were vicious - in-your-face-cruel kindof like a pug campaign. They posted every 2 seconds and were in your face. They were on a MISSION - it was totally disgusting. They've backed off A LITTLE because some of us fought back. This is why a lot of people are turned off to DEAN. He went from 2nd with me to the bottom of the barrel. His not-so-friendly-friend Joe Trippi is mostly to blame - I would abhor to think that DEAN would be that LOW-LIFE!!!!

Hey, BTW, they have new recruits that don't know they have been BEATEN!!

Hey, Deanies, say it aint't so - tell us all that this was not your mission - you jumped in here your own little selves. Tell us that noone told you about DU - huh!!

[jos]

370. A need for healing

In any nomination fight, there will be bruises and hard feelings. On most issues, there is little difference between Dean and Kerry. I would hope that in the end both sides will put aside the hard feelings and support the nominee, should one these two men win the nomination.