"Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong"

[jos]

So says John Kerry.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/04/kerry_changes_stance_takes_on_dean/

I guess that blows out of the water the argument by several Kerry supporters that his vote on the war resolution was not a vote to go to war.

[wryter2000]

1. Ooops.

I want to support Kerry if he gets the nomination, but I don't like this one bit. Not because it's attacking Dean. I expect them to be in competition with each other. But because it sounds like support for the war.

[polpilot]

2. Kerry:(On Bush) 'a very likable man. a good man trying to do good things'

(On Dean) 'his opposition to the war was wrong' In order to top the last 5 days Kerry will have to switch to the repub party and be Chimpy's running mate.

Kerry...From 'Bush-lite' to Bush-like' in 5 days!!!!

Dean '04...

[trogdor]

8. Message to "draft Hillary" fans.

I was at an event this past Saturday in Watertown, New York, and she said basically the same thing. Although I'd watch a HRC/GWB debate on pay-per-view, I can't see cajoling her to run for Prez next year mainly for this reason.

If I'm not mistaken, she also voted for the war resolution. Somebody edjumicate me if I'm wrong.

[IrateCitizen]

56. You're 100% correct, Why

I remember listening to her give her speech on the Senate floor, in which she eloquently enumerated the reasons why we SHOULD NOT have gone to war.

Then, I was left shell-shocked when she said that she was voting FOR the damned resolution! Essentially, she said that we should trust Bush to do the right thing. The whole thing reeked of political opportunism to me, to be quite honest.

Of course, this is far from the only reason that she has greatly disappointed this NYer. And judging by some of the things I've read on the Young Democrats bulletin board by people who actually worked on her campaign in 2000, I'm far from alone in this regard.

[HFishbine]

3. My Opinion of Kerry is fading

Senator Kerry, before you start calling other candidates right or wrong, how about a straight answer on this question:

"Was it right or wrong for us to have invaded Iraq?"

[Terwilliger]

4. right along with "get over it"....Keep it up, John!

:eyes:

[DrGonzoLives]

5. What experience did Clinton have in foreign affairs?

Before getting elected? Jesus, he lived in Arkansas - that's about as isolated as you can get from the rest of the world. And he did a hell of a lot better than Bush is doing now.

"Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who needed to be confronted, just with more diplomacy than the Bush administration tried."

Then WHY vote for supporting an invasion? Why not stand up and make noise about that need for more diplomacy in the Senate? Why just go along with what everyone else was doing so that he could play both sides?

[JI7]

9. bill clinton was rhodes scholar, worked in senate

bill clinton studied politics and other nations. he was a rhodes scholar. he worked for a senator. he protested the vietnam war. he was involved in working and studying international politics throughout his life.

[KaraokeKarlton]

32. Dean has been to over 50 countries and lived abroad for a year

He has a clear understanding of other cultures and societies. He's also worked with Canada as governor of Vermont and the government of Vietnam over trying to locate and bring home the remains of his brother. Fighting in a war isn't foreign policy experience, either.

[realFedUp]

6. Well, a lot of people disagree

with Kerry.

[quinnox]

7. From Kerry's position

His statement is correct. But of course, the quote has to be looked at in context to understand it. This is now the second thread I have seen by a Dean supporter not putting the quote in context. But I can see this will be one quote taken out of context constantly for the Deanies who wish to distort the meaning of the quote in the future.

[el_gato]

10. ok quinnox put it in context then

what is the context

[quinnox]

14. Read the link

n/t

[DrGonzoLives]

17. I read the entire article

And I'm still not sure what this "context" is that you keep harping about.

[quinnox]

20. Ok, in that article they took it out of context too

Here is the original quote from the Washington Post:

"Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong," Kerry told reporters. "You can't just walk away. All along I said you had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but do it right."

If you read it in context, it has an entirely different meaning than taking out one sentence.

[Rose Siding]

25. So the whole premise was wrong.

When did Dean propose to "walk away"?

[el_gato]

27. Where was the threat?

Were we about to be invaded by Iraq?

Non existent WMD's

the entire issue is a sham

global domination and oil are the reasons we went there
and they are also the reasons the Iraq issue was on the table

the Saddam boogie man thing was bullshit

[damnraddem]

65. Then why tell us to read the article?

Now, how is 'opposition to the war was wrong' out of context? How does 'just do it right' modify it? Does it mean that the US should have gotten NATO allies, the UN, a coalition like in 1991 to go along with invading Iraq? Does he further mean that Dubya's earlier foreign-policy missteps were what blocked the US from doing that? If so, that's a fine position for Kerry to have, one that many had or have -- that Iraq should have been invaded the proper way, not the improper way Dubya did it. It is also a position that would keep me from voting for Kerry.

Or did Kerry mean that Dubya should have used diplomacy with Saddam as well as with US allies, should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs, should have carried on with the no-fly zones, should have carried on with the sanctions and the isolation of Iraq? If that is what he meant, then why would he say that 'opposition to the war was wrong'? Those things were the major alternatives proposed to invading Iraq. And in any case, the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people far more than they were Saddam's ambitions.

Maybe you can convince me otherwise, but I find it hard to imagine a context that would sufficiently sanctify 'Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong.'

[DrGonzoLives]

11. And what is the context?

What is the meaning? Sure sounds to me like he's saying that Dean opposed the war, and, frankly, that means that by extension, anyone who opposed is "wrong." So why don't you explain to this idiotic "Deanie" what exactly this "context" is that you're talking about?

[BurtWorm]

13. How are you going spin this as anything but an attack

on opposition to the war? What more context do you need to mitigate it?

[Terwilliger]

19. fuck context...Kerry is wrong

he was wrong, and he won't come clean :shrug:

[jos]

40. I'm not a Dean supporter

At least not yet. I support Kucinich. And I normally don't like to start "divisive" threads. But this latest meme from the Kerry supporters that he somehow was not in favor of the war, that he only voted for the war resolution to restrain Bush or to get the UN more involved, is a bit too much.

[damnraddem]

66. And the negativity of the thread is engendered by Kerry's own message.

He is apparently intending to clarify his position, so as to distance himself from the other candidates. That is laudable; but the position is not.

To me, the importance of his 'clarification' is not for the battle among Democratic contenders. It goes to whether or not I could vote for Kerry were he the Democratic nominee. Until now, I had assumed that I could. That is now in question.

[damnraddem]

61. There was a link. I read in context. Kerry's statement is disgusting.

As I say, I have lost the respect that I had had for him.

[blm]

12. Dean's opposition to war was a lie anyway.

He clung to the word unilateral and emphasized it as being the reason he was against the war, when the use of force was already multilateral.

He said he didn't doubt the need to disarm Saddam the night Bush started bombing. Did he remove that statement from his website's front pages, too? Do you have to go digging in the archives?

He'll be a great candidate for those who want to vote for a compromising centrist, as many here prefer that style of governance.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. And Kerry isn't a centrist?

:shrug:

[blm]

45. Nope..but you're welcome to support Dean

if compromising centrists are YOUR thing.

[Andy_Stephenson]

49. No need to get testy.

Kerry is digging his own hole...not me. Hell I didn;t even provide him the shovel. But John does seem like a centrist to me.

might want to read this.

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=276211

[DrGonzoLives]

16. Two countries is multilateral?

Technically, yes, but come on. That is not multilateral and you know it. And since when does "disarm" mean "invade"?

[Rose Siding]

21. The delusion/tap dance/lie

that this was a multilateral war is ridiculous when anyone says it, just as it was when we heard it from Rummy. (We got Camaroon!)

[Andy_Stephenson]

23. Don't forget

Poland

[blm]

48. Not the point.

Bush HAD a multilateral force and 70% of the American people know that more than two countries were in the "coalition" because the media made sure of it.

Depending on the use of the word "unilateral" as the reason you were against the war won't hold up in the barrage of ads that will show it as rhetorical wordplay.

[blm]

46. Biden-Lugar was a use of force measure.

But, you're welcome to pretend it wasn't.

[DrGonzoLives]

83. And you're welcome to pretend

that the U.S., Britain, and a bunch of no-name countries contributing moral support is "multilateral."

[blm]

85. Argue with Daniel Webster and the entire media.

I'll pretend you win that one.

[DrGonzoLives]

86. The funny thing is

if Dean had done the same thing as Kerry, you would be criticizing him for it. Hmmmmmmmmmm

[blm]

89. Doubt it.

I only started criticizing Dean on Jan. 23 when he started attacking the other Democrats and the Dem party using disingenuous characterizations of their record (lies). Long before he moved up in the polls.

I am sincere in my disgust for his tactics against other Dems and for those who applauded his lies with no mind for the facts. It bugs me that they overlooked the sincere antiwar candidate, Kucinich, and latched onto Dean's coopted faux populism while pretending that they themselves are sincere in their antiwar stance condemning others.

I think he does more harm to the Dem party overall.

[Terwilliger]

22. well, that just sucks then blm...Dean lying, Kerry wrong

Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt voted for the war...Graham voted against the war because it wasn't his style of American imperialism...

I believe that leaves only Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Sharpton, and Mrs. Moseley-Braun.

[sandnsea]

31. For an anti-war voter?

That's exactly right.

[Terwilliger]

93. yes...they're subject to criminal penalties in the world court

since they authorized illegal actions that have resulted in thousands of deaths

[blm]

55. For the antiwar voter, you are absolutely right.

I wonder why the corporate media pushed Dean as the liberal antiwar candidate for so many months when he was NEITHER.

[Terwilliger]

94. sorry blm...Kerry is a fucknut

he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted yes...he lied...he played politics...he killed Iraqis

[blm]

97. Your version.

I know the greater story. I see the forest as a whole, while you're busy contemplating trees. There were more factors to that vote.

I'll take the guy who helped prevent further bombing of Iran and Syria, and forced Bush to present evidence to the UN....something that has helped crush his credibility numbers with the American people. No small thing considering that he faces an election in a year.

[stickdog]

29. So Dean lied about his opposition to the war back then.

I liked that lie a lot. Nobody else was lying like that.

And what about now, when everyone with a brain can see it was as bad a move as trading Sammy Sosa?

Who is lying now?

[GreenArrow]

33. Kucinich and Sharpton told that "lie"

A lot. Well before Dean, and much more strongly.

[sandnsea]

58. Kucinich put a vote up

and stood with the peace protestors, not on the sidelines. He's the pure anti-war candidate.

[GreenArrow]

63. that's right

Dean is not anti-war, nor do I believe he is anti-"War on Terrorism" i.e., maintaining the American hegemony by bludgeoning the global poor into submission and stelaing their resources.

[JNelson6563]

34. <snarf>

funny stuff....lol

[damnraddem]

67. Yeah, I liked Dean's "lie" when few other Democrats had the spine ...

to 'lie' like that (and yes, Kucinich did have the spine to oppose the invasion).

Now let's see: Dubya's big surge of support is over; the American people are realizing what a foolish thing the invasion was, or at least what a horrible quaqmire it led to; having been anti-invasion, even with a waffle or two, is looking better all the time. And where is Kerry going to look for votes? Among those who think that opposition to the war was wrong. If that's his true position, fine -- but it is not one that would allow me to vote for him.

So now, the Dems need unity against Bush. Saying that opposition to the war was wrong is not the way to go about it.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[blm]

57. Didn't say it couldn't be found.

I said you have to look to find it.

And my point is the exact same...with or without the full sentence, my paraphrase is accurate.


"...have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."

[damnraddem]

68. So, were you in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein.

Did you doubt that he had had WMDs -- knowing full well that the U.S. had supplied them to him. Were you without doubt that he might still have some?

Those of us who did, do, and will oppose this invasion and occupation had no doubts that Hussein was evil. I knew that back in the 1980s, when he attacked Iran as the U.S.'s surrogate, with U.S.-supplied arms (and, yes, with arms supplied by other countries, including France and Russia). We had no doubt that he had chemical weapons, had used them on Irani troops, and had used them on the Kurds and Shia after the Gulf War. We suspected that he might still have some. But we also knew that Dubya's thugs were lying about what they knew -- the volumes of chemical and biological weapons claimed, the nonsence about a nuclear-weapons program. And we knew that the best response was what existed: a revitalized UN inspections program. We also knew the the inane linking of Saddam to Al Qaida was not just a lie but a stupid lie. Now, does this make us liars in saying that we opposed the invasion?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

73. I bookmarking this!

:kick:

[blm]

74. I questioned whether it was scrubbed last week, TLM....

when you found it in the archives, I then noted that it wasn't easily accessed as statements and articles of much lesser import. And nothing from the time of the invasion, March 17.

This is from Dean's own page of released statements and 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)
.........

What flavor Kool-Aid are you drinking, TLM? Does it cloud your ability to assess this lapse on Dean's page fairly?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[blm]

64. Then why did he support the Biden-Lugar version of the resolution?

Last fall he said he would have voted for Biden-Lugar, and that was BEFORE the antiwar crowds grew. Do you think I made that up? If you think I am lying, then prove that he was against Biden-Lugar version of the Iraq resolution, too. It should be quite easy for you, since you claim I am lying.

[TLM]

75. Once again BLM, the BL resolution was not the same as what kerry voted for

The BL resolution tied action to UN approval, required congressional approval, was for disarming throught he UN and no taking over the country.


The BL resolution was in line with what Dean had said would be the only valid reason for use of force in IRaq, and the fact is the requirerments laid out in BL wouldn't have been met by W's BS.

So why are you again trying to act as if support for the BL bill was the same thing as supporting the resolution Kerry voted for or the war in general?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Mari333]

18. Hes a dancedancedancedance dancin machine watch him get down

[Terwilliger]

24. LOLOLOL

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[TLM]

41. TIme for a toast....

[KoKo]

60. You said it! Dean rakes in money everytime DLC or candidate attacks him!

Good for him........

[TreasonousBastard]

26. ohferchrissakes...

are we going to be arguing for the next six months over who said what about the war which has now become a fait accompli?

It's Bush's war.

Bush. Bush. Bush.

Promoted, designed and waged by his Heritage Foundation/PNAC masters.

Yes there were accomplices on Capitol HIll, witting and unwitting, but arguing over them now is fruitless. And arguing over the words of any candidate in the heat of battle is also fruitless.

I don't believe there is one Democratic candidate who would go to war under such flimsy pretenses as Shrub used. I don't believe any of them is a warmonger and would order others to battle with the glee that this crowd has.

No, not even Lieberman.

[LeftCoast]

28. I love Trippi's response:

"They ignored us for seven months; now they're attacking us," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. "I don't think it's a surprise why. . . . They're doing this because things aren't going so well for their campaign. I'm sorry. That's not my problem."

I'm not going to bash Kerry for this...comment, but it certainly doesn't encourage me to vote for him.

[MoonAndSun]

37. Me too, LeftCoast.....

I will not bash Kerry......and I will vote for him if he is the Dem nominee.

Dean is still my #1 choice.

[TLM]

42. Same here... I'll vote for Kerry if he gets the nomination

because he would be a vast improvment over W.


However at this point I am going hammer him for his wishy washy pink tutu crap and his support of Bush.

I was already pissed at Kerry for his attacks on Dean over the military and UN... and his "get over it" crack. Now Kerry is attacking Dean for opposing the war?

[disgruntella]

30. the article itself does not provide enough context

I'm a potential supporter of both Kerry and Dean for the nomination (believe it - or not!), and I don't see enough context in this article to support the allegation in the original post.

Is Kerry being critical of all opposition to the war, or just the way Dean went about opposing the war? I think there's a difference and the article doesn't shed any light on it for me.

I mean, here's a quote from the article:

"Kerry argued that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who needed to be confronted, just with more diplomacy than the Bush administration tried."

Here's a quote from Dean in a PBS interview:
"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."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

(I admit that quote from Dean is from a quick "googling", but they are his words from an interview, so I don't see how anyone can say they're part of media spin)

So if Kerry and Dean both support disarming Saddam Hussein, what is it that Kerry opposes about Dean? Could it be his style? Could it be sour grapes on Kerry's part? I think either is possible. Anyway, I think in the context of a campaign it's perfectly logical for Kerry to be specific about where he thinks Dean is wrong on the issues. I just hope he gets more specific than this vague statement quoted in the article.

[TLM]

43. Look at it in the context of other statements from Kerry's campaign...

This is far from the first time the Kerry camp has attacked Dean for his positions against the war, for UN backing, and again Bush' might makes right policy.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

"But the reaction to Dean hit a nerve in the Kerry camp. Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier."


and here's another one...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/politics/main551359.shtml

Kerry spokesman Chris Lehane issued a statement in response to Dean's comments in an article posted Monday on Time.com. "We have to take a different approach" to diplomacy," the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "We won't always have the strongest military."

"Howard Dean's stated belief that the United States won't always have the strongest military raises serious questions about his capacity to serve as commander in chief," Lehane said. "No serious candidate for the presidency has ever before suggested that he would compromise or tolerate an erosion of America's military supremacy."

[disgruntella]

90. those are interesting comments

They both make Dean look pretty inexperienced, IMHO. I'll read both of the articles in full later.

But I wasn't asking to see Kerry's comments in the context of *more* quotes taken out of context -- I would like to see Kerry's comments in the context of the rest of his statements to the reporters.

I'm becoming more of a Kerry supporter every day. Not that I don't appreciate Dean for bringing his opposition to Bush out in the open, and for mobilizing lots of (new and old) Democrats in the process. I thank Dean for that. But I find it hard to believe that Dean as a senator would have voted any differently on the war than Kerry did.

When you tear the IWR vote strawman down, Kerry has a more impressive record on lots of issues than Dean does. That's my opinion as a voter of course - YMMV.

And since I'll probably be held personally responsible for a cavalcade of war atrocities for posting this, let me reiterate - I am against the war, and I blame the Bush administration for it. The Republicans are going down in 2004.

[Capt_Nemo]

35. The same problem of many politicians:

Incapable of admitting he was wrong.

For me it is one of the worst faults in a politician.

You can see that at action right now with the neo-cons and post-war
Iraq.

[RichM]

36. What a disgrace. Every time Kerry opens his mouth, it gets worse.

What a weasel this guy is. What a phony. Typical of the Democrats' increasing tendency of trying to imitate Republicans, he goes to a Southern state to make his announcement, in front of a big battleship. The band plays "Anchors Aweigh," so as to thoroughly militarize the whole tone of his campaign, & he talks of nothing but military this, military that. "Thank you my friend Max Cleland." This is of course to pander to southerners & militarists.

And now this attack on Dean. Ugh. :puke:

OTOH, as blm accurately notes, Dean's antiwar position is also a lie. It's "Anti-war Lite" -- the kind of "tactical" antiwar position that doesn't necessarily offend longtime worshippers of US militarism.

I can hardly believe these two are the leading Dem contenders, with the upcoming "alternative" of a general!! It's just too funny.

Meanwhile, you have 2 guys sitting there on the bench, DK & Sharpton, who -- as almost everyone agrees -- say nothing but the truest most farsighted & courageous things, day after day. But they don't get any real consideration, because everyone immediately wrote them off as "unelectable." What a sad mess the Democrats are...

[TLM]

44. What lie is that? Dean never said he was anti-war.

Dean is anti-war for no good reason.


Dean was very clear on his position on Iraq, and that he supporting disarming Saddam through the UN, without war. He said if they found weapons, and Saddam refused to destroy them, AND the UN did not act, only then would he support use of force by the US and only then to the end of destorying the weapons, not taking over the coutry.

So how is that a lie?

[sangh0]

81. You and Dean contradict yourselves

You both say that you "support disarming Saddam....without war" and then say you "support (the) use of force by the US"

[Cha]

53. Dean stand on Iraq is Not a lie....only in the twisted spin of

people who can't stand it that he was against it and kerry voted for it!

[damnraddem]

72. The arguments keep reminding me of Franken's 'Lies and Lying Liars.'

Enough has been cited about Dean's position before the invasion. If one wants a candidate who is totally antiwar, I guess one will be disappointed. If one wants a candidate who supported the invasion, I guess one's disappointment leads one to try to spin Dean's statement into support for the invasion.

In my case, I did admire, and do admire, his willingness to show some spine and state his opposition to Dubya's invasion, and to state what he thought should be done, even where that position differed, and differs, from mine. It stands in contrast to the spinelessness of those Dem pols who were opposed to what Dubya was doing but who voted for it out of fear. And if Kerry was not spineless, rather took a principled stand in favor of the invasion, then good for him -- but that is a reason why he does not deserve my support.

[messiah]

38. Who cares

Kerry and Dean agree 95% of the time. Democrats must be smoking something lethal arguing over who is the best when just about every candidate has about the same conservative policies:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:.

[CWebster]

51. All things considered

It is as if Kerry doesn't seem to know he has to win the Democratic primaries first before he has his pissing contest with Bush. If the activist base is pivotal in the Democratic primaries, why is Kerry running a campaign that would appeal more to the Republican base?

It sounds like more of the same unfounded DLC advice that lost us the mid-terms. So what this comes down to is the true nature of what defines the party---the swing Right, the reclamation of identity or the swing Left? The swing Left has been crushed, not only by the Reactionary Right and their representitive press, but also by the dominant leadership in our own party. Taking our party back is just as essential as taking the country back. It starts by taking it away from the Right.

[damnraddem]

76. I disagree to this extent: the important thing is ...

taking the COUNTRY back from the right. The problem is that a DLC-dominated Dem Party represents the right taking politics away from the rest of us. The difference? I'm on the left but do not think that the left can or should take the Dem Party away from moderate Dems. The only way to defeat the right is for the left and the center to unite against it. I see Dean as the best hope of doing that. Left-Center fights are fine -- but only when we are secure from the Right. We are not, rather are at their mercy. And they have no mercy.

[KoKo]

52. Kerry must have inside info that WMD will be found to say this! What

in the world would make him do this. What if he does have info? We haven't really thought of that.

Saying that he would go after Dean just to make himself look better....just somehow doesn't seem like a good strategy. Only makes us opposed to the "Invasion" more angry.

He must know something that we all don't. We should be prepared........

[damnraddem]

77. But would Dubya's thugs really have informed him ...

that they were ready to plant WMD evidence in Iraq?

[Robin Hood]

54. Stick a fork in him,

He's done.

[damnraddem]

78. I suspect not -- that he's only ...

half baked.

[damnraddem]

59. I guess Kerry realized that he couldn't compete with Dean's constituency.

But Lieberman is on the decline, so Kerry figures he can pick up support there. I take back all of the good things (well, there WERE a few) I've said about Kerry. It's not even so much his horrid stance on the illegal invasion, it's his whoring after a pro-invasion constituency.

Hey, his vote may not have been a vote to go to war. It may have merely been a vote to gain the votes of those who wanted to go to war. And that is apparently still his intended support base.

[JVS]

62. How often does Kerry need to offend the left wing of the party?

His support of the war was wrong. This guy has serious problems trying to court voters. If he's nominated he'll go down in flames as the massachussets liberal that enjoys bashing liberals. Is he trying to get 20% of the vote?

[Rose Siding]

69. Ask Kerry if Kennedy's opposition

to the war was wrong also. Senator Kennedy appeared with Kerry the same day he made this remark.

[Cha]

71. Good Point! Wow! It just gets thicker and thicker!

:kick:

[CentristDemocrat]

79. Well, perhaps Kerry believed Dean politicized it too much.

and THAT is what he sees as being wrong.

[damnraddem]

82. Hmm. A politico thought another politico was politicizing too much ...

in a political contest about a political question. I'll think on that.

[Forkboy]

95. lol

the spin makes me dizzy.

[RogueTrooper]

84. Of course

:eyes:

I think it has more to do with the fact that Kerry is taking a pounding from Dean over this issue. And after his comment about Dean's position being 'wrong', rightly so.


"...politicizing it too much". That is a phrase Karl Rove uses quite often.

[regnaD kciN]

91. Brilliant move, John...

...let's turn the race for the nomination into a question of support for the Iraq invasion!

:puke:

(Before, I'd said that, although I don't support Kerry, I'd vote for him if he was the nominee. Now, I'm not so sure -- he's definitely moving into Lieberman territory with each passing day.)

[SweetZombieJesus]

92. The final nail in the coffin for me

Previously, I've said that Kerry gets blasted by me for his war vote more than Gephardt, Edwards, or Lieberman because he disappointed me the most, and because I believed he should know better than to trust an obvious fearmongering power junkie like Bush.

Now I realize the John Kerry who came home from Vietnam and protested against the war is gone. He sold that John Kerry off piece by piece, and now he's sold his last shred of dignity in a clownish, pathetic attempt to woo Bush's base.

Goodbye John, it was fun while it lasted, but your heart's just not in it anymore, is it?

[Nicholas_J]

96. Again it does not

THe resolution stated that there were preconditions that had to be met before going to war with Iraq was possible. Deans opposition and inflamatory, duplicitous statements decidedly prevented the democrats in congres from gaining enough public pressure solidly behind democratic candidates to make Bush think twice before going to war. At the time Bush went to war, the polls showed that the public massively supported only going to war with U.N. support.

Deand again, did little to indicate that his stance was firmly the same, no war unless there all diplomatic efforts were exhausted. no war with Iraq unless there was proof of WMD's , No going to war unless the president could provide adequate proof that there was adequate proof of imminenet threat to the U.S.

Dean was not known as the "NO WAR WITHOUT THE U.N." candidate.

Dean as usual, kept his stance as vague as possible and did what he is know in Vermont to do continually:


Many of the people who were his allies and adversaries in Montpelier over his 20-year political career have been quietly bemused by the liberal persona he’s built as he campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially through his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp



He was known a the "ANTI-WAR" candidate, thus deceiving the Anti-War for any reason people into supprting him and thus dividing public opinion as well as dividing democrat, for his own political ends, rather than to create a monolithic stance in the party.

[wildwww2]

98. Kerry needs to admit that the "war was wrong" Because he will not get

Anti-war veterans like myself to vote for him in the primaries. I would almost bet that one of the anti-war people will still be on the ballot when Florida has it`s primary. And they will get my vote before Kerry. I will vote for him if he gets the nod against Bu$h but I hope it is not him. If he was not smart enough to see that this war was hokey baloney then he is not being honest with himself or his fellow americans.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President