Clark and Dean, are they ducking the 87 billion dollar question

[bearfartinthewoods]

ON EDIT to add Dean since it seems he may not have given a definitive answer either.

i used the word ducking because it seems that's what he is doing. he says he's not running for congress but for president and seems to feel that means he doesn't need to take a position on this.

and it looks like Dean has also not said if he'd vote for the money or not.

of course, this is a ticklish issue. if they say yes, they ticks off the
dems who want to make this an anti bush issue and if they say no they ticks off the people who take a world view.

but presidents have to make these decisions all the time. why are they ducking this? imho, it doesn't show them in a leadership role at all.

sure their answer will bring them heat but you know the saying....if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

come on guys....time to run with the big dogs or go back and sit on the porch.

[union_maid]

1. Well, for one thing he's not running for Congress

Some of our candidates have to vote on this and it's going to be a tough call. As CMB said, we blew Iraq up. It behooves us to put it back together. I think the first thing that most of our candidates would do if elected is try to get some help for that process and they'd probably be a lot more successful than Bush has been. The UN and the world community has no reason to want to ease things for this administration and every reason to want to be supportive of the US and helpful to an ABB administration. It's not just Americans that want Bush out. It's sane people all over the globe.

[sangh0]

30. Dean has no trouble condemning the Iraq resolution

or the PATRIOT Act, and even though DEAN IS NOT RUNNING FOR CONGRESS!! (so stop saying that he's ducking the question) he has somehow managed to say that he would have voted against both of them.

[CWebster]

2. What's his position on Israel?

Why should he answer any of the hard questions directly if talking around issues in impressive language and honorable tones projects a less controversial image of electibility?

Keep the Wes wing focused on the new patriotism of the old DLC spin machine.

[ShaneGR]

3. Why are you ducking Clark's answer in the CNN debate

He clearly answered this question. Needs to be accountability as to where the money is going. We can't just abandon Iraq now that the damage has been done.

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. i'm getting the quote from CSPAN this AM

it's early so i didn't catch the newspaper but the response i listed is a pretty fair rendition of what was given on cspan. are you saying he has given a definitive yes/no answer?

[bowens43]

15. This isn't a clear answer.

Would he or would he not vote for the 87 billion?

[sangh0]

32. And it's understandable that it's unclear

The bill hasn't been written yet, so no one knows exactly what's in it and if there will be any strings. It's kind of hard to decide on a bill that doesn't exist yet

[bearfartinthewoods]

35. so we should expect statements on passage?

[wyldwolf]

5. Will Clark be asked his opinion on every congressional vote?

Just wondering. I, too, am of the mind that we broke it so we have to pay for it. I was taught that very early in life.

Clark answered this very clearly at the debate. He wants full knowledge and accountability on where the money will be spent.

Run with the big dogs! bwahahahahaha!

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. well no. i don't care how he votes on the renaming of a post office or

if there should be a national hoagie day but this vote is a little bit more important and revealing than your everyday vote.

whoever the president is next year, he will have to clean up the bushshit and this vote is all about that. if Clark and Dean want to be taken seriously on foreign afairs they need to say what they would do with this vote. all the details have been worked out and the info is available to them to evaluate the situation. i can't see a legitimate reason for them to "abstain" especially since they both have taken full advantage of the fact that they have no voting record for us to evaluate in reference to international affairs.

yea or ney guys...which is it?

edit..typos

[wyldwolf]

39. Hmmm... let's see...

If my wife asked me for $100., my first response would be "for what?" Meaning, if I'm going to let go of $100. I want to know why.

Let me clarify before you ask: For better or worse, the American people and Congress are "married" to this pResident. He is asking for billions. In a situation where it is completely our responsibility to clean up our own mess, basing your answer on how that money will be spent is a perfectly acceptable response.

It would be my response because I believe it is our responsibility to rebuild Iraq. But like many, I don't trust Bush with a blank check, thus, I want to know how he will spend the money.

If you differ with me that the money needs to be spent, or that we have this responsibility to the people of Iraq, that is another issue.

[bowens43]

16. That's not an answer to the question.

If he was a memeber of congress, how would vote?

[wyldwolf]

40. He answered like many in Congress did...

..tell us what the money is for, and we'll deal.

[quinnox]

6. He said it would need a "lot of work" in order for him

to vote for it. It's true he hasn't been as clear as say, Edwards and Kerry, who have said they will vote against it. At least Clark said something, for a while Dean refused to take any position, saying since he wasn't in congress he had no say on it so he wasn't going to comment, talk about lame.

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. is Dean sticking with the no comment line too?

i gotta say i look for candidates who have the balls to say what they believe. i can deal with disagreeing with a candidate on any particular issue a lot better than i can with someone who won't take a stand.

[Eloriel]

28. That's not true, you two

When he was asked that question the first time, along with the panel of others in the debate, Dean said very clearly he would vote yes IF Bush repealed tax cuts to pay for it.

I don't know how much clearer you want. The package contains line items for a bunch of different stuff -- some of them IMO pointeless, useless, and wasteful. I think Ann Lewis mentioned $20 million or so for a museum. I'd want to know a LOT more about that.

If someone is IN Congress they can at least attach amendments to try to take the pork out and focus on stuff that just supports the troops or is absolutely necessary for reconstruction. Asking ANYone to say aye or nay on a package like this at this point is ridiculous -- gotcha politics at its worst. Hell, *I* wouldn't know how to answer that question beyond what Dean and Clark (with his emphasis on "accountability") have already said.

But I can tell you this: THIS is the kind of wedge politics among Dems that the Republicans love to see.

Eloriel

[sangh0]

33. Be honest

Dean can't attach his personal desires and conditions to the bill. The bill will be whatever Congress as a whole decides it will be.

Yes or no? Would Dean vote for or against it?

Dean still hasn't answered, and his excuse about not running for Congress never stopped him from saying that he would've voted against the PATRIOT Act and The Iraq Resolution

[bearfartinthewoods]

36. this isn't gotcha politics

personally, i'd want my candidate to be offering input NOW, when it might do some good. you know, step up and lead? if there is pork, point it out!!!! if there is a better way, say so.

kick their way into the debate...that's what i want them to do.

[RC]

9. There needs to be a no vote untill we find out what

bu$h & co-criminals did with the money already spent.
What is needed is an accounting before any more money is shoveled into the Iraqi money pit.

Questions need to be answered, as for instance:
Are some of our troops really eating only one meal a day and living in tents in 120 degree temps while there are commanding officers living in Saddam's air-conditioned palaces?
Why are we importing gasoline into Iraq @ $1.60 to $1.90 and selling to the locals for a few cents a gallon?

[revcarol]

10. Both Clark and Dean should be castigated for this.

We Democrats expect our leaders to make the hard decisions. And in January 2005, our new Democratic President will have to be making decisions on this. So avoiding the question is not an option. We need NUANCED THOUGHTFUL ANSWERS, NOT MAYBE i WOULD, MAYBE i WOULDN'T.

Like I always told my students, BE SPECIFIC. (bUT THEN PEOPLE MIGHT NOT VOTE FOR THEM IF THEY ACTUALLY FOUND OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED.)

[sangh0]

34. THat's impossible

You say you want our leaders to make the nuanced thoughtful answers, but you also want them to be specific concerning a bill that hasn't yet been written. How can they be nuanced when the details are unknown?

[Rowdyboy]

11. Pardon me, but has the Senate

voted on this issue yet? If not, why should Clark and Dean be castigated for not having spoken out one way or the other yet?

It gets pretty silly around here sometimes in the effort to prop up minor league candidates who really don't have a chance in hell.

[revcarol]

13. Believe the House votes today.

The Senators have a lot of amendments, so no idea when they will vote on main bill.

So we shouldn't expect our Presidential candidates to discuss the burning issues of our nation? Iraq and the funding for Iraq is one burning issue. I expect ALL candidates to speak out on this one.

[Rowdyboy]

14. I'm sure they will...

when they consider the time appropriate. They act on their own schedules-not yours or mine. I've never run a presidential campaign so I can't speak with authority on the timing of the release of position statements. Perhaps you can.

[revcarol]

17. Yes, of course, they will pick their own timing and their own crowd

of supporters. What a fool I am to expect them to discuss the direction of the nation with regard to Iraq in a timely manner before the vote.

Not after you personally, rowdyboy, but we talk about accountability and Dems being principled. Seems some Dems might want to pull votes from Republicans by not taking a stand.

And this is all tied in with other issues such as the gutting of all social programs,adding to the national debt, and the current deficit spending. So this is not an unimportant issue that one can weasel about.

[Rowdyboy]

21. What is the proper stand here?

We're talking 60 billion to feed and equip troops-thats going to pass-regardless. It would be suicidal for any politician to oppose that. But here it gets dicey. What about the other 22 billion? We did blow up their country, destroy their capitol, roads. bridges and utilities. Should we refuse to pay to repair them? Should we require them to pay us back with oil revenue? What about us paying for zip codes and area codes and building a museum? Aren't there better uses for the money in this country? Are we morally obligated to restore what we have destroyed? OR should we cut our losses and get the hell out of Dodge, leaving the mess behind us?

And what about the rebuilding? Will the money just be funneled back to Haliburton etal instead of going to address real needs?

I honestly don't know the answers to all these questions. This is a terribly complex issue and I, personally, don't know how I would vote were I in congress.

[rhite5]

20. Rowdyboy - I guess you mean they should wait until the vote is taken

and see how it comes out and see how the public feels about it,

THEN would be the right time to tell us how they feel about it?

That is what you are saying, isn't it?

How dare we demand to know what they would do before they have had a chance to hold a finger to the wind!

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. if they are elected they won't have the luxury of waiting for the senate

vote before they take a stand. come on..this is pretty basic stuff.
if there has been a more important vote on foreign affairs since the war i missed it. you don't have a problem with them trying to take a pass on this????

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. OK, i'll change the question. how would they vote on the house version

or, heavens, how about them raising their voices to influence the debate? give some specifics as to what needs to be changed while there is still a chance to make changes.

isn't that what leaders do?

[bearfartinthewoods]

37. it's called taking the lead...

you know, lead....as in leadership?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. neither one of them have a vote in it...so why should it be an issue?

[bowens43]

19. So a president or presidential candidate should

not have to express an opinion on legislation that affects not only the citizens of the US but also the citizens of other nations? Neither of them has ever had vote on ANY legislation before the congress. Does that mean we do not need to know their postions on those issues?

If we want to make an informed decision in the primaries, their opinions need to be known .

[rhite5]

23. The proper stand is to vote NO on the $87 Billion

There is a heavy campaign going on right now to stop this bill.

I figured most of you are members of MoveOn, but I guess I figured wrong. MoveOn hopes to generate 100,000 phone calls to Congressmen and Senators before Friday and the emails among progressive activists are flying trying to get more people on board. The message came out late in the morning Wed. By late afternoon Pacific Time they had reached over 26% of their goal. That is very good to accomplish that in less than 5 hours.

In a nutshell, here is the argument:

without a plan, without working with the UN, without firing the staff responsible for the mess in Iraq, his $87 billion proposal is just no good.

We will still pay for the damages, but it MUST be managed by the United Nations. The troops, if needed at all, must be UN troops -- NOT under our Pentagon's control. Reconstruction contracts must be open to competive bidding, not the grossly bloated No Bid contracts we have been gifting to Halliburton et al. Our soldiers must be brought home. How many per day are being killed? How many Iraqis per day are being killed? What about all the suicides and mental health cases?

What's going on in Iraq now is a disaster and must be brought to a close by getting out of there and turning it over to wiser heads..

The UN refused Bush when he went cap in hand asking for help. They refused because he insisted the U.S. had to be in charge.

[veganwitch]

26. kucinich specifically asked dean

in the last debate. dennis asked "yes or no" and dean came out with a rambling answer.

at least i know for certain where my candidate stands

edit: i meant to reply to the original message.

[rucky]

41. Yep! That's the stand we need to take.

Democrats: We have the rest of the world on our side...let's show the UN that we'll be willing to deal with a Dem in office. We can still make a diplomatic impact if the Democrats make a strong statement here, otherwise we have all of us to blame & not just Bush and the Republicans.

Besides, it's going to pass with or without the Dem's help...but we can't use it against them if we support it without our PERFECTLY REASONABLE conditions.

[Toucano]

24. It's pretty clear

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/15/politics/main578170.shtml

Clark:

Asked about supporting the package, Wesley Clark, a retired general who won't have to cast a vote, said "not without lots and lots and lots of work." When pressed to clarify his position, Clark said, "I'm not ready to say I support that. Absolutely not."

Dean:

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, another White House hopeful with no vote in Congress, said he would oppose the $87 billion unless Bush pays for it by repealing some of his tax cuts.

"We should support our troops," he told the AP. "If the president doesn't have a sufficient commitment to this operation to get rid of the $87 billion in tax cuts, then we should vote no."


Keep in mind that there have been numberous ammendments to the appropriations bill, so the issue itself actually changes almost hourly.

[rhite5]

27. Neither one of those answers actually addresses the issue

Dean sees it as a budget-busting issue, but it is really a moral issue.

Clark makes a "safe" but non-specific answer.

On the other hand, Kucinich (who's position matches what I wrote above) has consistenly given that answer.

Edwards spoke out very strongly against the $87 Billion last weekend. It was a new position for him.

Earlier this week Kerry began to speak against it. Also a new position for him.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. Clark, a retired general.?

if that's all he was i wouldn't give a damn but he's running for president. and what specificly does he feel has to be changed before he will be ready to support that.

Dean..come on Dr.! you know the 87 bil will never be paid for by cuts in the tax breaks. why not jusr come out with a strait yes or no?

it would be refreshing for a change.

[mrgorth]

25. Dean has said

That he would approve the $87 billion if it was done the right way, ie. take it from the tax cuts. Sounds reasonable to me.

[CMT]

29. Dean has said that only way he would vote for it is if

they paid for it by repealing the Bush tax cut. Some people believe that maybe the US has the moral obligation to pay for rebuilding Iraq since we were the ones who went in there and destroyed the country. But Dean believes if we do this we should pay for it by giving up the Bush tax cut.

[rucky]

42. But...But...That's how Dean said he would pay for healthcare

were the bush cuts THAT big?

[FubarFly]

43. Yes.

The tax cuts are estimated at over $350 billion dollars. Dean's health plan will cost about $88.3 billion dollars. Originally Dean wanted to use some of the excess money to pay down the debt. Since the Iraq money is going to add to our debt anyway, the logic is that paying for this by repealing the tax cuts will accomplish the same goal.

[rucky]

45. Thanks, Fubar!

:yourock:

[Donna Zen]

38. Tax cuts?

Both Dean and Clark have already accounted for the upper level tax cuts in their respective proposals for jobs and the economy.

Dean wants the bill to be revenue neutral.

I'm okay with that; however, he will have to adjust his other policies to account for the shift in monies.

Clark wants 1) pork out 2) to use the money as leverage. IOW, if the regime wants the money, then they must return to the congress with both the details and a plan that includes an exit strategy. Until that is done, the answer is no. Of course this is a trap because the regime has no plan, especially one that includes leaving.

When I made my calls yesterday (1-D 2-R), I used Clark's rationale. Why? The one thing I know about the endless war is that we are there. And moreover, we are subject to International law as the occupiers to fix what we broke. Noting that we on the left have been calling for our country to behave as world citizens rather than a rogue state, I assume that in the end, we are going to have to find the money. Also, I like the idea of sounding reasonable and simply asking for a plan. I did say that I was making the call on behalf of my yet to be born grand-children who would actually be footing the bill.

You know, none of the people you are smearing over this would have voted for this war. (Although...Lieberman might have thought about it, the Reps. would have voted against.) Cleaning up the regime's mess does not mean we have to track it into our livingrooms. The reps. will use a "no" vote against us, and we will use a "yes" vote against ourselves.

The original bill could have 10 amendments before it leaves the floor of the Senate. To answer yes or no is a fools game.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. i commend you for your originality

using smear instead of bash to dismiss a criticism.