Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[WilliamPitt]

1. Because Dean supporters are optimistic pragmatists?

In other words, because Dean can win and Kucinich can't?

[Racenut20]

3. I understand your point, but ????

I don't think Dean can carry the swing states.

[Guaranteed]

8. If Dean can't win, none of them can. n/t

[billbuckhead]

9. I don't see Dean being more electable than Kucinich

At least Kucinich is against burning the American flag and didn't sign a "gay marriage" law. Democrats have to face facts that a Yankee can't win in the south.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[not systems]

19. These are pro-Kucinich points???

Sounds like reasons not to vote for Kucinich to me.

And the vote against stem cell studies.

I'll stay with Dean thanks.

[bowens43]

24. Kucinich IS a yankee.

Is Kucinich in favor of a flag burning amendment? If so, that's another good reason NOT to support him.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[StopTheMorans]

4. well-put Will!

those are my exact thoughts as a Dean supporter:)

[WilliamPitt]

7. But

doesn't that pragmatism kinda throw cold water on the moral superiority of many Dean supporters about the war? The Kucinich-can't-win mantra does not exist if Kucinich had the kind of energized support Dean enjoys. Or am I wrong?

[Guaranteed]

13. You're assuming we agree with Kucinich

on everything having to do with the war.
Kucinich wants to get our troops out right now. I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with that.

On edit: And why can't he just be "too liberal" for us? It goes hand in hand with his not being electable.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Fair enough

You are correct.

[RaulGroom]

28. You're wrong

Kucinich is best on the issues, as far as the current author is concerned. But he lacks the talent to be president. He's also unqualified. I love Dennis, but you don't go from the most obscure depths of the House to the Oval Office. It's just... not done.

Talent - Kucinich lacks it. Treasure - Kucinich can't hope to raise it. Treachery - Dennis doesn't have the goods on anybody. Taxes - Dennis has no angle.

There's your four T's, and there's why Dennis is not a player in this game.

[AWD]

35. You are not wrong

....Kucinich is not electable....YET.

The pendulum does not swing all at once. DK is the furthest left of all the 9 candidates, and we can't expect to swing all the way in one fell swoop.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

50. Kerry will accomplish both things by winning

but since you have me on ignore you won't see this. :hi:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[joeybee12]

14. Tom Tomorrow say we'rea ll murderers!

Just finished The Great Big Book of Tomorrow--he says if one innocent man is put to death, we're all to blame.

A little strident, but he has a point in the sense that we shouldn't just look away.

I think Kerry does have blood on his hands, as does everyone who voted for the resolution. This will go down in history as the most despicable thing this country has ever done.

[JI7]

21. war on drugs also ?

the war on drugs has caused a lot of murder. do those who support the war on drugs have blood on their hands too ?

[nolabels]

47. I agree with you and Tom, It is even a reason to not work too.......

Hard or give the Federal Government any benefit of doubt. Paying Federal taxes only feeds this killing machine. There is nothing moral about it.

The guy they installed as their figure head can be classified in the top echelons of the killing pyramid. Even before he got there he put to death numbers in the hundreds, and seems to never have had the forethought to even stop and even look at one of them.

If only more people would have stoped and listened to this man in the picture



http://www.bushkills.com/record.html

Bush's Record

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is portrayed in his Talk Magazine interview as ridiculing pickax killer Karla Faye Tucker of Houston for an interview she did with CNN broadcaster Larry King shortly before she was executed last year.
"`Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me.'"
In fact, during that Larry King-Faye Tucker exchange, Tucker NEVER asked to be spared.

It must be said that George W. Bush is not responsible for the increased pace of executions, nor did he create Texas' arcane clemency procedures. But it cannot be denied that Bush has steadfastly opposed changing the clemency procedures in the face of stinging criticism by the courts.
Bush has even opposed simple safeguards like holding open meetings. The Texas governor has vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense. He called that bill, which had bipartisan support, "a threat to public safety." Bush also opposed legislation instituting life without parole and banning the execution of people with IQ's less than 65. In general, he has been a leading spokesperson in favor of the death penalty.
(snip)

[Zhade]

61. That is an AWESOME protest idea.

"Stop Me Before I Kill Again" - that's just genius, man!

[nolabels]

119. Is it all a matter of perspective?

I was once listened to a Radio talk show host that considered him self a environmentalist, didn't eat meat and considered insects having as much right to life as Humans (like talking about what is "is"). Then one day I was listening when he came on his show and went on a diatribe on he had committed Genocide. You see a colony of little brown grease ants had invaded his kitchen and he had to get the RAID out.

I laugh for the fact that maybe * just is thinking just like the people selling bug spray here at this company, that's just a cleaning agent! Don't get too worked up about them for they are just nuisances and something just needing a little tidying up




Cleaning Chemicals > Insecticides—Aerosols


RAID® Ant & Roach Killer
Quick-acting formula kills roaches, waterbugs, ants, silverfish, crickets and spiders; residual keeps killing for up to four weeks. Light, Outdoor Fresh scent. No CFCs. EPA registered
http://www.bettymills.com/cgi-bin/store/index.cgi?pid=527

Not trying to mock anybody, just trying to look at others perspective

Btw there are much better ways to get rid of ants than using RAID

[blm]

22. The purists re: Kerry who ignore that Dean's position is similar

to Kerry's but those supporters act as if the difference is much more profound and noble.

[joeybee12]

27. Dean didn't vote for the resolution,

so you can't compare the two that way.

His position is that since we're in there, we have to stay there, and quite frankly, I don't disagree with that. We have raped a country, and if we pull out know, the level of hate againt this country will skyrocket. We have to rebuild that country--it's a no-win option now that we've destroyed it. Pulling out prematurely is going to make the world a much less safer place. Yes, both Dean and Kerry agree about this, but agina, I go back to resolution passed in October 2002--this Resolution gave Dumbo a blank check, and ANYONE with a brain knew he had made up his mind to go to war--there was never even any substantial debate over this! The Dems in congress rolled over and took it again. Now THAT is despicable!

[eileen_d]

29. So Dean and Kerry both want the same exit strategy

But who could really pull it off? My bet's on Kerry.

[blm]

39. He was FOR the Biden-Lugar version of the IWR.

He said he would have voted for it if he had the vote. And later he suggested giving 30-60 more days and THEN invade Iraq.

Please don't pretend he wasn't for military action at all like Kucinich. He wasn't.

The blank check Bush wanted was NO presentation to UN and further invasions of Syria and Iran. Those Dems who negotiated curtailed Bush where they could and paid with their votes.

[killbotfactory]

84. And if people were saying Dean's an anti-war pacifist

you may have a point.

But they aren't, so your just throwing up strawman arguements.

[blm]

130. No...just don't attack Kerry sanctimoniously and expect

the sincerity of your own antiwar sentiments to be believed, because if you felt THAT strongly you'd be supporting Kucinich.

[killbotfactory]

131. I'm not antiwar

I'm anti Iraq war. And I would be so harsh on Kerry if he would stop trying to lamely justify his positioning as well as distoring the position of the canidate I support.

[roughsatori]

15. Agreed, I support Kucinich put have no illusions he will win the nom.

Dean is more centrist then I am, but I think that he can win the nomination and beat Bush*. I know that some supporters of other moderate Dems are furious that some of the more left members of Du support Dean and not their moderate candidate, but that is one of Dean's strengths. He was among the first to speak out against the current Junta, even while others were praising the felons in charge. I see Dean getting votes from across the spectrum of Dem voters then other candidates.

I know that some candidates are pushed because they may pull in Republican voters, but Dean will attract more Democrats and that is what is important.

[mrgorth]

16. Yep.(nt)

.

[quaker bill]

129. I always disageed with the war.

I did so before I had even heard of Howard Dean.

I do not find fault with Kerry's vote to support Dean. I disagreed with it at the time it was cast. I was writing our democratic senators urging them to oppose the resolution, Kerry included.

This has nothing to do with Dr. Dean, Dennis Kucinich or the 2004 campaign.

Mr. Kerry was, simply stated, wrong on this vote. There is no principled higher ground to put it on.

Mr. Kerry stated that his standard for going to war is to be able to look the parents of a dead soldier in the eye and be able to say: "this was necessary". I find this to be a reasonable standard.

His vote does not even meet his own stated standard.

Blowing up civilians over a non-existant threat is simply immoral. To vote to approve this war to enhance his chances of being re-elected is even more so.

You just can't spin this one clean.

[joeybee12]

2. You're assuming all Dean supporters are one-issue voters

I personally dislike Kucinich's anti-choice stand through the years.

Besides, I really think you need to examine whether Kerry's vote was due to his conscious. From what I've read, he was going to vote no, but his staff made him change his mind, basically saying it was more politically expedient to do so.

I used to support Kerry, even after the vote, but the more I think about it, the more that decision represents more than a single vote. It means I can't trust him.

[Guaranteed]

18. That's why that "one-issue" represents

more than one issue. It represents integrity and courage- aka leadership.

[Ripley]

5. Few thinking people are single-issue voters.

Life is too complicated for that. I don't support Kucinich because I don't think he is presidential material. I think he is good being a member of Congress. I mean hell, I think Bernie Sanders is precisely correct on a huge number of issues...but run for president? No way. Some people have that leader mojo around them and some don't. No slam on Kucinich...he's not alone.

[Demobrat]

10. Kucinich had to be convinced

that women were entitled to control over their own bodies. Dean has always been adamantly pro-choice. Huge difference for me.

[veganwitch]

44. so you would prefer that

he stay that way?

regardless, lip-service on abortion is not anything im interested in.

dennis has convinced me that he is sincere and will work not only to keep abortion legal, but also lessen the need by targeting sex education and contraception and poverty issues. i think its a very sensible way to approach the issue.

there are a thousand striking at the branches for one striking at the root.

[Demobrat]

120. I would prefer that my candidate not need convincing.

He doesn't.

[CWebster]

11. Why not support Sharpton?

Why don't you support Lieberman?

My preference for Dean is based on more than his position about invading Iraq, in fact it is about more than Dean the candidate.

My dislike of Kerry is based on more than his Iraq resolution vote as well.

[Tinoire]

17. That's one of the main reasons I'm going with Kucinich

and I'm not buying any of that bogus electability crap. Electability should be determined during the Primaries by "we the people" and not by the corporations and special interests trying to convince the people that certain candidates are "unelectable".

[eissa]

25. Kucnich is wrong....

...I also was/am extremely against the war (which is one of the reasons Dean attracted me, but far from the only one). Kucnich wants us to leave now. I agree with Dean that we initiated a war and must now fulfill our responsibilities and clean up our mess. Here's an analogy: many parents tell their teens to abstain from sex. Well what happens when they don't and you have a pregnancy? The guy just doesn't run off; he's stuck with child support payments until the child turns 18. Well we went against the advice of the entire international community, got ourselves into a mess, and must now fulfill our obligations.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Kucinich advocates that we pull out and let the UN fully take over

while we provide the majority of financial support for reconstruction.

In many ways, he IS right on this. So long as there is a heavy US involvement on the ground, any UN involvement will be seen as simply a cloak for US occupation of Iraq.

[newyawker99]

41. Hi eissa!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[bowens43]

20. Because....

Kucinich can't win. As much as I hate to say it (I'm sure I'm about to get flamed) , Kucinich doesn't look , act or sound 'presidential'. Most American voters know nothing or next to nothing about the issues. A frighteningly large percentage of voters vote for the guy that they 'like' the most. IMO , in a head to head contest with Kucinich, the idiot would win by a landslide. It's a sad state of affairs but that's the way it is. In the primary I will vote for the candidate that most closely shares my views AND has a chance of winning. Right now, that candidate is Dean.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

30. agreed - Kucinich can't win

I have a lot of respect and admiration for his positions but his image is poor. For many, life is just an extension of high school. Kucinich is the geeky guy who gets his lunch money stolen every day then runs for student council thinking that will somehow confer upon him some measure of "cool." He couldn't be cool if it grew on trees and there was a cool orchard in his back yard.

Besides, he will never get over the "he bankrupted Cleveland" soundbite. The circumstances are too nuanced for the average swing voter to pay attention to the rebuttal and overcome the insinuation of incompetence.

Nobody who can be tarred with the incompetent brush (unfortunately, this includes CMB too) should go anywhere in the Democratic nomination process. Competence has to be on the table in the 2004 election.

[Scott Lee]

23. Kucinich is Great - but he has no fangs

Why not support Kucinich? Here's why.

While Kucinich's message is undeniably right, and smart at that, he is not the best representative of that message. I hate to say this but it gets down to presence. I mean, look at him. He's kind of a mix of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Neuman and he's talking about kicking the top executive of government out of his chair.

Please.

This is why I'm supporting Dean right now. They have very similar messages, but Dean is...MEAN! And I like that. I also think Americans respect that. Check out that thick neck, set jaw, kind of a Rotweiller presence at the podium. I've seen his neck veins bulge. Check out his eyes, the way they flash. The directness and force of his delivery. Do YOU wanna cross this guy?

I am not being sarcastic or facetious here at all. Truth be told I'd love to live in a world where a guy like Kucinich could get elected. But if there's one thing I've learned over the last twenty some odd years of the Republican Conservative Reign of Terror, it's that Americans are hypnotized by might. Additionally, the Democratic Party suffers from Whimp Syndrome, and a loss of mission. What better way to remedy this than with a guy like Dean?

In order not to piss off the Kucinich supporters, I have an olive branch. Here's my dream team - Dean/Kucinich. Kucinich's intellect and grace with words would be a wonderful source of intelligence and information for President Dean, who could wield them like a truncheon.

These two are the only and I mean ONLY Dems running who have a shred of the original fire that made up the liberal democratic party I knew as a kid. The others are embarassing dross (jeeesh especially Joe Lieberman. I wish he'd retire already).

[IrateCitizen]

36. Dean's appeal is not Dean, it is his PHENOMENON

And I say that in a good way. Dean's candidacy somehow has hit all the right chords in energizing a massive grassroots base. I often think that he has, really more than anything, just happened to get swept up in it.

I'm a Kucinich supporter because of what he stands for (an end to militarism, universal health coverage, a more egalitarian society), but Dean is my #2 based on the PHENOMENON factor. I really believe that what Dean has accomplished, coupled with the effectiveness of a group like MoveOn.org, can help revolutionize the way that politics is conducted within the Democratic Party.

That's the reason that Lieberman and the DLC are attacking Dean so much. It's not because he has radical views -- he's much more of a centrist than a progressive. It's because his PHENOMENON is a direct threat to their strategy of elitist politics. Lieberman and the DLC want to defeat Bush, but their greatest nightmare is an energized grassroots movement that takes away a great deal of their political power -- and they'll do next to anything to stop it.

[veganwitch]

45. i would say dean has no fangs

because of his waffling on the war issue and also health care and gay marriage. lets go with whats "do-able."

fuck do-able!! do or do not, there is no try.

i would rather see someone strive for real change and fail than simply stick band-aid over band-aid over band-aid.

[TLM]

70. So you support idealistic failure...

over pragmatic progress.

Hence the fact the far left hasn't gotten anywhere in the last 30 fucking years.

I'm sick of this all or nothing bullshit handing elections to republicans over and over and over.


The far left needs to pull their heads out of their asses and figure out that the whole universe doesn't change in one election by electing the ubber liberal who will reverse three decades of republicans making small steps to the right.

We, just like the right, have to make progress step by step as we move our agenda more and more to the left over time. It doesn't happen all at once, never has, political change doesn't happen that way.

[veganwitch]

110. compromise when your at the table

not before.


and guess what?!?!?!

its been the radicals, the leftists, the liberals etc. that have allowed the discussion to even start and progress to happen.

if it wasnt for the fringe aggitating and rocking the boat and refusing to sit down and shut up, this little experiment would have gotten stagnant and stale.



edit: and in my opinion, the edges are already getting hard


edit part two: be optimistic.

shoot for the stars, at least you'll hit the telephone poles
no one trains for second place. (on my swim team teeshirt)
vote your HOPES, not your FEARS

[killbotfactory]

32. I don't support Kucinich because I don't like him

I don't like his anti-choice legacy, I don't like the way he speaks, I don't like his new age psuedo-religious rhetoric, I don't agree with his approach to universal healthcare or trade agreements, and he takes his anti-war position to an extreme I don't agree with him on.

But it's nice to know I can only care about the IWR vote if I side with Kucinich. I don't find that opinion arrogant in the least.

[indigo32]

33. IWR is NOT a defining issue with me

no matter how strongly I was against the action... I will gladly vote for Kerry or any of the other candidates who potentially will see the nomination.

[sistersofmercy]

34. I've been thinking exactly that everytime the IWR vote is brought up by

Dean supporters.

[MGKrebs]

38. As a Dean supporter, I agree with others here.

If DK were the only candidate to oppose the war, I would probably have to support him. But he's not, we have a choice, so we get to look at secondary issues.

So I like DK on paper. But Dean is more compelling to me as a candidate, and since I believe I am at least a little like the mainstream, I assume many others would feel the same way.

Besides, as I've said before, I don't think we are ready for DK yet. If Gore had become President, then after his terms, we would probably be in a position to take the next step and get DK in there. But the country took a turn to the right (for whatever reasons). Now we have to get them back to the middle before we move more to the left.

Just my opinion.

[AP]

40. Dean's obsession with IWR is about tearing other Democrats down. It's not

about building himself up, or living according to the standards he set.

blm is right. If the IWR is, in and of itself, the crucial issue, all those Dean supporters would be rooting for Kucinich. They'll say electability trumps purity though. But isn't that what they say was the thing that motivated Kerry et al to vote as they did. If electability were the trump card, they wouldn't lean towards Dean.

[MGKrebs]

48. Hmm.

"Dean's obsession with IWR is about tearing other Democrats down."

Your opinion. I would say it's about showing the differences between himself and some of the other candidates.

"If the IWR is, in and of itself, the crucial issue, ..."

It's not.

"They'll say electability trumps purity though."

Fortunately, we have more than one candidate who is "pure" on the issue, so no trump needed. We actually get to look at other issues too.

"If electability were the trump card, they wouldn't lean towards Dean. "

Again, no trump card needed. Some of us get to weigh multiple issues at the same time, and form an opinion based on the overall picture.

Besides, what is not electable about Dean? leading in fundraising, winner of multiple past elections, leading (I think, or at least close to leading) every state he is campaigning in, plenty of press, decent public speaker, strong campaign, message appealing to many, no major skeletons (at least not yet).

:shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. I agree. Dean saw an opening to distinguish himself and he exploited it

'big time' as Cheney would say.

[killbotfactory]

53. If Kerry didn't back down on the issue, there'd be nothing to exploit

Dean, Kerry, Gore, were all against the IWR before the vote, or at least expressed opinions contrary to it. Kerry backed down, Gore didn't run, and Dean stuck to his position despite many doomsday predictions about his campaign and a label of being an "unelectable" that has stuck to this day among Kerry supporters even though they are now trying to say there is no major difference between Kerry and Dean.

[eileen_d]

55. Of course there's a difference between Kerry and Dean.

Kerry will be elected president in 2004, while Dean will not.

O8)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

63. Kerry didn't back down. He changed the resolution into

something he could vote for.

[killbotfactory]

73. Why did he vote for it?

Was he trying to get the president to go through the UN, because the president could invade anyway, or was it because he wanted to give Bush the credible threat of force to get Saddam to comply?

I've heard both excuses from Kerry and his supporters.

Did Kerry support Bush's invasion?

I've heard yes, but he would have preferred more diplomacy, but Saddam brought it on himself, even Blix said he was not complying.

I've also heard, no, not the way Bush went about it, he rushed to war and wanted more diplomacy.

Which is it?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

86. I'm not.

I've examined his statements and come away thinking he just didn't want the war to become an issue that might hurt his chances in the general election.

[gully]

42. Bullshit all around.

First, I care about WHY Dean opposed the war. He made the strongest case against, it by saying under what circumstances he would approve of said war. To say I don't like war, and/or Bush is bad so I don't approve, is not a case against war. It's a given.

Kucinich to my knowledge never stated under what circumstances he would authorize the war. I needed to hear this personally to judge Deans position fairly.

Additionally, regarding the 60 day timeline (which is either greatly misunderstood or greatly spinned)

Allow me to clarify once again.

Dean said:

IF:

Saddam was found to have nukes etc and thus was a threat to the US...

THEN:

We should have gone to the UN and asked for a 60 day warning to Saddam to disarm or be disarmed.

ONLY:

If Saddam was found to be a 'real' danger to the US should we act.

DEAN MAINTAINED CORRECTLY FROM THE BEGINNING "THE PRESIDENT NEVER MADE A CASE FOR WAR."

As we now know, Dean was right.

*Edited to add, the Iraq war is ONE of many important issues, and not the ONLY reason I support Howard Dean*

[Duder]

43. By the same poor rationale...

Why not Al Sharpton?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

49. What does an IWR purist think, anyway?

And why would Dean describing a hypothetical situation where unilateral action would be necessary, that hasn't come to pass, have any impact on that?

[Mike_from_NoVa]

54. tawana

Like I alluded to above, competence is one area where we have to be ruthless when selecting our nominee. The other is judgement.

I grew up in Dutchess Co. and am very familiar with the pain and completely disfunctional race relations that came from Sharpton's championing of the messed up Tawana Brawley story. Sharpton's judgement is suspect because, at best, he allowed Tawana to pull the wool over his eyes. At worst, he set race relations in the Hudson Valley (which were in pretty sad shape anyway) back 10 years. Hard to forgive.

Similarly, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman showed poor judgement on the IWR. (Though Lieberman was proibably all for it) They rolled over for Bush. They should have know he would take it as a blank check. Bit by a snake and now they wonder why? Bad judgement. Equally hard to forgive. It was literally a life and death decision.

Especially Gephardt - he's compromised with the Repubs over and over again only to be screwed in the end every time. He's like Charlie Brown attempting a field goal.

[Eloriel]

52. Sloppy thinking

Very sloppy.

Here is the point made by blm in another thread...
Quoting directly: "If you cared about (the IWR) with the sincerity you say you do, then you'd side with Kucinich.

This assumes:
1. We're one-issue voters. We're not.
2. Kucnich's views match ours. They don't.
3. Kucinich's view are interchangeable with Dean's. They aren't.
4. That our anti-war positions can be measured against Kucinich's on the basis of sincerity. They can't.
5. That the war issue is the only thing we like about Dean. Not by a long shot.

Eloriel

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

71. How can you say their positions were the same... that's so false...

Kerry said:

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)



Sure thing John, I won't be voting for your war mongering ass.

[blm]

57. Not the point. The point is that IF those who SANCTIMONIOUSLY

use the IWR to characterize Kerry in the darkest light, so sincerely believed the purist antiwar arguments they use to do so, they would criticize Dean's actual positions as well because they, too fall far short based on the high road they claim to travel.

[gully]

58. How?

Dean and Kerry do not/did not hold the same position on the Iraq War.

Clue:

Kerry is not Dean
Kucinich is not Dean

Dean is who I support for a multitude of reasons.

[sangh0]

59. gully, re-read blm's post

blm did NOT say that Dean and Kerry's positions are the same. blm said that the arguments Dean supporters use to criticize Kerry's votes could also be use to criticize Dean's position on the vote because Dean was not against the war. Like Kerry, he was opposed to the way Bush* handled it.

[killbotfactory]

60. then blm is wrong.

Dean was quite clearly against the war.

[blm]

66. Dean was for Biden-Lugar version of war, not outright opposed.

.

[killbotfactory]

69. No he was for the Biden-Lugar amendment to the IWR

Dean wanted proof Iraq was a threat to the US so grave that invasion was a necessity, or else proof that the Iraq was not disarming and the UN was dragging it's feet.

Dean has always maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, and the UN was working to disarm Saddam. If Bush went to war anyway, Dean and any other democrats who supported the resolution, could say that Bush is in violation of the resolution and oppose the war.

[sangh0]

75. Dean said he thought Saddam was a threat

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/05/cg.00.html

HUNT: Governor, there's a sizable peace bloc among Democratic constituency, those that argue we've contained Saddam Hussein and we shouldn't send American men and women into harm's way.

Yet your position, as I understand it, is that you are a patient multilateral hawk, if you will, really indistinguishable from John Kerry. Is that fair?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN (D), VERMONT: I don't know what John Kerry's position is, because I've seen different positions at different times. But I can tell you what mine is. I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point. There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case.

And so we have time to build a multilateral coalition. But I think we're much better off going in with our allies and the United Nations than we are going it alone."

So, if we had the UN with us, Dean would have had no problem invading Iraq.

[killbotfactory]

77. So what is your point?

He also said Bush hadn't made the case for invasion, and laid out scenario's where he could support an military action, none of which has ever come to pass.

Are you saying that because Dean would hypothetically support a unilateral attack under certain conditions which haven't been met he is effectively supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War?

[sangh0]

83. The point is

that's very close to Kerry's position

Are you saying that because Dean would hypothetically support a unilateral attack under certain conditions which haven't been met he is effectively supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War?

My point is that he would support a unilateral attack under conditions similar to the conditions under which Kerry would support a unilateral attack.

[killbotfactory]

88. Kerry supported Bush's attack on Iraq

Said saddam brought action on himself, would prefer more diplomacy, but supported Bush's decision.

Dean said he thought the case for invasion had not been made, and therefore invasion was unjustified. He made that very clear to anyone who listed.

That's not the same position.

[sangh0]

94. Kerry did not support Bush*

Kerry has consistently said that he wanted to take action through the UN, which is what Dean also said.

[killbotfactory]

99. Ahem

He was quite adept at hiding his disaprovel of the war.

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

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

May 4th, 2004

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

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

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

March 17th, 2003

Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism

April 11th, 2003

[sangh0]

103. Not too bright

Some advice - The next time you want to slur somebody by taking a quote out of contect, remember to NOT quote the context.

1) Your first quote makes it obvious that Kerry supported the disarming of Saddam. Kerry said "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him"

The decision that Kerry says he supports was "the decision to disarm Saddam". Kerry does not say "I support the invasion of Iraq". He says the opposite. "I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity"

2) Your second quote has Kery criticizing Bush* and his mishandling of the situation. If we were to believe you, and Kerry DID support the invasion, then one has to wonder exactly what Kerry was referring to when he spoke of Bush* "mishandling"

WRT "Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself". I happen to agree with him. Saddam did bring it on himself. And Kerry has been talking about the need to deal with Saddam for years, including the use of force as a last resort, unlike Dean who only became interested in Iraq when it offered him some political gain.

[gully]

105. Great post...

and 'very' bright I might add ;)

[sangh0]

109. Too bad it doesn't say what kbf claimed it said

Kerry never said he supported the invasion.

[killbotfactory]

112. Find me a source where Kerry says the invasion is wrong

After the war. I've tried and can't find one.

Saying he would have preferred more diplomacy doesn't count in my book.

[sangh0]

116. Find me a source where Kerry says "I support the invasion"

which is what you've been claiming Kerry said.

I give you a source where Kerry says the invasion is wrong when you can find a post of mine that claims Kerry said that.

Saying he would have preferred more diplomacy doesn't count in my book.

Dean said the same thing, but that counts in your book.

[killbotfactory]

121. I just did that.

But you accused me of selective quotation.

[sangh0]

123. Don't lie

You quote Kerry saying that he "supports the decision" to disarm Saddam. He has never said "I support the invasion"

[gully]

125. Did you read the quotes...

He said exactly that.

[killbotfactory]

127. The question was about Bush's decision to invade

Kerry's response stated he supported Bush's decision, and no indication he theought the invasion was wrong.

[gully]

124. How bout I supported the invasion...

"and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

S-U-P-P-O-R-T.

[blm]

64. Not the same, but, SIMILAR positions.

The critique is of those who condemn Kerry outright using highroad arguments on Iraq, while bypassing Kucinich for Dean, whose position wasn't quite as significantly different from Kerry's.

[gully]

100. You cannot determine what is significant to individuals.

The differences between Dean and the other candidates on Iraq was/is significant for me personally.

[blm]

133. Can you read? Kucinich's position was significantly different

from Kerry's, and by comparison, Dean's is not. You cannot honestly say that Dean's position was closer to Kucinich than Kerry and expect people to believe it.

[TLM]

62. As with most of BLM attacks on Dean supporters....

this one is yet another attempt to avoid questions about Kerry supporting the war in Iraq, by attacking the act of asking those questions if you support Dean. Rather than answer, BLM would rather try to act as if Dean supporters have no right to ask the questions because they don’t support Kucinich.

"The people who are most vitriolic are often Dean supporters. So blm's question is pertinent and powerful: for those with such a deep-seated aversion to the entire Iraq escapade, why not support Kucinich?"


Because Kucinich can not win the general election. Simple as that. We've been around and around this over and over again with BLM, and the meme just keeps getting repeated as if it hasn't already been addressed.

I like Kucinich's position on the war, and I am very happy he had the guts to vote against it and speak out. However as great as that is, he is far too shrill and too out there on some other issue to ever have a prayer in the general election.

Also, the war issue alone is not the only reason I support Dean.


"EDIT: I should have also clarified that the premise of the question is based on the notion that Dean supported Biden-Lugar AND suggested a 30-60 day window to go into Iraq if Saddam didn't comply."

Another misleading claim that has been repeatedly addressed. The 30-60 day deadline was Dean's response to a question where the premise was that Saddam:

A. Had WMDs and/or was giving weapons to terrorists.
B. That we had proof of this real threat to the US.
C. That the UN, upon being shown this proof, refused to act.

Then and only then would Dean support unilateral action to the end of disarming saddam, not invading Iraq and taking over. Despite BLM's repeated attempts to dishonestly misrepresent The Biden-Lugar bill as basically the same as the IWR that Kerry supported and voted for, the fact is that BL was much stricter about making Bush go through the UN, and did not allow for regime change.

And the sad fact is that the very bottom line to this whole line of BS is to try and argue that Dean is just as dirty as Kerry on the war issue, because they know defending Kerry on the war issue is impossible... so instead they try to drag Dean down to Kerry's level.



Now for those who are actualy interested in the facts, and not just attacking Dean... have a look at this interview where Dean lays out his position on war and UN action against saddam very clearly.

Edit: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html


GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... 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. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, by my count, you just used some version of the word "unilateral" six times in that response. If... the president would argue he is not favoring a unilateral attack, that he has support from Britain and other nations and is now going to the United Nations for a second resolution. Under what circumstances could you imagine a multilateral attack?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

GWEN IFILL: Governor, you have criticized other Democrats in the race for seeming to support the president by voting for the use-of-force resolution last October in Congress, yet you say that you support... you would support... you'd be willing to support a United Nations-backed effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. How is that different from what the people in Congress voted for?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: What they voted for was to allow the president of the United States to attack Iraq unilaterally without going back to Congress. So the four folks that I'm running against who are from Congress all voted to give the president that power. The objection that I have... the greatest objection is for the folks that voted for it and then went to Iowa and California and pretended they are against the war. That doesn't wash. We're not going to elect a president of the United States but nominating somebody who says one thing and does something else, and appears to be willing to say whatever it takes to become president. That's a guarantee that we won't beat George Bush that way. We have got to stick to our guns. We've got to defend our positions, and we've got to be proud of our positions.

GWEN IFILL: Are you supportive of the second resolution, which is now apparently making its way to the United Nations Security Council?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. Look, I don't have a problem with the second resolution because the United Nations will ultimately make the decision about how Saddam is to be disarmed. My own preference is that we give the inspectors some more time-- we're making some progress there-- but that if Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him. I think our role in this has been pretty awful. We really have made it more difficult for the United States to carry out its policies by alienating practically everyone, including our friends, in regard to this matter of Iraq, and I think that's a mistake. I think it would have been a lot easier for us had the president not last July essentially declared that we were going to go in, and if people didn't like it, that was too bad for them. That was the wrong way to handle it.

GWEN IFILL: It sounds more like you disagree with our approach to this war than to the idea of waging war.

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: 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.

GWEN IFILL: Is Saddam Hussein, in your opinion, an immediate threat now?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: No. If he were, I would advocate unilateral action. That's... the whole point I'm trying to make is unless he possesses a way of attacking the United States, either by giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, which the president has not made the case for, or by having a nuclear program, then he's not an imminent threat.

Here is my biggest concern: North Korea is about to go nuclear on this president's watch, because he refuses to discuss the matter with them. That is a far greater danger to the United States, and frankly, far more likely to lead us into war sooner than any danger posed by Iraq. And of course, the greatest danger remains al-Qaida, which this president is not committing the resources to, is not dealing with the Saudis' funding of terror and the Saudis' funding of schools which teach small children in Islamic countries to hate Americans, Christians and Jews, which is the next, second generation of terrorists and suicide bombers. The important problems, the real important threats to the United States -al-Qaida and North Korea-- are not being dealt with. They are being put on the back burner because of this president's obsession with unilateral disarmament of Iraq, which is not a threat to the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Pardon me. So if you say that if you were president, you would back-burner Iraq and put North Korea on the front burner?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: My strategy for dealing with Iraq, as president, would be to contain them, to continue to push the United Nations to disarm them, and then to open talks with North Korea with the impetus... I have a four-point plan which I outlined last weekend at Drake University, and it essentially includes beginning bilateral talks, having an interim solution where both parties agree that, "A," the United States will not attack North Korea, and "B," that the North Koreans will not develop nuclear weapons during the talks; and then beginning the process of the five-power talks including South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States to deal with this threat. That is a very serious threat. Under no circumstances can North Korea be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and they are about to do it because this president isn't paying enough attention.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

67. And the date of this interview was? (n/t)

[killbotfactory]

72. Feb 27th

Here's more resources about Dean's Iraq statements.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

[sangh0]

76. Dean lies

Although kbf has Dean denying that Saddam was a threat in August, September AND December of 2002, on Oct 10, 2002 he appeared on CNN and said that Saddam WAS a threat:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/05/cg.00.html

HUNT : Governor, there's a sizable peace bloc among Democratic constituency, those that argue we've contained Saddam Hussein and we shouldn't send American men and women into harm's way.

Yet your position, as I understand it, is that you are a patient multilateral hawk, if you will, really indistinguishable from John Kerry. Is that fair?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN (D), VERMONT: I don't know what John Kerry's position is, because I've seen different positions at different times. But I can tell you what mine is. I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point. There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case.

And so we have time to build a multilateral coalition. But I think we're much better off going in with our allies and the United Nations than we are going it alone.

[killbotfactory]

80. Threat Vs. Imminent Threat

There is a difference, read Kerry's oct speech when he voted for the IWR for details.

[sangh0]

87. Dean said Saddam has WMD's

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=594

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Iraq has admitted that it produced 3,859 tons of chemical weapons in the 1980s, including mustard gas and lethal nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX. When Iraq expelled the inspectors in 1998, it allegedly retained 6,000 chemical bombs, as well as 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and some amount of VX.” That is devastating evidence. With that kind of arsenal, why would you want Saddam Hussein to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction?

MR. DEAN: I don’t want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed. We’re talking about whether the United Nations goes it alone or essentially alone or whether—excuse me, whether the United States goes it alone or essentially alone or whether the United Nations does its duty and disarms Saddam. I would prefer to work through the United Nations. "

So, did Dean think Saddam had WMD's, or did he just want Saddam to be "disarmed" of the WMD's that didn't exist?

[killbotfactory]

89. Yes, he wanted Saddam disarmed

So did most of the rest of the world. He wanted to work through the UN to accomplish that, so did the rest of the world.

What he did not believe, is that Saddam had any means to attack the US, and therefor Bush's invasion was unjustified. So did the rest of the world.

[sangh0]

106. Dean did not make UN participation a prerequisite

Dean has said that if the UN didn't go along, he would support giving Saddam a 60-day deadline to comply. If he didn't, then Dean would support an invasion.

IOW, the claim that UN approval and participation was a prerequisite for Dean is not true.

[dsc]

107. Not everybody with WMD is an imminent threat to us

It is really sad to see Republican arguments being used here. I don't think anyone, including Kucinich, believed Saddam didn't have WMD. The question was, given that he did, how should he be dealt with. By conflating having WMD with being an imminent threat you are making precisely the same argument that Bush is.

[sangh0]

111. Typical for dsc

I didn't say "everybody with WMD is an imminent threat to us". I was responding to the claim that Dean knew Bush* was lying about Saddam's WMD's.

The question was, given that he did, how should he be dealt with

And Dean said that if the UN won't agree to an invasion, then we should give Saddam a 60-day deadline to comply, and if he didn't, we should then invade.

By conflating having WMD with being an imminent threat you are making precisely the same argument that Bush is.

Too bad I never said that. You seem to be conflating the idea that anyone who says "Dean also thought Saddam had WMD's" with "I agree with Bush*"

Dean said:

1) Saddam had WMD's
2) Saddam was a threat
3) We would have to deal with Saddam and his threat at some point
4) We should get the UN to support this
5) If the UN wouldn't support it, we should give Saddam a deadline, and invade if he didn't comply.

[blm]

81. Not to forget he said he never doubted the NEED to disarm Saddam

in his March 17 statement about the war.

[killbotfactory]

91. The UN agreed with Dean about the NEED to disarm Saddam.

They did not agree with the war. Neither did Dean.

[sangh0]

96. And neither did Kerry

.

[killbotfactory]

101. Did the cat get his tongue?

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

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it.

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

March 17th, 2003

Saddam Hussein made a grave error when he chose to make war with the ultimate
weapons-inspections enforcement mechanism

April 11th, 2003

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

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

May 4th, 2004

[sangh0]

108. Misleading quotes and intentional misinterpretations

Your first quote does have Kerry saying he supported the invasion. It criticizes both Saddam and Bush*, but it doesn't have him saying that he supported the invasion

The 2nd quote has him criticizing Saddam for not allowing inspections. Dean did the same.

The last quote also does not quote Kerry saying he supported the war. The sentence makes it clear that what Kerry supported was Bush* decision to disarm Saddam, a position Kerry has held for years.

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him"

[killbotfactory]

114. I provided links.

Kerry is very clear, while Bush bungled diplomacy and he would support more inspections, etc.. he supported the invasion.

Or maybe I'm just baffled by the doublespeak.

[sangh0]

117. So what? I didn't say there were no links.

I said they were misleading.

And Kerry IS very clear - he supports the disarmanment of Saddam, and he thinks Bush* mismanaged the diplomacy. Just like Dean does, except Dean hasn't been very clear.

Dean has said he would only attack if there were PROOF that Saddam was an "imminent threat", but Dean has ALSO said that if the UN didn't agree, he would give Saddam a 60 day deadline, and then invade.

[killbotfactory]

122. I disagree

Anyone who can click a link can decide if I was misleading.

Dean said clearly and repeatedly that the invasion was wrong, before and after the war.

I can't find similar quote(s) from Kerry.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

85. this was pre-war, so in brilliant 20/20 hindsight...

Dean was closest to right. He gets high judgement marks from me. In other words, Kerry et al got hoodwinked - Dean didn't. We need somebody who can cut through the crap and make judgements based on both what's real and what's right.

To me, a candidates IWR vote or public position should not a be litmus test so much as it should be used as an EXAMPLE of the candidates' thinking processes and capacity for coming to the correct decisions. Dean passed the test here. Kerry talked a good game then did the wrong thing. Gephardt simply got punked.

It took a lot of balls to oppose the war. I admire Dean both for his brass and for his crystal balls! That's a lot of balls :)

[gully]

102. Brass/Crystal balls....

hmmmm, interesting analogy.

But, I like it! :thumbsup:

[blm]

74. Wrong premise. I said for certain Dean supporters who attack Kerry

because of their profound disagreement with the war, yet, support Dean whose actual position was not significantly different.

If their feelings were so sincerely profound than it seems natural they would have supported Kucinich for those reasons. After all, DK was polling closer to Dean at the time.

[gully]

104. Again, you cant determine 'significance' for another person.

:shrug:

[blm]

118. significant in the realistic sense. As if analyzed by a military analyst

or even a political analyst.

[gully]

126. Bull. As analyzed by me

and other reasonable people.

[blm]

132. Don't expect to be believed by honest people

if you attack Kerry's position while dripping in sanctimony since Dean's position is closer to Kerry's than it is to Kucinich.

[srpantalonas]

65. I identify more with Kuc, support Dean

It's a valid point. But the Democratic Party lacks true leadership, and I think Dean has shown leadership through his campaign substantially more than Dennis has. I am with both of them on the Iraq issue (though I didn't support the invasion for different reasons), but would back Kerry if he showed any leadership at all. He hasn't--not for the Party against Bush over the past 3 years, and not through his campaign.

[Zhade]

68. Kucinich would make an awesome Vice-President.

This is honestly not a slam against him - I love the guy, think he's very good. Maybe not a Paul Wellstone, but not too far off, either.

The thing is, I can't picture him at the top slot...yet. I do see potential, though. I might get flamed for this post, but I'm trying to be as honest and non-insulting as possible. Dean should lock in on Kucinich as a running mate following the primaries.

Kucinich would be a terrific VP to Dean, kind of a left/center-left combo. Good moderating influence on Dean's occasional, mild flare-ups. Both anti-war, and they cover a broad range of progressive-to-moderate issues when placed together.

To me, this is not a bad idea. DK could get the necessary experience to move to the next level - and let me tell you, if we all survive that long, Kucinich will really come into his own and blow people out of the water with his electability and overall ability to be President. He will astound us with his growth in the next few years.

One day, but not this time, I think. But as a VP, he'd be half the team and could do amazing work. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree - I won't take it personal! :)

[Ficus]

93. I bet

Dennis K. will be in the race longer than Howard D. Dennis obviously doesn't rely on money, or media, but just a progressive grassroots and volunteer driven campaign.

Here's why I like Dennis K. He isn't going to win the nomination. Of course. That's not even why he's running anymore, I'm betting.

He is still advancing causes and ideas that the rest of the party is afraid to tackle - such as taking the $$$ out of health care, turning the Iraq debacle over to the world community, and ending NAFTA, and that is what I care about now. The more people who hear these ideas, the more support can be built for causes like this on the left, and we as Democrats are lucky to have a voice like him.

Sure, some blow dried Dem with a focus group generated national image will get the nomination, and I'll still vote Democrat.

HOWEVER,

That's why I support Dennis K, and not the Waffle-Powered-Howard. (at this point)

:dem: :dem:

[rucky]

78. I Love Them Both!

Why are you making me choose? Here's my strategy:

If Dean is close with another front-runner, I'm voting for Dean.
In all other circumstances, or unless said front-runner is Kucinich, I'm voting for Kucinich.

IWR is a factor, but by no means on the top of my list. I like DK's progressive platform, and I like the way Dean inspires people with his scrappy out-of-the box style.

[DealsGapRider]

79. Um, because Kucinich is unelectable.

And, frankly, comes across like he's from Pluto. Sorry, America is not going to elect a Vegan candidate who introduces legislation in Congress about mind-control weapons in space. The guys is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic.

[GreenArrow]

92. Weaponization of space

do a google search on it. There's a ton of stuff. Here's a starter.

"It is clear that under the administration of President George W. Bush, the United States is on a pathway toward becoming the first nation to put weapons in space. The consequences of such a major shift in long-standing U.S. policy – which since the Eisenhower administration has eschewed the deployment of space weapons – for U.S. and international security, while not completely predictable, are likely to be widespread and deep seated.

The United States is undoubtedly the world’s leading space power, both commercially and militarily. And the U.S. military is the world’s most sophisticated when it comes to the use of space for national defense and projecting global power. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States at the end of 2001 had nearly 110 operational military-related satellites, compared to 40 for Russia and 20 for the rest of the world combined. The United States outspends the rest of the world by vast amounts in the military space arena, accounting for almost 95 percent of global military space budgets in 1999, according to statistics put together by the French space agency CNES."

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1745

[DealsGapRider]

97. I was talking about mind-control weapons, but...

...since you bring up the "militarization of space," let me add that I don't have the slightest problem with it. Those satellites are part of the formula that give us the technological advantage on the battlefield that save American soldiers' lives.

[JohnKleeb]

90. Its a mystery

Ironic that me some who should be as hardheaded as they can be on IWR, yet my second choice is Kerry. Sorry if I offended although I can see why the past anti choice record may bother, at least the man was consistent over the years unlike many other anti choicers, do we want more Iraqs? I sure dont, I think Kucinich desires peace and thats what we need. Also on some of you saying you dont agree with Kucinich's postions, Ive seen polls here that reflect other wise. Anyways I gladly support Kucinich, I dont give a fuck if Dean has such and such money and is such and such in the polls. I am an idealist you bet, but I have a right to fight for who I believe, no money and poll position will change that.

[Ficus]

95. Right on

Irish Kucinich guy...

:dem: :dem:

[JohnKleeb]

98. Irish?

I am only part heh. Does Kleeb sound Irish do you? Its German. Now heh on Kucinich, you know the name Kucinich comes from a country next to the one of my grandfather's, hes Croatian/Irish and I am Irish/German/Slovak/Slovene. I really liked Wellstone too, had he lived Wellstone/Kucinich would be magical, and delightful too. This is probably one of the most enlightening candiates, all though I could lend my support to anyone who gets the nomination, knowing Kucinich I trust he wont get us in a war, I am sick of war, I dont care who the president is let it me a democrat or republican. I am idealistic and why is that a bad word, if you read RFK's old speeches he talked about it with pride. I like about Kucinich how he has told the human cost of the war as well, Ive heard a speech, and more and more I am starting to realize how wrong war in general really is. Of course it will be a hard fight to 1600 Pa Avenue but there doesnt go a day where I doubt it will be the right one, it is the right fight, the fight for peace and social and economic justice. If we stay in Iraq which I hope to god we dont, more and more will be sent, if they are still there in a few years, the young people will be my age, I am 16 now, and although I cant be drafted due to a weak heart, those who I grow up with may be sent. War is too terrible, you dont have to die in war to suffer, in fact many regard death as being free. All I have ever believed in as a liberal progressive democrat is evident in Kucinich. BTW its a flag desecration vote not flag burning.

[ulysses]

113. I live in Georgia.

I like DK a lot and desperately want to vote for him, but he won't even place here. Dean well might, especially since the southerners running have pretty much dropped out of sight - except for Clark, and he looks to be stalling.

That said, if any of the other candidates has a comfortable lead at the time of the GA primary, I likely *will* vote for Kucinich.

[dsc]

115. Believe it or not

not every Dean supporter, nor to hazzard a guess, do the majority of Dean supporters consider the war the most important issue. I have been abundantly clear as to why I support Dean and not Kucinich. Kerry had been my second choice for much of the campaign.

But your post is based on some false premises. Dean was of the position that unilateral attack, or attack by us and Britian, was justified if and only if,

a) Saddam was proven to be an imminent threat by either having nukes or giving terrorists chemical or biological weapons. (Neither of these have happened it should be noted)

b) The UN refused to act on a

c) We couldn't get Saddam to change a via diplomacy or inspections

Obviously since a didn't happen we have no clue on b or c. But since all three had to happen for Dean to support unilateral attack. It is utterly, totally, and completely false to claim that Dean supported unilateral attack under the situation that we have now or had then.

[gully]

128. The American Prospect took a crack at this a while back.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/02/tomasky-m-02-26.html

"The Democrats have a lot of problems these days, and Howard Dean -- who still needs money and still needs to build his profile -- may not prove to be the answer. Earlier this week, a robust debate was raging on www.democraticunderground.com as to whether he was the genuine article. My impression of Dean is that he is a liberal-leaning but pragmatic executive whose medical training has made him more of a task-oriented problem solver than a dreamer anxious to uncork the next New Deal. If he's going to get the media to take him seriously, he has to put that Dean on display alongside the fire breather, and maintaining the balance between the two will be a challenge."

Note the mention of DU ;)