Dean was against the Iraq war? Not according to the record.

[WilliamPitt]

The Kerry piece I wrote for truthout has generated a lot of email. They are running about 10-1 against him, mostly because of these lines:

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

The upshot of the emails is that Kerry had to be a total blithering idiot for trusting Bush, for taking his word.

Hmmmm...

On the Dean web site, Howard Dean specifically states, "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

From the beginning?

As far back as September 4, 2002, a full month before the vote in Congress, Dean was cautioning the president about going to war. "' needs to first make the case and he has not done that,' Dean said. 'He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.'"

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/52530.htm

In fact, just after September 4, 2002, in anticipation of the joint resolution scheduled for five weeks later, the Bush administration ramped up an aggressive disinformation campaign designed to do exactly what Howard Dean said they needed to do: make the case that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat. Quite clearly, over the next month, the Bush administration did everything they could to convince America that another 9/11 could happen, only this time involving Iraqi nuclear weapons. Just as clearly, this horrific possibility is being squarely aimed at the Senators and Representatives who will be voting on the upcoming joint resolution, and at the American people they represent.

But can't we safely assume that Howard Dean saw through all of these lies? As noted, on September 4, 2002 Dean seems on the record as being against the possibility of war with Iraq, so isn't it safe to assume that he never changed his mind after that fact?

The problem is that Dean did change his mind, stepping back noticeably from the opposition to war he was claiming on September 4. More importantly, Dean was also clearly unable to see through the withering stream of lies coming from the Bush administration during the month of September.

How do we know all this? Because of Howard Dean's appearance on Face the Nation on September 30, 2002 - only a DOZEN DAYS or so before the vote in Congress on the joint resolution:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

So Howard Dean is totally against war with Iraq on September 4, and then, by September 30, he is NOT totally against a war with Iraq. In fact, he is fully admitting that he may have to trust the president, and that there may be valid reasons for disarming Iraq by force.

Raise your hand if you really believe:

a) That Dean's position has been consistent;

b) That the Bush campaign won't use this against Dean, nullifying one of the strengths of his campaign.

*not raising hand*

But wait. Kerry is evil. Dean would *never* have voted for the war.

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it." - Dean, September 30 2002

[dolstein]

1. That's because Dean was still deciding what kind of candidate

he was going to be. Sure, as governor, Dean had compiled a fairly moderate record, and often clashed with the more liberal elements in Vermont. But Dean decided that he simply couldn't sell himself as a moderate to the primary electorate, not when there were far better known moderates out there to choose from. So he decided to run as a liberal firebrand. Hence the shift from a "wait and see" approach to the Iraq war to one of defiant opposition.

[paulk]

19. And this is the crux of my opposition to Howard Dean

is he the liberal firebrand, the populist reformer out to take back the Democratic Party from the evil corporatists?

Or is he just another cynical politician, willing to say whatever it takes to get elected?

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. self editing and biting my tongue until

the blood flows down and puddles at my feet.

[MIMStigator]

51. He looks more like a phony the deeper you dig

my opinion went way down when he lied said he was hiding his guv records to protect medical information

[Kahuna]

105. Because he IS a phony.

Almost as phony as bush is.

[stickdog]

303. Yep. And Clark worked for Axciom to protect our privacy.

:eyes:

[tameszu]

393. Amazing

It's not often that you have such clear examples of fallacies (in this case, tu quoque) tossed out in living color. Bravo.

[AP]

144. Some of those Entergy execs admitted they were gay in those letters!

No, really.

[Kahuna]

Either Dean or Joe Trippi is an expert on Democratic...

voter hotbutton issues. They know Dems and how to push their buttons. It's called "politics."

Dean conducts himself too much like bush for my comfort. However, that is not to say I believe he is the devil like bush. Noone could be that bad. But being shady and slippery like bush is not particularly attractive to me.

[blm]

112. YES!!! Exactly....you nailed it.

This is exactly the wrong person to be the standard bearer of the Dem party at this time in history.


We need to WITHSTAND the scrutiny, not fold under the greater exposure.

[killbotfactory]

157. Oops. I seem to have stumbled onto an anti-Dean pity party

Sorry for the interruption. Please continue your masterbatory Dean bashing.

[AP]

167. Today's 'pitty' will be tomorrow's conventional wisdom.

The question is whether tomorrow will be before or after the democratic candidate for prez locks up the nomination.

[Scott Lee]

224. Do you know what Dean does with "conventional wisdom"?

HINT: It's soft on the bottom and comes in all sorts of festive bathroom themes.

[AP]

281. is that the same thing he does with facts?

because it sounds like it is.

[stickdog]

301. Yeah, what Tsongas said about Clinton!

[janx]

388. Well, to tell you the truth, he reminds me of my brothers.

In some very important respects.

[Sensitivity]

255. AT LEAST DEAN MADE THE RIGHT DECISION EVENTUALLY

Every one has to think through these issues. At least Dean's campaign came up with the right strategy. KERRY'S DID NOT. So there.

[oasis]

402. cancel my message.

[Guaranteed]

329. Before the war, Dean was labeled by the media as the "anti-Iraq-war"

candidate. He clearly wasn't against that assessment of his politics. Yes, they tried to back him into a corner, and he caved a bit, but he was CLEARLY against the war. He did nothing but talk bad about it, and say that we shouldn't be starting a war, in particular without the UN. There are TONS of articles out there showing this, and I have posted them before.

[goodhue]

424. bingo

Dean waited until being antiwar was an obvious winner and then adopted the position. In contrast, Kucinich first spoke out against the war in February 2002, which led to being drafted for presidential campaign. Its actually a pretty interesting contrast thta would make a great story but that would require the media discussing why Kucinich is running for presindent. (And no, its not vanity).

[bushisanidiot]

435. You're Absolutely WRONG. Dean Took An Unpopular Stance On The War But He

knew it was the right thing to do. Being anti-war was NOT popular when the war started. I know! I had 3 anti-war yard signs stolen from my yard! We were called unpatriotic! He stood his ground and turned out to be RIGHT!!

He also took a very unpopular stance on the civil union decision to the extent that he had to wear a bullet proof vest. And now the nation is waking up to the fact that civil unions for gays and lesbians are the fair thing to do, so he was once again, PROVEN right!!

The man is not a poll watcher like president Deserter is! He is a man of his word and I can't WAIT to call him PRESIDENT DEAN!!

[xultar]

465. WTF Guys, WHY DOES IT EVEN MATTER!!! IT IS OVER!!!!

It's over, our nominee has been chosen. What people think they heard or think they know they believe. So, we'll shoot first and ask later, after the "nomination". When all of the information comes out about our nominee. The stuff that we over looked glazed over and missed in the rush to crown our nominee is going to come back and BITE US IN THE ASS.

If you support Dean like you say you do. Go back and take one more look. Take an objective look. Don't look like you're looking at your husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, partner brother or sister. Look like you are about to pull the switch on something that you can't take back. Look like you are choosing which child you are going to have or whether or not to have Chemotherapy.

LOOK HARD AND DEEP and make sure you're choosing the right person for our country and not for your ego.

The truth will come out, it always does. Just make sure you are honest enough with yourself to accept your role in Americas future.

[bearfartinthewoods]

475. i was wondering what will happen to all the DUer names with dean in them

post election. look for a big jump in new registrations.

[WiseMen]

469. DEAN POLICY RECORD CLEARLY UNCLEAR

Prior to the IWR vote, Howard Dean espoused few coherent foreign policy positions. The same applied to Iraq. Dean's lack of foreign policy acumen meant his statements were all over the map.

Only after Trippi established an anti-war campaign strategy did Dean settle on his current position.

[neuvocat]

2. Oh boy.

The avalanche of posts should be here any second...

[WilliamPitt]

3. In the words of a truly stupid person, bring 'em on.

The record speaks for itself. And I'm pretty damned tired of candidates like Kerry taking it on the chin over an issue that Dean is so totally not solid on, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Gloves off.

[wndycty]

18. Will, you are in my prayers. . .

Get ready for the "Will Pitt is irrelevant" posts. I think we have a lot in common we stand prepared to support Dean if he gets the nomination but we are not going to just sit back follow the Dean lead, especially when we feel our candidates are better qualified.

[WilliamPitt]

26. I stand ready to support Dean if he gets the nomination

but I have a few issues to clear up with some of his supporters here. This is one.

[wndycty]

Therein lies the problem. . .

. . .when trying to clear up those issues it is so easy to get tagged as a basher. Throughout the primary process (even though the primary season has not begun) you haev remained fair and objective.

[MIMStigator]

61. me too but hope he doesn't or we're doomed

n/t

[wndycty]

65. We are not doomed. . .it will just be harder. . .but we are not doomed!!!

:kick:

[1songbird]

389. I wished I could share in your optimism. n/t

[adadem]

261. Yup

four more years,
four more years,
four more years.

[superflippy]

426. If you hope he doesn't, why are you willing to support him?

I see you're a Clark supporter, but why, if you feel that Dean's winning would "doom" the country, are you willing to support him if he gets the nomination? You don't _have_ to vote for a candidate you don't like. Vote your conscience; write in Clark or vote for a 3rd party, if it comes to that.

[Kahuna]

109. Here here. I'll take jump over 10 Deans to get to one Kerry...

OR Gephardt! Or Lieberman!

Nobody, Al Gore included is going to tell me to fold my marbles and go home because he has decided that Dean is the man to beat bush.

[adadem]

298. Exactly

My husband and I supported Al Gore financially and volunteered endless hours for his campaign...protested (for the first time) at the inaugural to stand up for voters rights and for Al, too. I will stop supporting him when he dictates that this early in the primary I should blindly follow...for the first time he sounded "preachy". That is what pi**ed me off.

[5thGenDemocrat]

379. Pitt and I have had a tiff or two in the past, Lord knows

And I'm here to say he just got a hell of a lot MORE relevant in my book.
John
That's a fine snag, Mr Pitt. Damned good work.

[aquart]

444. This is for primary voters to settle. Fight hard for your candidates.

Good people are contending for this job. And every one of them deserves to be heard and counted.

We are fortunate in our field of candidates. WE have a choice.

[paulk]

29. it's about time

:toast:

[PissedOffPollyana]

56. Thank you, once again, Mr. Pitt...

... for reminding us all of the truth.

There seems to be a disconnect with the very real fears of a Dean campaign 'round these parts. Against GW and his pack of liars, we need to have a candidate who can go after their positions and have a record that backs it up. If he were not so strident about the war, his ever-shifting opinions would not be such a liability but they're there and they WILL be exploited.

We have to face these uncomfortable truths, better now than in November!

[clarknyc]

59. "Gloves off."

(snicker)

[neuvocat]

79. From what I see here now...

its being brought.

[WilliamPitt]

82. Care to lend a hand?

:)

[wndycty]

95. I got your back Will

:kick:

[neuvocat]

98. Sure.

[ModerateMiddle]

373. This issue and the way Dean talked about Kerry

is the major reason that I started looking very closely at him and his words and his positions. Prior to that, I was caught up in the aura of anger at the administration and really responding to Dean's rhetoric. But I have admired Kerry since I started looking, and I really despised how Dean was talking about him. I noticed the gaffes, and I noticed his loose relationship with the truth.

And I said, here and at dKos, that Dean seemed like he could be the Dem's very own George W. Bush. I was berated for even thinking such a thing, that Dean was obviously SO much smarter than smirk.

My opinion of Dean has only solidified further. I can't stand liars and his mouth is going to get him in trouble (I hope before the middle of January), or US in trouble in the general (if he gets the nod) or the country in trouble if he becomes president.

Yeah, he's better than Bush, but it ain't a very high bar, is it?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

429. I too, have admired Kerry since I started looking

I wish more people would take the time to go beyond all the distractions and look closely and patiently at him. He is a phenomenal candidate, and will be a great, great President.

[blm]

452. The way Dean attacked Gep, Edwards and Kerry was LOATHSOME

and especially loathsome as he had to lie about his own support of the EXACT same measures he attacked them for.

Dispiriting that the media let him do this for almost a year now.

[WiseMen]

474. SAD BUT TRUE: DEAN RECORD IS POLITICS AS USUAL

[goobergunch]

4. Whatever happened to "I LOVE THE CANDIDATE"?

I liked those threads.

[WilliamPitt]

6. I love the candidate

and your post does not answer the issue.

[goobergunch]

30. Post deleted on edit.

The gang-bang is not enjoyable, and I don't have time to look up all of the links in question...I do have homework, you know.

(Directed at the posts below this one, not at Will.)

Incidentally...this thread is now gone from my perspective. I definitely should have zapped it earlier.

[MIMStigator]

62. or medicare or why he hides his records

nt

[goobergunch]

74. Do not threadjack. Thank you. (n/t)

[bearfartinthewoods]

107. or social security and nuclear waste

[Democrats unite]

9. They went out the window...

When the majority of Dean supporters showed up here.

[Eloriel]

97. The majority of Dean supporters were already here --

It's the other camps who have actively brought new people over to DU for the purpose of influencing opinion.

[neuvocat]

150. Really.

Well we could go into who's doing what with regards to that. However, these are links that document the descrepancies.

We had a discussion about Clark's position on depleted uranium BTW, in case you care to bring that up.

[ajacobson]

264. What color is the sky in your world?

[bloom]

439. You've been here since Oct 27th 2003

and you are asking Elorial "What color is the sky in your world?"


You don't know what you're talking about.

[killbotfactory]

5. *cough*

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

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence."

...

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

“He needs to first make the case and he has not done that,” Dean said. “He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.”

...

"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean.

...

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 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

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way."

...

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"It’s not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people we’re going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 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

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

...

"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 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 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

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."

...

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 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

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.

March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

[WilliamPitt]

11. Conveniently,

20 of those comments came after the vote he didn't have to participate in, after saying "I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it."

[killbotfactory]

14. and then said...

The problem is Bush has never made the case.

And what the hell was stopping any of the candidates from renouncing their vote and calling on Bush to keep his promises? Did they just forget that rushing into war without giving inspectors time to do their job, bypassing the UN, and failing in diplomacy was a bad thing?

[WilliamPitt]

23. Damned lucky for him he didn't have to make that vote

because on September 30 two weeks before that vote, he was all about taking Bush's word and saying he didn't have to prove anything to anyone.

Timing is everything.

[Zynx]

36. But John Kerry with his infinitely better experience made the right choice

. Oh wait. He didn't. Admit it, Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt all supported the war for political reasons.

[WilliamPitt]

43. And Dean said "He doesn't have to prove anything"

for exactly the same reasons, but was spared the need to put the fat in the fire by not being a Senator. His luck, I guess.

[killbotfactory]

67. Dean's ever-evolving message during this campaign.

Dean before IWR: Bush hasn't made the case for war. He needs to put up or shut up.

Dean after IWR: Bush hasn't made the case for war. Why the hell did you vote for that piece of crap?

Dean before Iraq war: Bush hasn't made the case for war. Why are we rushing into this goddamn stupid war?

Dean after Iraq war: Bush did not make the case for war. Now we're fucked. Goddamn Bush.

He's a flip-flopper, what can I say?

[Zynx]

80. You forgot that he said he was opposed to it during the war.

That is what everybody seems to be forgetting and it is very important.

[WilliamPitt]

113. Bold move, no doubt. BUT

One wonders how able he would have been to do this had he been a Senator in October of 2002.

[killbotfactory]

116. If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts...

er... how does that go again?

[janx]

176. If "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans...

we'd all be tinkers!

[mzmolly]

189. he he...

:toast:

[Jaybird]

320. if's,and but's, if my aunt had nuts......

..she'd be my uncle

[RetroLounge]

391. and if my grandmother had wheels

she's be a wagon...

[Chants]

394. If "ifs" and "buts" were fruits and nuts....

If "ifs" and "buts" were fuits and nuts, it would be Christmas everyday.

[Zynx]

121. You like to dwell on that and ignore everything else don't you?

I would put a 70% chance that he would have voted against it. However, this is misleading. Your title says he wasn't against the war yet he criticized the war during the war thus proving that he was against it so there.

[thinkahead]

It's a very nice hypothetical

for you to daydream about, but unfortunately it did not happen that way. Now all we have is Dean's excellent, centrist record of governing Vermont to work with.

[Yavonne]

416. Excuse me but why should I, as a liberal, be excited to vote

for a centerist, excellent or not, when there are tried and true, excellent liberals running? It seems no contest to me. We have a fine liberal in Kerry who has one strike against him as opposed to a centerist who has reduced social support spending, enjoys the support of the NRA and behaves more and more like * everyday.

When i load all of the above onto a balancing scale, it's clear to me where my best interests are.

[Snivi Yllom]

454. that's the advantage all Governor's have in primaries.

They don't have a congressional record to defend.

[xJlM]

476. Oh, but he was a voting congressman

At least according to his own words here: http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/dean_062303_131529.pdf . Of course, that could be just another statement from the shifting, shady world of Howard Dean.

[Cha]

130. LOL!

:toast:

[Eloriel]

216. Thank you.

I was going to read all the thread before I replied, but this is as good a place as any.

I saw that segment with Dean that you're so hot about, Will. And in truth I was a bit disappointed. HOWEVER, several things. First, I hope it won't be a foreign concept to you that there are things, including actual meaning, that are not conveyed in a transcript. If anyone doubts me, all they have to do is read the Tim Russert interview w/Dean -- IF they saw it live and can thus compare what they witnessed versus what they'll read.

Ads I watched it at the time, mildly disappointed though I was, it didn't strike me in context as that definitive of a line of support for either Bush or the war as you're making it out to be, or consider it.

Now, I'm trying to remember, but there was a period of time when I myself beganato harbor a few doubts about the WMD -- only because everything coming out of the W.H. (and there was lots of it) was so damned definitive. Now and then I wondred if they really might know something none of the rest of us did. All I had to do at those times was to go back over the mountain of evidence against the notion and come to my senses. BUT -- I'm someone who spends basically all my time here at DU where all these things were hashed out daily and then some. My point is that he might have had a similar period of doubt. We don't know.

Too, the patriotism = war thing was pretty intense around that time, I wouldn't fault him too much for a nod in that direction. If so, it's the only time I've seen him pander or fall with the prevailing wind.

I am also clear that this was not his only comment on the war during that period, and the rest were solidly against it. Like I said, I saw that and was disappointed he was even mildly supportive of Bush (and yes, in conterxt and live it was mildly).

Now, if YOU -- a confirmed Kerry supporter (and hardly unbiased, just as I am not unbiased) -- find it terminally awful that he dare criticize any of the others for their vote when "he didn't have to," well, then you just do, I suppose. I've always found that a weak argument, personally, similar to the "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" argument.

Further, if this is the only wavering on the subject you've found, then IMO that still makes him far more consistent than Kerry. Dean does have a bit of tendency to "think outloud" when he's pondering some of the issues (which has allowed Gephardt to outright lie about his 1995 Medicare remark, for example). Some of the others have been plenty consistent -- but way on the wrong side. And lives are still being lost.

If Dean wavered during a 1/2 hour show during the height of the battle over the issue but has consistently been right and straightup the rest of the time, it's okay by me. It's also perfectly fine with me that he continues to remind people that Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Lieberman let them down, because they did.

Note: Any typos will stand. My right hand is broken and I can only use my left hand. Try it sometime to see how it works -- it doesn't. ;-)

[killbotfactory]

41. He said Bush failed to justify an invasion

The overriding message from Dean before during and after the Iraq war and vote was that the unilateral invasion was unjustified and Bush didn't make the case. Then he stuck his neck out during the rush to war and opposed it when everyone thought that was political suicide, and was proven right.

Any one of the dems who voted for the Iraq war could have renounced their vote and picked up the fight against Bush. If they thought Bush would honor his promises, then the months following the vote should have woken them up. None of them did. The biggest criticism from them was that Bush is doing the right thing in the wrong way.

[goobergunch]

44. I would note that Harkin renounced his vote prior to the war

No link, but I clearly remember it on MSNBC...Hardball, I think.

[wtmusic]

71. Kerry was riding along on the Happy War Train

until things started to go south, then it was time for 'regime change'.

[hey2370]

87. This cannot be the real William Pitt

That guy was cool. He wrote a book with Scott Ritter before the war showing what a liar Bush was. A guy like that wouldn't start a flamefest with a completely lame one line quote cherry-picked to make some ridiculous argument. And then, when he was confronted with his cherry-picking, he wouldn't claim he was still in the right, like Feith is doing.

Wouldn't that make him a lot like the guys in Cheney's OSP?

Free William Pitt!

[WilliamPitt]

One-line quote?

Or several long quotes with links attached...

[hey2370]

148. Your lame "evidence" refuted

You posted:
DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. as your GOTCHA! quote.

If you peruse the list of quotes on response #5(with dates! - how handy), you will soon see that you have cherry-picked one sentence from all of the quotes from the months and days surrounding the IWR vote that supports your conclusion, while ignoring the huge amount of evidence that shows you are wrong in your thesis.

The way I figure it, Feith, Wolfowitz and company chose to use that exact method to get Congress to vote for the IWR. So what, when they use this selective reasoning it's a bad thing, but when you want to core political points, it's A-OK?

You got something real, bring it. Otherwise, don't waste our time.

[bearfartinthewoods]

163. yes.......Will has experience in exposing liars

a handy thing to have around.

[killbotfactory]

168. Will just flushed his credibility down the toilet

He's polishing the brass on the Kerry titanic, and all the chronic Dean bashers are welcome aboard. Bon voyage.

[frank frankly]

269. Will has hardly lost his credibility

Even if you disagree with him, here, now, remember that he's done an INCREDIBLE amount of work and deserves respect. I've read dozens of posts where he supported other candidates on the merits of their accomplishments, efforts, etc...

And this ain't a flamebait thread. It isn't the same animal at all.

So even if you think he is full of shit on this point, I don't recommend throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I personally have learned too much for him to do that.

[sendero]

417. people...

... who can't see the difference between an off the cuff remark, perhaps one intended to be a bit conciliatory (like mentioning Jim Baker?) and a Senate vote start to get on my nerves.

You might succeed in pushing some minds away from Dean, but I highly doubt many will run to Kerry. Sorry.

[frank frankly]

38. hey, Will, be fair. That was a factual and thorough response to your post

with many comments from Dean before and after the vote.

That said, I understand what you saying and you are correct. His opposition does not stand at 100% in every interview. And, yes, he did not have to vote for/against the IWR.

Kucinich is the only one who never hesitated or blinked about this. Dean was almost always explicitly against, but you're right in that almost is not always.

Kerry was excellent last night.

[WilliamPitt]

57. I never said it wasnt, but the timing is everything

[killbotfactory]

101. Dean - Oct 6th, 2002

"We’ve been cowed ... we’ve lost our voice,” Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont told the hundreds of party faithful who jammed a convention center room for the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. “I’m tired of being bullied by the right wing.”

Dean added: “We can’t afraid to be Democrats anymore. We need to have health insurance for every American and there’s no reason for us to run away from a traditional Democratic platform that we’ve had since 1948.”

...

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. “I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War,” he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

Is that good or bad timing?

[WilliamPitt]

108. Sounds like someone who knew he wouldn't be in the Senate on 10/11/02

[killbotfactory]

114. Yeah, he was only running for president... Big deal

It's not like if he was wrong it would come back to haunt him and sink his candidacy or anything...

[frank frankly]

160. damn good point about him running for President. He was on the record.

I honestly had not thought of that.

damn good point.

[blm]

187. And he should have been more honest and careful.

This type of inconsistency is what makes for GOP attack ads.

Is that what we're supposed to wait for?

Does anyone think that the RNC doesn't have EVERY statement and word Dean has said over the last two years on file? His record and rhetoric don't match. That's trouble for democrats in this media atmosphere.

[killbotfactory]

195. Any inconsistancy on the part of Dean is purely in the heads...

other candidates who are in Deanial about Dean's Dean-o-mite success.

[Zynx]

197. The GOP is going to trying to say that Dean wasn't anti-war?

I don't follow this logic at all.

[Andromeda]

295. My, my aren't we embolden?

With the weight of the mighty Will behind you I guess you feel more free to bash Dean (not that anything has ever stopped you).

Kerry has never said anything inconsistent has he? Of course not, according to you and your mentor. Bet if I wanted to dig, and I don't since I don't have a desire to engage in "gotcha" politics, I could probably find an inconsistant statement or two that Kerry uttered.

It's going to be pretty hard to find any candidate who has NOT said anything inconsistant. None of us are perfect and none of the Dean supporters claim that he is---but neither is Kerry, or Kucinich, or Clark, etc. If you are inclined to look for imperfection you will certainly find it and if you are looking for dirt, expect to get mud on your shoes.

But since you only seem have a case going against Dean then his statements are going to have more importance to you and everybody else who thinks Dean is the anti-Christ. You can treasure your repertoire of Deanisms, covet every little word from his lips in the hopes it will become a damning headline in tomorrows news.

You can only hope that Dean does himself in---and soon, preferably, in time for Kerry, the annointed one, to reap the rewards for his sterling public service that so many people seem to have overlooked.

We don't need the Republicans to undermine Dean or any of the other Democratic candidates. Our fellow DU'ers are filling that role just fine. Nothing Karl Rove, or any other political hack of Dimson's could equal the trash talk that comes from the posters on this site.

The old saying "who needs enemies with you as friends" is pretty accurate.

[blm]

315. Nope. It was frustrating that people couldn't see the truth

even though they saw all these articles at some point over the past 11 months.

You think Dean is just being inconsistent, well, I believe he knew what he was saying and attacked the others believing that noone would have noticed his earlier support for Biden-Lugar. Noone in the mainstream media, anyway.

And you are quite right...I certainly never waited for validation from others before I spoke the truth.

You would prefer that Dean get buried with EVERY remark AFTER he's the nominee? You think the RNC hasn't filed away every word he has spoken publically for the last two years...maybe 6 years? They knew he was running back in 97. We don't do their work for them, we work to vet candidates BEFORE we get buried by their work which is a 100 times heavier than what you see here.

[Yavonne]

419. This is a good point.

I have often read comments such as "You are doing the RW's work for them". That's foolishness. To think, even for a moment, that we know anything that * doesn't know is seriously underestimating the enemy. They are miles ahead of us. They have dozens of people pouring over everything. They have private investigators lifting every rock. The idea that people here actually think anything posted on DU is a surprise to rove is nonsense.

My worry is that these things come as a surprise to DUers.

[blm]

471. Wow....I didn't even think anyone would read that post

let alone respond. Now, how do we get more people to understand what you said? Maybe that's a thread for you to start? A fresher voice might do the trick.

[stickdog]

312. Kerry shouldn't have sold his soul for a neocon quagmire. (NT)

[bearfartinthewoods]

181. what did he have going for him in his run for president?

a pragmatic centerist from a small NE state going up against very well know and credentialed liberal in a primary where the most liberal are the most active,

gee.........how does dean get noticed.

he needs an issue...a really BIG ISSUE. red meat for the liberal activists. hmmmm.......civil unions didn;t quit make it.

i know...i know...i'll come out against the war!!!!!!!!

[killbotfactory]

188. He had a fucking backbone and common sense

too bad other dems didn't.

[blm]

206. He had the hubris to lie about the other candidates

and lie about his own position. That's not backbone, that's thinking your audience is dumb and gullible.

[killbotfactory]

207. He called it like he saw it

And a lot of people agreed with him.

[stickdog]

316. Yep. We're were literally begging for Dems to stand up to Bush.

Dean stood up to the Boy King while the others were hiding or cheering.

And the rest is history -- just like Kerry's chances.

[bearfartinthewoods]

446. beggars can't be choosers...ever hear of that saying?

yes.....begging and ripe for the picking...ready to leap at ANYONE.

have you dated recently? when you are begging and ripe for the picking, do you find yourself making sound judgements?

[janx]

296. Kerry really was excellent last night.

His best quote was that dealing with the separation of church and state.

It absolutely SPARKLED.

[stickdog]

307. Will gets taken to school, then complains that the bus that drove him

wasn't completely yellow.

[TLM]

448. Will this is way low for you, come on man...

Why cut this line so out of context.... One needs only to follow the link to see you are totaly misrepresenting Dean's position.

Read the intro to the interview for fuck's sake, Will...

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: Good morning. We begin in Austin, Texas, this morning where Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is. In San Francisco we find Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in Chester, Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd. First to Governor Dean.

Governor, you are unabashedly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, out already raising money for that.

You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?


GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

So before the line you quoted... dean said at least three times that Bush had not made the case for war.

Why ignore that Will.. then act as if he was supporting the war because of a comment he makes about what could happen IF Bush had made the case?



GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

Then directly after that line Dean says AGAIN that Bush has not made a case to justfy the war.

And Dean continues...


My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

It's not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block and tell people we're going to do what we want to do.

We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will. But I think the time now is for getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Governor, what, in your mind, would justify a strike on Iraq?

DEAN: Well, first of all, a strike may be justified. What he's got to say, what the president has got to say is that Saddam has atomic or biological weapons and has the means to deliver them to ourselves and our allies. That case -- he has never said that, to my knowledge, nor have any of his surrogates.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

But, Bob, my problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not.

Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

Foreign policy in this country is dependent on us working with other countries. And I think the president got off on the wrong foot when he was simply talking about "Let's go in there, we don't care what anybody else thinks, we're going to do it."

I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction.

[bearfartinthewoods]

146. anything he said after the vote is suspect

from the begining i questioned why everyone was buying his schtick. it's easy to talk the talk when you know you don;t have to walk the walk. once he decided he needed a schtick to gain notice, of course he would play the part.

[killbotfactory]

153. The record is clear

Iraq war unjustified. Bush hasn't made case.

Dean has been consistent whether you'll admit it or not.

[Karmadillo]

7. Kerry took Bush at his word. Bad! Dean did the exact same thing. Good?

Thanks for the post, Will. Too bad some of your readers aren't familiar with the facts. Here's what Dean said on his Meet the Press appearance in June 22, 2003.

http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

<edit>

MR. RUSSERT: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

DR. DEAN: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

MR. RUSSERT: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose? Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different. I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it. We essentially went to war, supported by Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and Senator Edwards, based on facts that turned out not to be accurate. I think that's pretty serious and I think the American people are entitled to know why that was.

more...

[MIMStigator]

86. Dean pretending he would have done something else......bad

nt

[Cocoa]

8. Dean vs. Bush will be confusion vs. confusion

Rove vs. Trippi.

i'm exaggerating somewhat, but it's kind of like this, imo, and maybe it will be the correct way to go against Bush.

[AP]

22. The strength of the Democratic Party is that they don't

have to confuse people to win. You state your case. You persuade with facts. You let the people decide.

A competition of spun fictions is going foreclose the Democrats from capitalizing on their biggest asset. And then you just leave the outcome to the caprice of the media. And whose lies do you think the media will point out? Democrats' or Republicans'?

[Zynx]

75. What exactly is John Edwards' position on the war again?

;)

[AP]

89. What say we start another thread on that when we're done here?

I'd be glad to talk about that, but I wouldn't want to lose focus on what we're talking about in this thread.

;)

[wtmusic]

10. Will, that's fallacious and you know it.

Don't forget the second half of the quote:

"But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future."

The president never did say that! These was the criteria Dean was speaking of, and Bush went to war without them.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Closer]

13. That private meeting with Kerry

the other day here in NYC really charged you up again, eh Will?

Funny, just a few weeks ago I recall you stating a "Dean/Clark ticket is and will be our best chance at winning."

Let me guess, you've changed your mind again? How dare someone change his mind. :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

16. Another $100 if you can find that thread

I believe I said it would be a very strong ticket, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Can you answer to the issue at hand, or will you reach for examinations of motive?

[Zynx]

15. Incorrect Will.

This is what Dean said that I think proves that he was opposed to the war:

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.
--------------------------------------

The link is in an earlier post.

Dean was also saying he was against the war during the war when it had an 80% popularity rating.

[WilliamPitt]

17. This comment was made in June 2003

The "I don't think he really has to prove anything" comment came two weeks before the vote he didn't have to participate in.

[Zynx]

32. Wrong again. That comment was in March of 2003.

You are selectively using his quotes.

[WilliamPitt]

34. My bad, BUT

it is still after the vote. His comment before the vote - "I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. - is not a misuse at all.

[Cha]

106. This statement by Govenor Dean was Not

after the Bombing Invasion of Iraq...

"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." Howard Dean February 25,2003"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

[AP]

35. I think March 11, 2003 was when Mara Liasson/NPR began (+)

selling him as the anti-war candidate to the NPR demographic (ie, upper middle class white educated people) and he started seeing the money in that.

Most of Dean's pro-war comments came before mid-February, I bet.

I suspect that when the history of this campaign is written, that will be considered a watershed moment. It was when Dean the anti-war darling was born before the ears of 11 million Americans in a key demographic. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of Liasson's bosses at Fox gave her the idea for the angle on that story.

[Zynx]

50. He didn't make "pro-war" comments like you say.

He had a somewhat choppy message in the fall of 2002, but was clearly taking a position that he didn't support the war. However, he always said that he would support unilateral action if and only if there was adequate reason to go. HE ALWAYS SAID THERE WASN'T.

[AP]

78. Dean has a way of making statements based on conditions and

then hiding behind the condidtions.

He said that he was for the 87 Bil Iraq budget...if the tax custs were rescinded. That makes little sense. Since he's for rescinding the tax cuts, it logically follows that he's for the 87 bil in a perfect world. But, since there was no chance the tax bill was going to be rescinded he can make it sound like he was against the 87 bil.

What does it mean to be for unilateral action IF there's adequate reason to go, and then saying there was NEVER reason to go? He wouldn't know if there's reason to go since he doesn't have access to intelligence, and what constitutes "adequate reason" -- that's just a flexible measure that you can bend whichever way you want later.

To me, the bottom line, is he sounded just like everyone else on this issue until there was money in votes in criticizing other Dems.

I also supect that Bush and the media created a media environment to encourage the biggest sucker in the field to bite the hook of being against the war.

If Dean gets nominated because of his anti-war position, I guarantee you that by next Novermber, 70% of Americans will be pleased as punch that we invaded Iraq. I don't know how Republicans will do it, but I know they will.

If any other Democrat is nominated, will be talking about whether there's any such think as a jobless recovery, and whether an economy is getting better if everyone going into serious debt to make a handfull of Americans super rich.

[bearfartinthewoods]

204. yes like hiding behind the conditions for unsealing his records

[AP]

283. remember Bush's conditions for breaking the bank?

won't go into defeicit...unless there's a war.

[Andromeda]

305. Glad you brought that up...

his records are being examined by Judicial Watch who has filed a lawsuit to have Dean's records examined. Since Dean was governor for so long, didn't he get elected 11 times?---there is a lot of information to peruse.

Dean said, and I'll paraphrase here since I don't have an exact quote, that the judges are examining the records now and it will be the JUDGES who will decide which records will remain sealed and which ones will remain confidential.

It's out of Dean's hands now.

Oh---and Dean also said that he hasn't hired an attorney to represent him in this lawsuit. It seems that he trusts the system to deal with it.

This doesn't sound like someone who has something to hide, does it?

[Zhade]

386. Okay - this is not a valid point.

I really, really, REALLY hate flamefests, but I have to point out a fallacy here:

What does it mean to be for unilateral action IF there's adequate reason to go, and then saying there was NEVER reason to go? He wouldn't know if there's reason to go since he doesn't have access to intelligence, and what constitutes "adequate reason" -- that's just a flexible measure that you can bend whichever way you want later.

Look, even someone like ME knew before the IWR vote that there was never a reason to go. There was already evidence - copious amounts of it - that the Bush administration has been full of shit and lying to advance their agenda since Day One. I mean, they stole the White House - what else did anyone need to convince them that Bush and crew were ready, willing, and able to lie to get what they want?

So, while not touching the other aspects of your post, I gotta say, this is a pretty weak argument. Millions of people around the world knew there was never reason to invade and occupy Iraq. I know - I marched with a couple hundred thousand of them last December.

(EDIT: added link to back up my own assertion that I knew before the IWR that the case was bullshit.)

[AP]

396. No. You know what the media told you.

I suspect that there was a full range of intelligence in the dossiers, from clear forgeries to totallly responsible, incriminating evidence. Even Clinton says that there was enough evidence to justify action. Clinton said containing SH and stopping OBL were top priorities for his administration.

I suspect that Bush only released the bad evidence in order to hurt blair and to encourage democrats to nominate a McGovern.

[blm]

48. The whole problem is that there are conflicting statements

and you can point to any statement and someone else can find a counter.

THAT'S the problem, folks.

[Zynx]

52. Kind of the same thing with John Kerry isn't it?

Dean was a little muddled, but always said he was against unilateral action unless Bush proved the threat was imminent and severe.

[AP]

84. Kerry's only inconsistency is in trying

to frame what he did in a way that people understand. It's in describing what he did, and the media and Dean are calling it inconsistent.

The fact of what he did was pretty consistent, if you ask me.

[Zynx]

88. Show me his consistency and show me John Edwards' consistency.

[AP]

92. We'll talk about Edwards when we're done figuring out Dean.

[Zynx]

100. You were the one who was critical of Dean first.

I didn't say anything about Edwards until you criticized Dean.

The thing that tells me where Dean truly stood was that he criticized the war DURING THE WAR. That is critical and irrefutable evidence he was against it.

[AP]

120. I didn't bring up Edwards. Pitt brought up Dean and Kerry

so both are relevant here. By bringing in Edwards, you're just trying to deflect attention from the issues raised (suggesting you're having trouble supporting your side of the argument).

Dean criticized the war during the war because by then he was the anti-war candidate, as sold by NPR, Fox and everyone else, and was riding on the wave of millions of anti-war protesters. If it doesn't bother you that he was just surfing a wave, and that he was doing something differently before February, all I can say is that you have lower standards than I have in terms of consistency of message and ability to resist the inevitable right wing media assualt.

[Zynx]

143. The vast majority of all of his statements were against the war.

Even before February and I'll give you $100 if you can prove otherwise. All you have are some statements that are taken out of context.

[AP]

162. All I know is my perception.

My perception is that Dean was no more anti-war than anyone else. Everyone except Lieb was reserving the right to criticize Bush for anything he did, while being careful not to portray themselves as anti-national security, and that included Dean.

When other candidtates, by virtue of actually being in Congress were forced into a vote, Dean wasted no time criticizing them for their votes, pretending that he was always against the war, and acting like DK never existed. And the media got behind him in selling that misimpression.

[stickdog]

319. All I know is your candidate was a HAWK on Iraq.

And when I saw him in California, he was almost booed off the stage for sticking to his hawkish guns on Iraq.

If he gets the nomination, Bush's biggest mistake comes right off the table.

[bushisanidiot]

464. Dean Never Said He Was "Anti-War". That's Repukes Putting Words In

his mouth trying to paint him as an extreme leftist. Just because he expected some proof that Iraq was an immediate threat and refused to back the "war" until at least the U.N. ok'd military action, doesn't mean he's anti war. The U.N. isn't even anti war. There MUST be just cause and that's what Dean is saying. I think Kerry, Gep, Edwards and even Lieberman would agree with him if they would snap out of it and admit that the war was wrong and that they made a mistake. They would be forgiven by the dem base if they'd just admit it.. but their pride won't let them. Or their "handlers" think it would show weakness (which is a repuke way of thinking if you ask me).

[blm]

96. But it was already MULTILATERAL and Dean knew it.

He clung to the word UNILATERAL to make his case when the action had already moved to multilateral.

The BIG difference is that dean ATTACKED the others for positions that weren't much different than his ACTUAL position that he supported in Biden-Lugar. THEREIN lies the deceit of his campaign against the other candidates.

[Zynx]

104. Multilateral my ass. We had the UK with us.

And maybe a few countries that simply said, "Yeah. We agree.".

Dean made comments in opposition to the war DURING the war. Tell me how Dean was in favor of the war then.

[AP]

131. So Dean's a fair weather war opposer and we're supposed to

celebrate that and that's why we're supposed to pick him over all other candidates as the best candidate?

[Zynx]

137. He opposed the war when it had nearly 80% support during the war.

How can you not get this through your head?

[AP]

Among ten candidates, all he needed was something to get 20%

on his side, and he was going to get enough to be considered a front-runner.

20% against Bush. What's that? Maybe 30% of Dem primary voters. It was probably a pretty easy call. And the media was going to be giving hugs and kisses to any Dem willing to criticize Bush on national security, which was going to attract even more people.

We're at 60% support now for the war, and that's with a media trying to help Dean out with this issue. That number will probably be right back up to 80% next November if Dean is the nominee (again, thanks to the media).

So, Dean's some kind of hero for playing into this and by criticizing other Dems on this issue, which is the third rail of American politics for Dems?

[Zynx]

186. Oh please. That is lame beyond belief.

If he was really this shrewd and evil politician who will do anything to be president he would not have opposed a war that had 80% support considering it would kill him big time in the general election.

[AP]

The guy has changed 180 degrees on a half-dozen other major

issues between today and when he was governor.

You think he'd stop being cunning on this issue alone?

Maybe he thinks nobody is going to beat Bush in 04, and he just wants to be the nominee by any means necessary, so that he has a shot when it's an open seat in 08? Maybe that's why people are trying to sell this as Clinton vs Gore?

I don't know.

Hey, by the way, read bearfartinthewoods's post up top. S/he agrees with me on this issue.

[AP]

182. Among ten candidates, all he needed was something to get 20%

on his side, and he was going to get enough to be considered a front-runner.

20% against Bush. What's that? Maybe 30% of Dem primary voters. It was probably a pretty easy call. And the media was going to be giving hugs and kisses to any Dem willing to criticize Bush on national security, which was going to attract even more people.

We're at 60% support now for the war, and that's with a media trying to help Dean out with this issue. That number will probably be right back up to 80% next November if Dean is the nominee (again, thanks to the media).

So, Dean's some kind of hero for playing into this and by criticizing other Dems on this issue, which is the third rail of American politics for Dems?

[blm]

169. Legally it was multilateral and Dean knew it.

Dean has MANY statements and THAT is the problem...30 of them can agree and 15 of them can conflict. I noticed it in January and noone wants to face the truth.


Don't you get that the REAL issue is that Dean attacked the others for a position that he himself supported?

Kerry is against the way Bush went to war and the timing he used to do so. He gets treated like he has no right to say anything about the war by Deanies who sanctimoniously declare that Dean was 'staunchly' against the war from the beginning.

It was not true, and don't tell me Dean didn't know he was pulling a fast one. You should be mad at Dean for his inconsistencies, not at the citizen voters who point it out.

[Zynx]

179. Dean always said he was against the war if Bush did not provide....

sufficient evidence that it was an immediate threat. I will concede sometimes it seemed like he tried to hedge his bets, but I will always applaud him for standing against the war DURING the war.

[killbotfactory]

184. multilateral meant getting the UN involved

That's what Dean always said.

Dean was asked about it and said he didn't think the coalition was a true multilateral effort and that he didn't want to quibble about words.

[janx]

387. Let's see.

The U.S. and the U.K. were ...

well we could spin it as multi-lateral. We were a regular fighting force, and we were ready for any number of flowers that were thrown our way!

[bearfartinthewoods]

196. he didn't hhave to worry about the 80%

he needed a way to get to the 20% who would be his ticket into the spotlight.

[Zynx]

201. Oh please. I already refuted this one in an earlier post.

[ozone_man]

382. I certainly was 100% against it,

and to have Dean vocally oppose the war was something I'll not forget. It disgusts me to see right wingers in their war frenzy and spineless Democrats getting sucked along with it.

For someone running for president to speak out against this before the war, and when the war fever was that intense, takes some guts and a backbone, something that none of the candidate's who voted for IWR have.

From what I've read, Kerry was advocating war and cheer leading for the war, at least until the war turned sour. How is it that both of my senators made the choice to vote against the IWR (Leahy/Jeffords) and Senator Kennedy voted against it, but Kerry couldn't see beyond his own political fortunes. That kind of "liberal" politician, we just can't afford.

[MuseRider]

20. This is exactly why

I support DK. This is exactly why I do not care to support HD. This is exactly why I do trust that JK was honest and because of his experience did what he did. I do not like that he voted for it but he has explained it honestly and it sounds much less the lie than the Dean line.

[Cha]

21. This works for me...

"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." Howard Dean February 25,2003"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

[meow mix]

24. love that quote

=)

[imhotep]

25. so much for ABB huh

your non stop attacks on Dean are proof you never believed in it.

[WilliamPitt]

31. My non-stop attacks?

Hee hee hee. You're pretty funny. This may be the first post you've made in a thread of mine that won't get deleted for breaking the rules. Try again. You can do it.

[wyldwolf]

37. What he meant was...

You dare to question Howard Dean?

[imhotep]

40. Im not even a Dean supporter

nice try though.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Hey! Two in a row! Major improvement!

[adadem]

300. OMG!

[imhotep]

49. the difference is

I never pretended to be ABB.
I never lectured DU about "I love the candidate."
And I never START a thread that bashes a candidate.

[WilliamPitt]

53. 'Bash'

bash
v (past bashed, past participle bashed, present participle bash·ing, 3rd person present singular bash·es) (informal)

1. vt strike with heavy blow: to strike something or somebody with a heavy blow
2. vt smash: to smash or strike something violently or damagingly
3. vt make dent: to make a dent in something
4. vi collide with: to crash into or collide with something
5. vt criticize: to criticize harshly

I suppose this fits #5. If you think I'm harsh, wait until the general election.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

152. Third time's the charm

[bearfartinthewoods]

212. he's talking about how harsly rove will criticize dean

but you knew that didn't you?

[stickdog]

321. Exactly. And Rove would NEVER DARE criticize Kerry or Clark. (NT)

[bearfartinthewoods]

420. not on this issue, he can't

this is the problem...antiwar lefties assume that the country was/is anti war. it wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

people are still sure that the war was the right thing to do. people are pissed that bush fucked it up so badly. the polls show this.

now...given that, which candidate best fits with what the majority of the people who will vote in a general election feel? it sure as hell isn't dean.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT NOMINATING THE CANDIDATE THAT MAKES THE LEFT HAPPY.

THIS IS ABOUT NOMINATING A CANDIDATE THAT WILL PASS MUSTER WITH THE CENTER.

[killbotfactory]

453. Newsflash: Clark is anti-war

Rove can and will use this issue against them, as they have both made comments critical of the president.

If you think otherwise you are living in a dreamworld.

[robbedvoter]

462. Gasp! Clark anti-war? Did Gore get this newsflash? "The only major

candidate opposed to war was dean". Did Gore use "major" as an army title?
he left out the "general" candidate who opposed war then.
And to answer your question - it would be much harder to attack clark on any war related issue because...
"
 He's running for president, and he is not used to losing.  And if he gets the nomination, he'll go up and down this country and beat on President Bush like a drum.  He'll do 2,000 yards every morning; he'll rappel down any cliff he needs to; he will shake off any small-arms fire as if it were a swarm of gnats.  And he'll get better at the game each and every day.
He hates to lose.  And he doesn't run from fights.
And even if he's never played the game, he's never a beginner at anything.
Dismissed."

[Uzybone]

46. asking Deanbots oops supporters ...

to explain a Dean quote is now an attack?

[goobergunch]

54. Deanbots?

:eyes:

[Crewleader]

27. Good Work William!

:thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

28. You're right, Will. Here's why...

The record shows Dean thought Saddam had WMDs and supported taking him out...

"I don't want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

"Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam's weapons or the inspectors do."

"I think Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=594

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if (Saddam) didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. link

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:JRAbrHmxaVQJ:www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp+Howard+Dean+russert+transcript&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So here is the setup. In these quotes, Dean believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one point, and then admits he was misled. Fine.

But then Dean hypocritically attacks John Kerry for claiming people had been misled:

"A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,' " said Dean. "The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States."

What's that called? I think you know...

OK, let's take it further.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Again, this was on January 31. A month or so later (see Dean quotes above), Dean appears to fully believe Saddam has WMDs. Apparantly, Dean (like a lot of people) believed Bush's false evidence.

Now, let's tie this up. We have Dean, fully believing Bush's false evidence, calling for military action even without U.N. authorization.

Dean, fully believing Saddam has WMDs, amends his view on February 20 by stating the US should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm if the UN chooses not to enforce it's own decisions.

[bpilgrim]

33. i think that was part of the campaign to put him on the spot

bush that is and get him to 'go on the record' with his lies...

and he certainly was putting up more of an effort than your man kerry i will certainly argue that all the way to election day.

kerry's problem is his 'insider' position... and he did pretty much with the rest of them did and dean is using his outsider postion against kerry to his - dean's - advantage.

kerry has already lost this argument, i wouldn't waste too much energy over trying to rehash it.

peace

[blm]

63. And when does TRUTH matter?

And why would anyone FIGHT the truth?

[Sterling]

139. I agree this is lose lose for anyone but Dean DK and the others

without blood on their hands. I think this thread is childish and makes many DUers look like sore losers. Dean was smart he knew what most of us here knew when we were ignored by party elites. We were right they were wrong that is why there will be a new sheriff in town, get used to it.

It is truely pathetic will that you would chastize Dems for taking their toys and going home now that it appears Dean will be on the ticket. Now you feed the offenders with this tripe. You really need to find your center man. What do you actually stand for that you will not reverse yourself on withing a 48 hour period?

You know you don't have to post every single thought you have on DU. Maybe you can let an idea stew for a while before you unleash it on the general public. You might find that some of them are not as worthy as others and that waffling so often makes you appear less credible?

[WillyT]

42. Damn Will, If You're Gonna Bend Steel With Your Bare Hands...

you're gonna need this! LOL!!!



Great editorial BTW. But has the horse left the barn, or is it still within lassoing distance?

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

47. I ain't heard no fat lady singing yet

and not one vote has been cast.

[JohnKleeb]

60. Hey anyone want the primary scores I got em

Kucinich 0%
Dean 0%
Kerry 0%
Braun 0%
Lieberman 0%
Edwards 0%
Sharpton 0%
Gephardt 0%
Clark 0%
:evilgrin: seems to me they are all winners and losers technically.

[WillyT]

72. True, No Votes Have Been Cast, But A Lot Of Minds Have Been Made Up...

and it will be real interesting to see how many minds can be changed between now and the first couple of primaries.

Best of luck to all.

:hi:

[goobergunch]

77. If you want the Delegate Count, to date, it's in my sig

under Goobergunch Political Report.

[chimpymustgo]

111. Ah, the elusive essence of Howard Brush Dean.

This op-ed by David Brooks from Monday's NYT hits the bull's-eye. Brooks may be a conservative, but he has seen right to the core of Howard Dean.

-snip-

But the liberated Dean is beyond categories like liberal and centrist because he is beyond coherence. He'll make a string of outspoken comments over a period of weeks — on "re-regulating" the economy or gay marriage — but none of them have any relation to the others. When you actually try to pin him down on a policy, you often find there is nothing there.

For example, asked how we should proceed in Iraq, he says hawkishly, "We can't pull out responsibly." Then on another occasion he says dovishly, "Our troops need to come home," and explains, fantastically, that we need to recruit 110,000 foreign troops to take the place of our reserves. Then he says we should not be spending billions more dollars there. Then he says again that we have to stay and finish the job.

At each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest. But over time he is incoherent and contradictory.

He is, in short, a man unrooted. This gives him an amazing freshness and an exhilarating freedom.

-snip-


Much much more here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/opinion/09BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks

[janx]

302. What a shame Brooks can't put him in a box...what a shame!

E...O...M...

[Monte Carlo]

55. Well done, nice work.

Who'd have known that reading and writing could pay off, eh?

I think far too many DUers attribute John Kerry's 'yes' vote to the IWR to stupidity, cynical calculation, or worse. I think they underestimate the fog in the national consciousness at the time.

Thank you. Now I have something material to point to.

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. Ruh Roh! n/t

[eissa]

64. Will, I really do respect you

The Dean supporters are being made out to attack all their critics, but really it's the ones who post the flame-baits 24/7 that we go after, and you're obviously not one of those! However, I must disagree with your intrepretation. I believe the sentence following the one you highlighted: "But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future" -- says that Dean never thought bush to be believable, nor did he made a valid case for war. Just my .02 cents.

[Zynx]

69. That's my problem with what Will wrote.

He ignored that next sentence as well as many other things.

Also, he should not be talking about inconsistencies when he is supporting John Kerry.

[Sterling]

151. Some people read see only what bits fit their agenda.

This thread is full of those people and it is truly sad for them. I feel sorry for them that they must be so desperate.

[Donna Zen]

66. Not even a Dent for Dean

Better yet...Dean also said he thought the inspectors needed 30-60 more days, and then it would be fine to invade Iraq.

(AP where are you? I need a link)

Now, I'm one that considers the situation more complex than mere sound bites. Going to the UN and dumping it in their laps is very SOP. The problem was with the neo-cons. From the outside it all looks so clear, but sitting in the hot seats of the Senate, it was a very different matter. I don't walk in their shoes, but I do know that the IWR actually worked. The UN did its job and had inspectors back in. Logic tells us that the next standard move would be to insert more inspectors with NGO's. The sanctions were a failure and surrounding Saddam with "soft power" would have gone far in winning the hearts and minds. Nevertheless, crazy trumped logic.

Being lied to, voting yes, voting no, is not the issue with Dean. Using a complicated vote, while covering up your own ambiguous stance, in order to wield a vote gathering club, is not what I want to see in any politician.

This entire thing is going to really hurt in the General Election. While the majority of Americans suffer from a great unease about the war, a majority also believe that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. This war will be painted to look quite tame by next summer, and that club will be hitting all of us between the eyes.

[Sterling]

158. Anyone who though Iraq might not happen is a fool

And no one should every let them lead again. Hell I know the day I found out Bush was running we would be at war in Iraq within 5 years.

If you can't see things so obvious then let others who can lead.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

438. YES! IWR actually worked...it got inspectors back in

And Kerry et al. can stand proudly on that fact. Bush's rush to war is where the blame and shame lies.

BTW Great post.

[Q]

68. Will joins the RWing in parsing words...

...and creating doubt and suspicion among Democrats.

- I have to say...George* won't even have to break a sweat to win the 2004 election. All he has to do is keep playing the role of the great commander in chief fighting the war on terror as the Democrats find reasons not to support each other.

- Those of us who haven't chosen a candidate yet have to shake our heads in sadness as we watch our beloved party fall apart at the seams. And what a pitiful sight it is to behold.

[WilliamPitt]

73. *violins, sad oboe, and a sunset*

[Q]

132. Don't cry for me, Mr. Pitt...

- It's egocentrics like you that's driving life-long Democrats like me to third parties. Yeah...I know...who gives a shit? Certainly not the 'new' Democratic party.

- I don't recognize this 'new' breed of Democrat...who seems more concerned about image than substance...more concerned with 'winning' than principles.

- And yes...I still remember your diatribe about not owing Gore a damn thing for winning the last election. But you weren't alone...as the party quickly turned their backs on him and treated him with disdain for not winning despite all the cheating from the other side.

- The Democratic party has lost it's way...due in no small part to those like you who would rather bring up petty issues than find ways of bringing everyone together to fight the most corrupt government in US history.

[bearfartinthewoods]

227. bull.....this whole issue hinges on what is the substance behind

Dean's image as the anti-war firebrand.

[jab105]

198. I agree with you Q...

Will, you are great, but you are twisting words on this one...its just not the "truth"...

[wndycty]

70. Hey Kerry is repeating what Will Pitt said on CSPAN right now

Damn you are good Will

[frank frankly]

94. it is no coincidence

or in other words--all other candidates/supporters, welcome to John Kerry with a real campaign. Will Pitt fired up is one hell of an asset.

We'll see what happens. If he focuses on taking out Dean, he will lose. If he focuses on his record, he may get it done.

Not to say he can't take some shots, but he was really becomming all anti-Dean, all the time.

That clearly has changed.

Also, he clearly has decided to focus on one issue with Dean.

Interesting.

[wndycty]

99. hmmmm

:kick:

[artr2]

294. If Mr. Pitt focuses on taking out Dean

I will introduce him to my ignore list and stop supporting Truthout

[wtmusic]

76. This will surpass # of posts of Will's infamous '$600 dinner' thread

Place your bets.

[WilliamPitt]

81. No bet here

:)

[goobergunch]

85. That thread had 198 replies (n/t)

[wndycty]

90. Hey my Dean/Gore/Rangel thread is over 220

Do I get anything for that?

[Bundbuster]

83. Whiplash

I'm getting whiplash trying to pin down the many waffling "stances" by Dean on so many differernt issues. The constant attacks by his supporters here on Wesley Clark's supposed shift-shaping ring with the highest degree of hypocrisy and self-delusion.

[killbotfactory]

93. Dean, before durign and after the Iraq war:

"Bush has not made the case. Unilateral war unjustified."

That's it. No waffling.

But don't let that stop your attacks.

[Chants]

117. He told salon.com that unilateral war may be justified

"Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations," Dean said. "If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." -- Howard Dean

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index_np.html

[killbotfactory]

174. And????

Dean never said he was against the war under any circumstances. He said Bush had not made the case, and the war was unjustified until he does.

[mzmolly]

268. NOPE, you "quoted" a paraphrased remark

and ya know it.

Here is a related comment you left out from that same article.

"Hence, today's phone calls. It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says."

:hi:

[Zomby Woof]

91. DEAN BASHER!

GOP TALKING ROVE POINTS MEMES!!!! PAID OPERATIVE!!!! DEAN IS GOD, SO STOP SAYING THAT!!!! BASHER!!!! I AM PUTTING YOU ON IGNORE!!!! MEME!!!

:evilgrin:

[WilliamPitt]

103. MEME!!! MEME!!! MEME!!!

heeheeheehee... :)

[wndycty]

110. You know the Dean cult will close ranks. . .

. . .have some meetings. . .be reprogrammed and they will be back like any other good cult. Any and everything negative is controlled by Karl Rove, any Democrat who is questions Dean is controlled by Rove and nothing is ever Dean's fault. They are very similar to Rush fans.

[goobergunch]

122. "Dean cult".

I love being compared to a dittohead. Thanks a lot.

[bearfartinthewoods]

252. if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it......

[killbotfactory]

124. Bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan

How dare Dean supporters fight back! Those rascally rascals of evil!

[frank frankly]

126. Dean "cult"

now that, dear wndycty, isn't useful.

and personally as someone who hasn't voted yet but is grateful as hell for everything Dean has done, I am insulted.

you are throwing garbage on a friend's, an ally's, lawn.

once again, unhelpful. and i don't think this thread has deteriorated to wild blind holy hell allegaince.

[wndycty]

213. I am not the only one who views Dean's followers as a cult. . .read here

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0343/fahim.php
The Army of Dean For the Troops, the Campaign Unmanages the Message — "Dean followers now include self-described geeks, dykes, security moms, and expats, along with graphic designers, hackers, economists, and the unemployed," Kareem Fahim writes, analyzing the increasingly wild cult growing up around the canditate.
(Bottom of the page)

IS HOWARD DEAN A CULT LEADER?
by LCD
ACTIVE Nov 18, 2003 - Nov 17, 2004
Howard Dean is charismatic from what I have seen, and well educated. He is one of the leading democratic contender, but something bothers me. Does his campaign sound a little too messiahanic, little too cult like. I hate it when issues takes the back seat to personality, and Dean followers seem a little too much like branch davidians. What is your take on his campaign?

http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vote/vote-5514.html

Dean's Cult Following

"I hide behind a smile, and understanding eyes
"And I tell you things you already know, so you can say, 'I really identify with you, so much'"
Henry Rollins "Liar"

Most of what I've been able to see of Howard Dean has been his anger; however, according to Laura Blumenfeld's article in the Washington Post, there's a streak of self-help/empowerment language in his stump speech that doesn't come across in interviews and debates. This is a clever tactic, and powerful stuff for politicians of all political bents. People, especially when massed, never tire of being told how wonderful and how powerful they are. They love it when politicians give them a romantic impression of their future destiny. Some people will hand over their worship to anyone who does that.
-snip-

http://homepage.mac.com/jim_snowden/iblog/C1698934252/E885891297/

[killbotfactory]

223. Optimism is so cultish.

Only bitter, cynical cranks have a level head.

[Zomby Woof]

235. And check this out...

From the Cult Studies Journal, which specializes in analyzing cult activity, helping family members, and victims.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

-snip-

Keep in mind that this checklist is meant to stimulate thought, not "diagnose" groups. (So this means hold your flames, I am not "diagnosing", but I do think some parallels are worth pondering).


The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

-snip-

[wndycty]

245. Woah. . .

:kick:

[killbotfactory]

266. I piss on this stupid exchange

Have fun crying in your teacups when Dean takes the nomination

[Zomby Woof]

289. No tears here

I'll just laugh with mocking disgust at Bush and he being the two choices. But I have big balls, and there's no crying in politics.

[bearfartinthewoods]

421. spooky ain't it

.

[bearfartinthewoods]

257. and The Dean said

you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah
you have the pow-wah

[stickdog]

331. And bearfartinthewoods said, "Oh, no, you don't." (nt)

[stickdog]

327. Dean's "cult" is over 500,000 strong.

And he got it because he gets it.

Unlike Kerry & Gephardt, aka Professor PutMeToSleep and Skelebore.

[Zomby Woof]

368. the Scientologists have more than that

Do they "get it" too? Why does the sheer number of them matter?

You fell for the fallacy of valuing quantity over quality. 500,000 people can be wrong - more than that voted for Bush, right?

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[wndycty]

172. If the shoe fits wear it. . .

. . .I have no shame in saying it. Shoot back with whatever you want.

[killbotfactory]

178. Indeed.

[Zomby Woof]

183. that must have been a satisfying retort!

I guess it sounded more dignified than, "You told him! So there!" :eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

236. it's taking a long time.......

i have to go to sleep soon and i'll miss it!

[KFC]

115. Meme, meme, meme, meme!!

Spouting nothing but memes! Memes in my head! Memes under the bed!

I can't take it much longer!

[bicentennial_baby]

127. I am so sick of that word!

If I never hear the word "MEME" again it will be far too soon :P

[killbotfactory]

140. These anti-meme meme's are getting out of hand

mememememememmememememmemememem

[Cha]

147. It's going to come and go before I know

where it came from and what exactly it means! :)

[BootinUp]

102. Well that settles it.

First time I have seen that quote! I have been saying that Dean's position was no different than Clark's. This seems to put that beyond any doubt, actually he was more supporting Bush than Clark!

It also shows that Dean can morph his positions with the best of them.

edited to clarify

[Ramsey]

118. He made one inconsistent statement out of dozens?

That's it, he is definitely cooked. :-) That will never stand up to the constant barrage of lies and mistatements and revisionist history emanating from the Bush White House every day.

I don't really think that in the quote you highlight Dean makes a statement that we should go to war if bush says so, and what Dean has always claimed is that he never supported this war. He has also said an imminent threat would have justified it. I think in the quote you are so up in arms about, he was saying that Bush hadn't made the case for war, but that if Bush ever said Iraq had atomic or biological weapons, that people would have to take his word for it. He is stating that Bush never said that, so therefore the case for war has not been made. I think it's just poor syntax, not a waffle on the position.

Kerry in the other quote is talking about something a bit different, not WMD or statements about them but Bush's promise to engage the international community, work through the UN and make war a last resort. That seems to be implying that Kerry did support the war under those certain circumstances.

Since Dean didn't have to make the vote, we can argue hyotheticals all we want, though it will do us no good. Again, I respect Kerry, but the reality is that he stuck defending that vote against his subsequent criticism and opposition to Bush over Iraq.

[WilliamPitt]

128. The timing is what galls me

1. Just before the vote, he's talking about taking Bush's word for it, that Bush doesn't have to prove anything. That's not an 'inconsistent' statement. That's a solid indication of what he would have done in the Senate 12 days later, had he been forced to lay it on the line.

2. Remember the context: Kerry has been getting batted around for 'taking the President's word.'

[killbotfactory]

145. oct 6th, 2002

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

[Ramsey]

159. Round and round

First of all, I'd vote for Kerry in a heart beat and not give a crap about his Iraq vote. I'm just saying he is stuck explaining himself.

Second, I am reading that Dean quote differently than you are. Maybe I have my pro-Dean goggles on (just as you have your pro-Kerry goggles on), but I don't think he is supporting going to war in that statement, or that 2 weeks hence he'd be voting for the war resolution if he could. I think he is saying that Bush has not made the case for war but that if he were ever to claim that Saddam was an immediate threat, as in capable of making a direct attack on the US, then he/we would have to take his word for it. If you read the whole interview, he clearly states several times that Bush has not said that and has not made the case. To be fair to Dean, Bush never did say that Saddam was an imminent threat in so many words. In the SOTU he said we shouldn't have to wait for an imminent threat to attack, a position that many of us have disagreed with.

I think you make a valid point that if Dean were the nominee, Rove & Co, could try to use whatever quotes to make hay of Dean's position. I just think this is grasping at straws.

[janx]

275. Pitt, he should have known better. How could he not?

Of course we normally take a president's word. But this president wasn't even elected, for God's sake, and the trumped-up evidence that Powell presented to the U.N. was ludicrous. There was no evidence.

The Bush* administration went full-bore in duping as many Americans and members of the United Nations as it possibly could.

And that's what Dean was trying to say--but you plucked the trust aspect of it and removed it from the rest of the text/quote.

That's not honest.

I cannot fault Kerry for trusting and then being angry at the violation of that trust. But I want to know why he couldn't see what was obvious to many average American citizens.

[TLM]

450. Will please stop this... you're killing my rspect for you.

"1. Just before the vote, he's talking about taking Bush's word for it, that Bush doesn't have to prove anything. That's not an 'inconsistent' statement. That's a solid indication of what he would have done in the Senate 12 days later, had he been forced to lay it on the line."

Why lie about the context of the statement?

Dean was talking about what Bush would have to do to make the case for war in IRaq, which Dean said clearly in this interview that Bush had NOT done.

ANd Dean was right, at that point is wasn;t so much about rock solid proof as it was about just flat making the case for war, and Bush didn't do it.

It is wholy dishonest to act as if a statement from Dean about what might happen IF bush were to make the case for war is the same as a policy statement based on the case Bush had made at that point.

[blm]

199. Many more than one. But the real deceit was in his attacks on those who

voted for IWR, specifically going after Bush being given authority to determine use of force, when Biden-Lugar had that same provision and Dean said he would have voted for that.

[clarknyc]

119. You seem to be in a white-hot tizzy, Mr. Pitt

Too little, too late.

Face it, Kerry has run a crappy campaign. It all sounds like a whine squeezed from sour grapes at this point when all that's left is to flail about and shout out "he's as bad as we are." Pathetic.

[matcom]

123. 'Scuse me (i have had a cocktail) but...

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

---------------------------

yeah. uh huh.

now, confusion sets in.

um.....

exactly WHEN was it PROVEN that "he" had the "means"?

am i missing something?

i VERY well may be but um...

sorry, don't get it. :shrug:

BTW, Poodle Blair DID say such things (i believe with a 45 minute time table?)

i REALLY don't get it. don't see the "BIG DEAL"

and CHECK IT: I am ABB ABL so don't accuse me of being ANYONE'S WHORE

[Cha]

141. When did I miss you're not backing

Dean anymore? :)

And I don't feel like anyone's "whore", either!

[matcom]

149. oh, right now i AM backing Dean

but i still don't "get it"

can you 'splain' it to me? :shrug:

[Zomby Woof]

180. you're MY whore!

And don't you forget it asshole! :P :D

(You can be ABBOL! "Anybody But Bush Or Lieberman")

[matcom]

210. I'll be your WHORE on ONE condition....

you GOTTA explain what i am "missing" here :D

:shrug:

[Zomby Woof]

239. that's up to Will!

I am just here doing my job! *cranks matsignal* :D

[stickdog]

125. Which candidate was speaking loudest against the war

as Saddam's statue was coming down?

DEAN

And I don't mind telling y'all that it was a critical breath of fresh air in a hyper-jingoistic shitstorm.

But I guess when you can't build up your guy, you gotta tear down his competition.

[Uzybone]

142. Actually that would be Kucinich

he spoke the loudest but no one listens to him anyways. If 100% anti-war is your do or die position, DK is your man.

[Zomby Woof]

193. you nailed it

People ignore DK at their peril.

[stickdog]

299. I agree. But if politician screams in the woods and there's no one

there to here him ...

DK and Sharpton were and are more actively and generally antiwar than Dean.

But Dean was the guy who Wolf Blitzer called to gloat over (his presumed now abortive campaign) the day Saddam's statue came down. And Dean, to his eternal credit, stayed on message (the message being that invading Iraq was a Bush blunder) even as many Democrats were hailing the "victory" like Bush was their Caesar.

[Code_Name_D]

175. And mean while, the Panicea man was pimping the war on CNN

The hypocrasy here is getting deep Stickgod. Was there a merging of the DU and the Free Republic?

[dsc]

129. Those damn editting computers

It really must be that. I mean, Kerry supporters couldn't be purposley editting their posts to be deceptive. They wouldn't do that. For the record, here is what your computer editted.

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

end of quote

Funny how your computer editted this out. It is crystal clear what Dean is saying here. Bush didn't make his case. Dean wanted some proof that Saddam was in immediate threat. He wanted some proof Saddam not only was going nuclear but had the actual stuff. Again this stuff was there. It was directly above the part you quoted. Too bad your computer has that editting problem. It really is a shame.

[12 12 2000]

133. As much as I respect Will Pitt...

it appears he's been seduced by John Kerry and is now joining his campaign informally, which requires tearing down the front-runner, Dean at this point. The fact is that all these candidates are human and they are constantly under the spotlight, keep late hours, have video cameras and mikes in their faces and are highly likely to contradict themselves on occasion. A perusal of the post "cough" by
killbotfactory discloses the consistency of Dean's position over many months prior to and post Iraq war. I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I believe Dean to be an adaquate nominee if that's where the Dem base wants to go. I'd even support Kerry, despite his craven, politically calculated vote for the war resolution, but I'd prefer not to have to. Nitpicking like this will only play into the Republicans' hands and continue our habit of cannibalizing our own.

[WilliamPitt]

138. Yeah, I've been 'seduced.' Kerry looks awfully cute in a thong.

Or not.

Read: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

If I were easy to seduce, that woulda done it.

[adadem]

156. Darn

I thought you were going to give me a picture. LOL

[Duder]

134. Dean didn't - Kerry did

Instead of 'coulda, shoulda, woulda,' take Kerry's word for it:

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy," he said. "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/elec04.prez.kerry.dean.ap/index.html

[HuckleB]

136. I'm not sure who is saying that "Kerry is evil,"

but it's not me. I just wanted to see a statement from him at the time that somewhat matches his current statement. That would give me reassurance, that's all.

As for the Dean statement, it's incredibly hedged, even compared to Kerry's current statement. It's possible that he would have voted for the resolution. It's clear that he had set limits on the basis for war, even then, and its clear that basis was never met. So I guess I don't see the great inconsistency that some see.

But then Dean bashing is a favored sport around here.

Salut!

P.S. (on edit): Isn't E-mail always 10-1 against?

[adadem]

154. Thanks Will for the Truth(out)

And standing up for the Truth as always. I am a Democrat against Dean and have been ripped to shreds on DU. This is no longer the place to be if you do not march in lockstep with the McCarthy-like Dean supporters.

We had a local Dem Party meeting with our Senator last week. He wanted to hear from his consistuents about the candidates they were leaning toward supporting and why. One local union leader stood up, quite bravely, and said that though his union endorsed a candidate he had more confidence in another to serve as President because of the current situation here and in the world. Others spoke eloquently for their candidate. When the meeting ended the Deaniacs "attached" themselves to those not supporting Dean...in some cases surrounding that person in groups of 3 or so. It was so sad. A friend coined the term Deanibots because thats how they were acting. This kind of behavior is leading to a split in the Dem Party. Funny thing is I never saw one of these people at our local Democratic party meetings before.

Earlier I posted about a conversation I overheard in a Big Boy restaurant this morning .. 4 retiree type guys having breakfast, sitting directly across the aisle from me, were talking about the USA Today headlines, bashing Gore as stupid and worse. One of them said...quite loudly something to the effect of "Well, we have it locked up now". I posted that it made me sad to see them acting that way. The nasty, ignorant messages I received from Deaniacs were nothing short of breathtaking.

So good job Deanies....I was interested in your man early on, donated some money...until I found out about the pugs sending in their donations to the Dr., found out about his favorable ratings from the NRA which is, for all purposes, an endorsement.

Now I can say..with all your schoolyard bullying, know it all attitudes I am proud to be ABBexD with my caucus vote going to Senator Kerry.

[hey2370]

192. I can only speak for myself

The unending attacks on Dean are incredible.

I don't like the other Dem candidates as much as I like Dean (at least right now), but I never would write (over and over and over, starting thread after thread) that Kerry is unelectable, or that Kucinich is too short to be President, or that Edwards is weak on defense, or that only a doctor could possibly lead the Democratic Party and everybody else should get lost.

Yet this is what it has been like, getting worse and worse, more and more strident the better Dean does in stupid polls. He gets endorsed by Gore, all hell breaks loose! It's all en evil plot, it's the Republicans, it's this or that or the other thing. It is just disgusting, the depths that some of these people will stoop to. And for what? They just like to rattle the cages or they are afraid their candidate is going to lose or maybe they just hate the doctor.

So, I guess I can understand why you might think some Dean supporters are not the friendliest, though from what I have seen, they are putting up with the Mother of All CrapStorms, of which this thread is but a flake (or lump..whatever).

[bearfartinthewoods]

272. even if you believed it?

even if you believed, with every fiber of your being that a candidate was non electable, you wouldn't say it? why? why hid your true feelings.

when i see my party heading for a cliff i'm gonna scream until my lungs burst.

[indigo32]

451. Boy I wish I was so sure of myself

eom.

[DancingBear]

194. Wonderful article on Dean supporters in 12/9 Washington Post

(sorry - don't have a link - I read the actual paper!)

Likens the whole thing to a "come to Jesus! " meeting.

Draw your own conclusions.

The article is entitled "People-Powered."

(I hope I didn't break any rules with this post)

[HuckleB]

214. If that's the type of media the Dems are going to get,

it's not a good sign for any of the candidates or the eventual nominee. Talk about oversimplistic stereotyping. The reporter likely could have written much of that piece without doing any research or reporting. The cliche was already on the page. The reporter just had to add a few "details."

[adadem]

225. People powered

appears to be the people following the preacher and drinking some Kool-Aid. I have never started a thread on DU since I re-joined. Now I remember why I signed off before. All of this is just empowering the facist bushies. So very sad. I will stand up for any candidate, especially Kerry, that the Deaniacs are bashing.

[poskonig]

155. This is very, very looooong stretch.

Extracting a quote like "I tend to believe the president" out of the context of a discussion and saying it implies Dean supported the Iraq occupation is silly.

There *are* strong arguments about how Kerry and Dean had similar positions.

The argument presented above, however, is simply not intelligent.

[janx]

232. True. Quotes taken out of context rarely make for a

convincing argument, and yes, there are some very positive things about Kerry and Dean, many similarities, that would have combined and worked better.

[unfrigginreal]

161. Haha

The public knows where Dean stood on the war and they know where Kerry stood on the war. Good luck with your campaign to change perceptions.

[retyred]

164. Was that an endorsement of bush I heard?

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it."

I can see why so many like dean's firm stand against the war from the beginning......(of When?)

Not against the war Against the war

" THOSE ARE MY PRINCIPLES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM I HAVE OTHERS." – GROUCHO MARX!



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[HuckleB]

177. Yeah, let's forget about the rest of the quote.

That wouldn't serve our purposes, would it? Dean must go!

:eyes:

[SPURGEMAN23]

165. amazing you would do this.

This was wrong to start.

It is not true.

[SPURGEMAN23]

170. I raised my hand. n/t

[Cha]

209. Welcome to DU, Spurgeman!

:toast:

[SPURGEMAN23]

292. Thanks. n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

277. Pitt asked a question...as your sig suggests

[SPURGEMAN23]

291. Question, my ass. He made an untrue statement. He lied.

He had a conclusion and twisted the facts to fit it. That is unacceptable for Pitt, period.

[Walt Starr]

171. Raises Hand

From September of 2002 until the day shock and awe was launched, Dumbass* never came out and said, "Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future."

Not that I hold any grudge against Kerry. His position of taking Dumbass* at his word is entirely consistant with historical honorable conduct of the presidency. Unfortunately in this case, Dumbass* was anything but honorable.

[janx]

220. What I want to know is...

If laypeople (politically speaking) on this board knew that the case to the U.N. and the American people didn't pass the test, why didn't Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards et al. know?

Aren't they supposed to be trusted with that sort of judgment?

Powell's presentation to the U.N. was so circumstantial and sketchy that it was laughable! So why didn't Congress see it for what it was?
:shrug:

We all wanted to be able to trust the President of the United States. That's what we're supposed to do. But the evidence just wasn't there, and that's what was so pathetic about the whole thing.

[Walt Starr]

253. Unfortunately, Congress had only what was presented

and what was presented was nothing more than a pack of lies.

I hold nothing against the four who voted for the IWR. They did what they felt was right in their hearts at the time. They felt they had to believe what the president told them.

Kucinich went on gut instinct like all of the rest of us. Our guts were more accurate than the crap spewed by the administration.

IMO, neither side was right and neither side was wrong. Both sides did what they felt was the right thing to do at the time and under the circumstances.

[janx]

293. Many people didn't go on gut instinct. Many had reasonable

brains, hearts, and eyes.

That U.N. presentation would have been laughable if it hadn't been so important.

I understand your point. But this is too important for me to dismiss.

[liberalmuse]

173. Bush doesn't need Rove...

to twist our candidates words. The Democrats are doing that all by themselves. Good job! From what I've read and know of Dean's statements, he has been consistent on his feelings about the Iraq War. It's true he didn't have to put his vote on record like Kerry did, but he didn't have thousands of letters, phone calls and e-mails from people like myself begging him not to give Bush carte blanche on what should be Congressional war powers, either. Would Dean have listened to the people? I don't know. He seems to be listening now. As for Kerry taking Bush at his word after repeatedly being lied to by the Bush administration regarding other policies, I'll just believe Kerry is too honest to think that someone, especially the pResident of the United States would sink so low as to lie about reasons for war.

Yeah, I know. I'm not a Will Pitt psychophant, so I might as well turn in my DU membership card. :(

[neuvocat]

191. I don't think its that bad.

Someone could easily look at this forum and talk about how bad it is, but I don't see the infighting coming from any of the actual candidates themselves.

[mzmolly]

185. Another raised hand! I expect more from you Will.

:(

[Zynx]

190. He made a partisan choice in misleading us.

I can understand that he is devoted, but lies and deceit are not something we should be engaged in.

[Donna Zen]

221. Who?

Who made a partisan choice to mislead us? Dean?

[Zynx]

247. Will. He is not telling the truth.

He is not necessarily lying, but he isn't telling the whole story.

[WilliamPitt]

203. More what?

My candidate gets called all sorts of vile things on this board 24/7. Dean gets a pass for not only supporting Biden/Lugar (basically the same goddam thing Kerry voted for), but for making comments like the one I highlighted. I just got this sent to me, and it strikes me that Dean taking that stance at that time means he is damn lucky today he wasn't a Senator in October of 2002.

If you expect me to ask hard questions, ones that will maybe piss some people off, then your expectations will be fulfilled. Otherwise, I can't help you.

[Zynx]

211. Dean was on the national record. There is little difference.

I am willing to bet money that he would have voted against it. Whether or not it was a cold political decision is something we can never know, but I don't believe it was.

[killbotfactory]

215. Yeah, Dean gets a pass on everything

Jesus Christ, did you live in a cave for the last goddamn year?

[LuminousX]

384. Pass on everything?

I feel if Dean failed to wash his hands after taking a piss we'd have a whole day devoted here to how unsanitary Dean is.

[clarknyc]

218. Chill, Will..

Who sounds angry now? Anybody But Bush. Remember?

BTW, "basically the same...thing" and THE SAME THING are not synonymous. But I'm guessing you know that...

[mzmolly]

241. *sigh*

Biden Lugar is not the same thing your candidate voted for.

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

Here is a comparison of B/L and the rez that Kerry voted for.

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

Additionally Kerry slammed Gep for caving just before he himself did.

In fact, there's a "hard" question for John. Why did you criticize Dick Gephardt while voting for the same resolution yourself?

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

BTW, there are very few threads slamming Kerry, the only slamming of him comes on 'defense' Will.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0221-03.htm

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

Kerry should have followed his instinct, he'd probably be much better off today.

[Eloriel]

287. You've just gone too far, Will

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

CNN provides a summary of the resolution:

The bipartisan resolution includes language:

* Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.


* Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions


* Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance


* Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations


* Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress


* Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.


A lot more here:

Biden-Lugar -- the facts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=788060#788268

[neuvocat]

332. What is your point?

Assuming that you even have one?

You just post language pertaining to the resolution and somehow that's your rebuttal? Please.

[bpilgrim]

335. come on will

you start'n to sound like O'Really...

i think you let your bias show just a tad ;-) and you are getting called on it. but hey, were only human :toast:

now chill

peace

[stickdog]

345. Will, your initial post is a load of crap, and will go over with the

public like a lead balloon.

This weak quote-out-of-context attack does one thing and one thing only. It draws attention to Kerry's glaring liability in his supposed strong suit: his foreign policy experience and judgment.

The fact that you and he can't see this UTTERLY mystifies me.

[quaker bill]

200. Kerry was for the war Mr. Pitt, Kerry was for war.

Twist it as you will Mr. Pitt, but Mr. Kerry voted to give George (F*** Saddam were taking him out) Bush* the unlimited right to wage a unilateral pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation that was no measurable threat to the US.

Senator Bob Graham, Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Democratic leader with the most access to the critical information, stood in the well of the Senate and urged opposition to this war, not on peacenik grounds mind you, but for all the right reasons. Was Mr. Kerry's vote informed by this? I believe it was. He chose as he chose.

Listen to Mr. Kerry carefully, he still believes he was right on this and that he voted in the best interests of the country. He is most surprised that Bush f'ed it up this badly.

This is the quintessential misunderstanding that defines him now. He still seems to think war on Iraq could have been a good thing if better managed.

The Iraq war was an ignorant and illegal action. No one can successfully 'manage' their way out of a truly abysmal policy choice. Better management was never the answer, voting no was.

[Closer]

202. :-)

[WilliamPitt]

205. Amusing, but a misdiagnosis

considering that Dean is pretty far to the right of everything Kerry believes and has fought for in the Senate for the last 20 years.

[Zomby Woof]

208. KERRY IS SKULL AND BONES!!!

KERRY IS BFEE!!! MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME! :bounce:

[curse10]

246. Don't forget he started the homeland gestapo!

skulls and bones! skulls and bones!!

[Zomby Woof]

265. HE HIDES ALIENS IN HIS HAIR!!!

:o

[A-Schwarzenegger]

217. I am switching my vote back to Gen Clark.

I didn't read the whole thing or any of the
responses but I am fed up with Doc Dean and
all his shenangians.

[HuckleB]

230. Why is it that I doubt you ever switched to Dean?

If your vote is that easy to switch, you might want to go undecided. After all, if Clark gets the lead, the criticisms will fly, and his "shenanigans" will all come to light. By the way, read the whole quote. Dean clearly outlines the parameters for what justifies war and what doesn't justify war. Those parameters were not met by Bush and Co. Dean was and is consistent on this matter. And what other candidate offered such parameters at this early date? None that I know about.

[Cha]

242. A-Swartz uses Heavy Sarcasm and is really

pretty Funny! :D

[HuckleB]

248. Ah, got ya.

I should have caught that.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

262. No, nothing heavy, I have a bad back.

I use light par(n)o(l)dy.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

249. Just for that I'm switching to Sen Kucinishc.

I didn't read your post but I can tell from the title
that it will be smart aleckey with big words. You cinicysim
just lost a vote for your man, pal.

[HuckleB]

258. Actually, I'm with the Draft Kitzhaber campaign.

Er, I am the Draft Kitzhaber campaign.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

286. Is that Merle Kitzhaber, of Kitzhaber's Keys & Shoe Repair

down there on 21st? If so, you know he says
he was against the war but the sources says
otherways.

[Closer]

251. Will Pitt

will be proud. :hi: Even prouder if you switch to Kerry

[A-Schwarzenegger]

278. I am the typicial loopy swing voter

but I cannot switch to Kerry right now because
I have already switched four times today
because of all the dazzleling arguments.
I don't want to cheapen my endorsement.
Maybe manyana.

[Scott Lee]

219. Dean was and is against the war as it transpired.

Mr. Pitt, repeating something does not make it true. Bending Dean's sentiments on war and on THIS war won't make the bend true. Yours was a clever attack on the greatest truck tire around Kerry's neck (his IWR vote), but it won't fly.

NO candidate is "antiwar". I've not heard a single statement from any one of them that said we should never go to war under any circumstance. Any human with a functioning brainstem knows that you must be able and willing to defend yourself if attacked or credibly threatened. But the way this war on Iraq has come down is not about defense. It is about the schemes and petty vengence of one Chimp in the Oval Office and the stooges willing to make his fantasy come true. Like it or not, the ones who voted for the IWR were the stooges who ignorantly or purposely chose to enable George Bush. Such ignorance or chickenshit behavior nixes any credibility they have, in my mind, to hold public office.

Dean rightly opposed the way this war went down. He supported the Biden/Lugar approach that, while certainly not a choker on the US war machine, was a much better gate on executive war power than the IWR. The Biden Lugar resolution put a heavier emphasis on international sanction and a certifiable case for an imminent threat on the security of the Unites States. I didn't support either resolution, as I'm against this war for a laundry list of other reasons, but to dissemble Howard Dean's resistance to the current war is petty and, yeah, beneath you I think.

I like it much better when you stick to propping your guy up than going on the attack against his opponent; especially if that attack has no meat on it's bones.

[Cha]

237. Thanks for posting this, Scott! n/t

[Scott Lee]

297. Thanks. I calls it as I sees it.

[Duncan Grant]

414. Excellent post, Scott.

You sir, have nailed it. (hat tipped politely to you)

[curse10]

222. Thank you, Will

**not raising hand**

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I'm sure you are being slaughtered.

I still love you. :loveya:

[killbotfactory]

228. Slaughtered with facts and logical arguements

[Sophree]

226. Your article hit home

I am very worried for our country if we nominate Dean. I just have a really bad feeling about it- not Dean personally, just his chances in the General. I think he'll get creamed- a complete disaster.

And WHY in the world would we want to take such a huge risk on a candidate who is a centrist while we are passing on such excellent candidates like Kerry and Edwards??? (I am supporting Edwards, but Kerry is by far the superior candidate when compared with Dean.) On a candidate who had the luxury of not having to vote on the issue, no less!

It makes no sense to me to support a candidate based on any one issue, especially an issue that was designed to divide us in just the way it has.

[blm]

243. So true. It WAS designed to divide us.

And that is why the media focused so much on the guy who was using it to attack the other Democrats. If they were sincere in airing antiwar views they would have focused on Kucinich.

[Sophree]

263. Kucinich

The person who actually voted against the war.

If we give Dean the nomination, and he then goes on to lose the election, we will have essentially given the Cabal EVERYTHING they ever wanted out of that God-forsaken war. It's feeling more like a Greek Tragedy every day here in the Democractic Party.

[stickdog]

356. Meanwhile Kerry, Gep & blm are singing Kumbaya ...

while their war keeps on keeping on ...

[blm]

463. Dean was for Bush making the decision and unilateral, if necessary.

I agreed with Biden-Lugar and that means I agreed with Kerry and Dean.

Now, why does Dean attack Kerry for the same measures in the bill that he supported?

[bearfartinthewoods]

282. i'm stealing this

And WHY in the world would we want to take such a huge risk on a candidate who is a centrist while we are passing on such excellent candidates like Kerry and Edwards???

[Eloriel]

306. Dean's support doesn't come because of any one issue tho

that one issue got a lot of people's attn -- and ear -- and affection.

[BootinUp]

229. Will, I like your post better, but this was an interview from Feb 03

Where Dean's position on the war is remarkably similar to Clark's. However, as you pointed out this would be after the all important vote. That Dean, somethin to behold. Once the vote was over he dropped the 'I would trust the President' crap real quick.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/howarddean2004/1608.html

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.

[Zynx]

231. Dean and Clark have the same position. I have never said anything else.

[HuckleB]

244. Interesting.

Why is it that everyone focuses on only part of the quote, rather than the whole quote? Is it because the whole quote offers the full story and shows that Dean was and is, in fact, consistent? Are we doing to Dean what the press did to Gore in 2000? Creating contradictions where none lay by misusing quotes? It sure seems so.

[BootinUp]

254. Because Dean wanted it both ways

He wanted to express his trust of the president (equivalent to IWR)

And he wants to say he did not trust the president. (unequal to IWR)

Only problem is it changed after the vote.

Look I admire his skill, but I admire Clark's stance before the vote more. See testimony to Congress.

And Kucinich certainly stands as the only de-facto anti-war candidate.

[HuckleB]

260. Sorry.

He had a clear and nuanced stand. That's not wanting it both ways.

[ModerateMiddle]

390. hehehe He said "nuanced"

about something Dean did.

*snicker*

[bhunt70]

314. very telling quote...

"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." - HD

[matcom]

233. Will.... i understand that my post got lost

but....

(and i realise Dean didn't HAVE to vote) but .... Kerry DID vote for IWA!!!!!!!!!

what exactly IS you point with this????

had Dean HAVE to vote, who knows what he would have done? we have hindsight, nothing more (wheather you believe in him or not) BUT Kerry did HAVE A VOICE and he chose the WRONG PATH.

Dude, i read your book "War In Iraq".

was that ALL FOR NOT?????

:shrug:

[onecitizen]

234. Yeah I just heard Kerry..........

say that on C-Span. Hmmmm

Kerry just has no personality. I'm sorry but the guy's a sad-sack. I mean I know that's not what I should base my decision on(to vote for/not vote for)but this guy just does not inspire me visually. He's not a bad looking guy it's just that he's so saaaaaaaaddddd.

BUT I will say this: I heard him give the best speech I've ever heard. It was GREAT!!! And I thought "that's the guy!! He can beat bush!" But it was all downhill from there. He voted for the war. And I was so disappointed.

[blm]

259. The important thing is what is true. Kerry earned his support with truth

and Dean earned much of his support by deceiving people. He attacked the others for the very thing he supported, giving Bush the final determination for use of force. Period.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

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

[blm]

290. Sorry you see it that way, matcom.

I care about the truth of the matter. That should account for something.

[Lefta Dissenter]

238. Someone would have to be a maniac

(like *) to be able to approve a war without a lot of deep, deep thought. It should be a difficult decision to go to war. It should be painful. It should be a last resort. If some of the candidates have expressed a range of opinions over time, isn't that understandable? Wouldn't you spend a lot of time going over every fact you could, thinking of it from all angles, testing out other options, ANYTHING to avoid war? And isn't it logical, considering the fact that the only 'intelligence' that they had to base their judgements on turned out, in the end, to be lies, that some of those opinions might change over time, as the truth finally starts to trickle out?

The problem I have is when someone bases his entire campaign on attacking other candidates for their views and for their thoughtfulness, all the while denying that he ever had some shifts in position himself. If he had just said. "Yes, I wanted to trust the president, and apparently I was wrong to do so," I would have a hell of a lot more respect for him. But to repeatedly say "I was the only one against the war from the start," is telling two huge lies. First of all, it totally denies the existence of Kucinich, who has stood against the war from day one. Second of all, it's just like Rush screaming that drug addicts should be committed to institutions or put in the electric chair, at the same time that he's popping pills left and right - hypocrisy is so ugly.

I am really worried about this. After seeing the immense and unbelievable damage that one man's admininstration can do in three years, I am petrified that we won't nominate the best candidate to go against him in November. I am absolutely terrified that bush will return to the White House for another four years. There's just no telling what kind of destruction he can produce when he has another four years, but without the concerns of re-election hanging over his head. There will be nothing to stop him. We simply HAVE to nominate the strongest candidate, the one who will beat bush, the one who has honor and integrity and will be truthful with us ALL THE TIME!!!

[blm]

318. BRAVO. That's the whole point. It's not that he was inconsistent

through his own struggle, the problem is the attacks on the others while supporting the same measures he was attacking.

To steal from Carville, "It's the deception, stupid."

[stopbush]

240. FWIW, I can't go with Will on this one.

Response #5 pretty well debunks Will's thesis.

To me, it's very simple - it really doesn't matter if you can find one, or ten or one hundred quotes that appear to show Dean contradicting himself on his anti-war stance. Dean has been known as - and portrayed in the media as - THE anti-war candidate for well over a year. He had the cajones to stick to his position when the media polls had 225% of the American people supporting bush's little misadventure. Had the war and its aftermath gone according to the delusional hopes of the PNAC, Dean might be out of the race at this point. He's not.

Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton have been antiwar from the get-go. Kucinich, to his credit, voted against the war. He had a chance to as he's in Congress. Sharpton and Dean aren't in the Congress. To speculate whether or not they would have voted for bush's resolution is just that, speculation. I could just as easily opine that Will Pitt would have voted for the resolution because his buddy Kerry did. What does that prove? Nothing.

I have NEVER heard Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry or Gephardt referred to by anyone anywhere as "antiwar candidates." And to this day, not a one of the Fearful Four has had the guts to state the obvious - they were wrong to vote for that resolution. Hell, they can even claim that they were lied to by bush, but they dance around that as well. That speaks volumes.

At least Dean spoke out before, during and after the vote. Taken *in totality,* he was clearly against the war. To cite one particular phrase spoken on one particular day in an attempt to dismiss Dean's constant barrage of antiwar statements is, frankly, rather, er, Republican. I'm very surprised to see Will Pitt taking such a cheap shot.

As far as Kerry, he lost my primary vote when he hedged his bets on this one. For all the good he's done in the past, when he could have stood on principle and voted against the war with plenty of cover (the resolution passed overwhelmingly), he didn't. He took the politically expedient road AT THE TIME, and no amount of revisionism or projection onto another candidate changes that fact. To hear Kerry now parsing words and claiming Dean would have voted for a resolution "substantially the same" as the one Kerry voted for is not only embarrassing, it reeks of desperation. There's a world of difference in that "substantially the same" standard that Kerry would have us believe equates to identical. It isn't, and Dean's repeated statements demanding the UN be involved and that bush had NOT made the case speaks volumes.

Had Kerry and few others in Congress had the courage of a Dean, things in Iraq - and in their presidential bids - might have been very different.

[Fleshdancer]

250. Read the whole interview for the TRUTH.

I would be inclined to believe the point you're trying to make if it could accurately be made while using the entire interview you cited. After reviewing the interview in full from the link you provided, I think your case is weak at best, misleading and unethical at worse. So many people on DU respect your opinion Mr. Pitt, and up until now, I've been one of them. Not that you care, but I find this thread to be very disapointing.

Here is the question and answer prior to Gloria Borger's question:

(BOB SCHIEFFER),You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.
*********************************************

Now here is the COMPLETE answer to the first question you cited:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

It's not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block and tell people we're going to do what we want to do.

We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will. But I think the time now is for getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies.

**************************************

Below is both the question prior to the last question you cited along with the following question you did cite and once again, the COMPLETE answer:

SCHIEFFER: Well, Governor, what, in your mind, would justify a strike on Iraq?

DEAN: Well, first of all, a strike may be justified. What he's got to say, what the president has got to say is that Saddam has atomic or biological weapons and has the means to deliver them to ourselves and our allies. That case -- he has never said that, to my knowledge, nor have any of his surrogates.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

But, Bob, my problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not.

Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

Foreign policy in this country is dependent on us working with other countries. And I think the president got off on the wrong foot when he was simply talking about "Let's go in there, we don't care what anybody else thinks, we're going to do it."

I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction.

[HuckleB]

270. Thanks.

I thought he remained consisten when one looked at the whole quote Will posted, and not just the bolded parts. But this really shows that he had clearly thought his stand through, and that he was and is consistent on the matter.

[thinkahead]

256. The absolute Irony of it all

Will Pitt has succeeded in digging up one quote (as opposed to hundreds to the contrary) that implies Dean would trust the President should he say Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons ready to deliver to the United States.

Throughout the rest of the interview, Dean repeatedly insists the case has not been made - and that we need to involve our allies.

Here is the link to the interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

You guys can interpret it any way you want (and I'm sure you will), despite the hundreds of other quotes to the contrary, but I honestly believe this was an accidental sin of omission on Howard Dean's part. Had he concluded the sentence you are referring to by adding

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it if the intelligence is there and backs him up" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As soon as the President started to make the supposed case evidence wise - Dean did not come out immediately and say, OK - I trust the President, did he?

Keep in mind, Dean was just starting to do TV appearances - and he's come a long way since last September. He was hardly on his game with the press. I personally give him the benefit of the doubt considering the mountains of evidence supporting Dean's anti-war position, which never waverered before or after the war.

You can try to pin him as a waffler all you want, but I think you are working with nothing here - at worse, poor phrasing of a point he was trying to make.

And stop daydreaming about the convenience of Dean not having to vote on the issue. Dean was running for freaking President, as were many of the senators who voted for the resolution. It's not like he wasn't in the spotlight already. He carved a position contrary to those who voted to give Bush a blank check, and now they have to deal with it.

[genius]

267. Thank you for posting this. Everyone should read it.

I also liked what Dennis and Sharpton had to say last night about how the occupation is a war and one can't be against the war if one is for the occupation. At least Kerry and Edwards voted with Dennis against the $87 billion dollars, which Dean said he would give to Bush in the CNN debate.

If you get a chance, post this in the Yahoo Democratic groups. It is very informative and will hopefully help people who are making up their minds about the candidates.

[Fleshdancer]

273. once again

it's only informative if people read the entire interview instead of the creative cut and paste job. kudos to the time and effort it took to spin it though. :eyes:

[genius]

279. Will Pitt shows the facts about Dean's postion

I know Dean is good at camouflaging the facts but what Will Pitt has shown here with Dean's own words is something Dean can't honestly deny. The problem is that honesty has very little to do with Dean's campaign.

[thinkahead]

280. Will Pitt's

cut and paste job implies something Dean can't honestly deny. I love these one quote cut and paste jobs.

So freakin sad.

[molly]

422. Honesty has nothing to do with the Dean campaign

it's about the campaign - NOT about the man. It's obvious from all the Dean defenders on this thread that truth and honesty do not belong in the Dean campaign.

[mzmolly]

274. What everyone should read is the entire thread...

as it is clear that Dean did not 'waffle' on Iraq.

[HuckleB]

276. It's also helpful to read post 250 above for the full quote.

And what do Kucinich and Sharpton think we should do as far as Iraq is concerned?

[Don Claybrook]

284. Not much I can add to this mess

But if we're drawing lines and taking sides, I guess this is as good a time as any to switch from an avatar-less state to a Dean avatar. I still like Kucinich better, but pragmatically speaking, I'm ready to stand with Howard Dean.

Thanks for helping me to decide.

[Walt Starr]

285. Poop

Poop

[WilliamPitt]

308. Does this mean you're not switching candidates this week?

:)

[Walt Starr]

313. So I wrote this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=871636

Tell me the positives. I switch based upon the positives, not the negatives.

The negatives are, in a word, poop.

[sistersofmercy]

322. No, it means they agree with a shameful reference to their fellow Dems

Either they didn't understand the reference or they condone it. I have never bashed Dean and I'm offended.

[ibegurpard]

325. That's a stretch

You don't have to condone an offensive off-the-cuff reference to agree with the general gist of what someone was trying to say.

[sistersofmercy]

334. Oh so you condone....

"Goebbelsian tactic" in reference to your follower Dems, as just off the cuff? Just a little to Coulteresque for my taste. I find it greatly insulting.

[Walt Starr]

341. Not it at all.

"Poop" is in reference to what I feel the negative posts about candidates to be.

Poop.

Give me a positive reason to support your candidate, not a negative reason to dump my candidate.

[sistersofmercy]

353. I did you read that thread carefully? I suspect not

"Goebbelsian tactic" was referenced and all of you just jumped on the bandwagon and essentailly agreed. I have no respect for that, not any. Not one Dean supporter pointed out the offensive reference, not one! I saw "I'm behind 100%" etc. I'm totally offended that differences would blind you to an offensive term. Again, I have NEVER bashed Dean and I have no interest in doing so. However, I would like to discover an unbiased truth about all of the candidates. furthermore, I believe anyone using POOP towards a fellow Dem has accepted the conditions of the term. I find it extremely offensive.

[Walt Starr]

430. Poop

:hurts:

[ibegurpard]

343. Nice of you to leave off the "offensive" from my quote

but keep up the manufactured outrage.

[sistersofmercy]

357. What are you talking about? I'm mad that someone on a thread

made a nazi reference to fellow Dems and the people using POOP are in agreement with the observation. What "outrage" are you refering to? I would think labeling your fellow Dems with a nazi term would be offensive to all!?????!

[ibegurpard]

367. One more time

You seem to be equating the fact that people agree with the tactic of using "poop" to express their displeasure at flamebait threads to an agreement with an ill-advised and offensive nazi reference. If you take out the reference, I agree with the sentiment expressed. Is that clear? Can you calm down long enough to make the distinction?

[Scott Lee]

372. Please don't talk around me. I am the person who offended you.

It's ok, I won't get mad.

I can see that this reference has really made you bristle. From my experience, you are not included in the group that I have seen use the doctrine of the Big Lie against Howard Dean. My suggestion to that group is, if they do not wish to be identified as practicing a Goebbelsian tactic, then don't do it. It's as simple as that.

I stand by my original assesment of their behavior. Let's hope it changes.

[sistersofmercy]

378. Don't, just don't!

I tried very hard to be gracious the other night about the term but it is offensive, please stop using. I don't like seeing Dems referred to in such a manner. It doesn't matter whether I disagree with their messege or tactic or not. It's plain and simple, I don't like it and it is greatly offensive to me. I'm very angry and sad right now because I saw DUers I'm semi familiar with just give you a free pass on the refernece. If you don't like what some have to say don't read what they write but don't do this.

[Walt Starr]

434. apparently nobody read my reply in that thread

Where I extended the use of the comment to any negative thread about any candidate regardless of who starts the thread or the candidate.

I've kept true to my word on that.

[Walt Starr]

432. Poop

:hurts:

on edit: My response to posts I feel are negative.

Give me the positive.

[batman]

288. POOP!

Mr. Pitt you have far too much influence to use it so irresponsibly.

[Eloriel]

317. Amen, amen, amen

Best post of the thread OTHER than the posts with ALL the facts and quotes.

And with that I'm outta this thread.

[sistersofmercy]

324. Oh Eloriel, so you agree with that

"Goebbelsian" reference to your fellow Dems? That's real nice!

[mzmolly]

326. NO she agrees with this...

"Mr. Pitt you have far too much influence to use it so irresponsibly." ~ Batman

And so do I. :toast: Batman.

[sistersofmercy]

339. I am greatly dismayed that not one person on that thread other Will and

myself noted an offense to the nazi reference. I will clearly state this again, I have never *bashed* Dean but I take great offense to fellow Dems being referenced in such a manner.

[mzmolly]

344. What Nazi reference, it's POOP fer gawdz sakes!?

Poop in the traditional American sense of the word. Smelly, useless poopy poop ;)

Let's not make more of it than it is. Unless I'm missing something?

[sistersofmercy]

361. Were you on the thread that started the POOP sensation?

"Goebbelsian tactic" was reference. Do you know who Joseph Goebbels was?

[ibegurpard]

349. Jesus Christ!

Yes, that one flew right by me. The thread was locked as it should have been and I'm not for a minute condoning Nazi references. But the sentiments expressed, outside of that reference, are what people are agreeing with. Do you get that?

[sistersofmercy]

371. Whatever! If have so little respect for your fellow Dems and

couldn't see beyond the immediate gratification, have no respect for that, not any, it turns me off completely. I think someone should apologize for the offensive reference. It's terms such as that that are going to splinter our party. If Dean gets the nod I'd be happy to donate money and time but if this sort of thing continues, I won't. It just makes me incredibly sad and angry that not one of you were biggest enough to say it was wrong.

[VelmaD]

352. I noticed and I tried to respond

but it got locked before I had a chance to ask the person who compared me and others on this board to Goebbels to step outside.

[sistersofmercy]

366. I'm angry that no one else called him on it except myself and Will

They accepted the conditions of the term. The poster said this little rant as a reply on a previous thread and I told him it was in poor taste, he used to be inflammatory and the reat just went along. It really pisses me off because I saw DUers I know are intelligent and they just went along.

[frustrated_lefty]

304. *poop*

:hurts:

[many a good man]

309. AntiWar Candidate

Dean has never cast a vote authorizing any war. No candidate for president of the United States can ever appear to be anti-war if he hopes to stand a chance in hell of winning. Conservatives have tried to trap Dean into making broad anti-war statements. He has resisted by trying to distinguish without too much nuance.

Will's FTN quote illustrates this difficulty. If he's trying to make the point that Dean was inconsistent in his stance, I don't think he's succeeded. If his motive is to get Dean to stop hammering Kerry over the head with IWR I'm inclined to agree with him.

The bashing of each other done by Dem candidates has been even lamer than most of the bashing I've heard here! It diminishes both basher and bashee. I know its tradition and probably can't be stopped, but its irritating as hell.

On paper, Kerry's my man. I deeply admire his record. I could even forgive him for abdicating the most solemn duty of a Senator: the responsibility for declaring war. Even I found it hard to beleve that Bush would so utterly fail at diplomacy. After reading the PNAC manifesto its clear Bush WANTED to make a show of American unilateralism. A genuine threat of force (bluff) to get inspectors back and end sanctions could have been a worthwhile strategy, but they wanted to defy the UN instead.

Hammering Kerry for IWR doesn't sway my opinion of Kerry at all; I'm just really disappointed at his lack of campaigning skills. Despite his high qualifications, it just looks like he isn't going to excite enough people to vote for him. This makes him an even bigger long shot than Dean to beat Bush. I wish it weren't so. And he's quickly running out of time to turn it around.

[BootinUp]

311. I think that was a nice post

others will claim you are slightly biased

[A-Schwarzenegger]

328. and the bestest screenname!

[HoosierClarkie]

310. I think everyone should read post 238. n/t

[Karmadillo]

336. Twenty-six posts or thereabouts due north (and worth the journey) n/t

n/t

[mzmolly]

338. I think everyone should read post 250 and or the links Pitt provided

to 'bolster' this poor case.

[janx]

364. I have read it. It's more of the same.

.

[janx]

342. OK...I'll go read it...

.

[ibegurpard]

323. And you're just discovering this quote now?

It's been bandied about here for over a year. Yeah the timing stinks all right...your timing. This comes right on the heels of a meeting with Kerry and other bigwigs. Nothing wrong with that but you really ought to take off the unbiased mask now.

[Kenneth ken]

330. * raising hand *

for option a)

putting hand down again for option b)


not one of your best efforts Mr Pitt.

[Andromeda]

333. And your point is?......

If Dean has made a contradictory statement I can accept that and move on because I support him and believe that he is a qualified candidate who would make a good president.

I'm not a one-issue voter and I don't have a litmus test for a purist idealogy. Whether he did or didn't support the Iraq war is not important enough for me to ignore the many other good qualities he brings to this race.

Dean speaks out for people who never had the ability to make themselves heard before---people who had given up on the political system in this country. You may have noticed that Democrats are low on the totum pole in Washington these days. When they do open their mouths to speak, Orrin Hatch calls a news conference to call them "unpatriotic."

The moral of this country is in the pitts. After eight years of Clinton scandal the country was exhausted and many people just stayed home and didn't vote.

What's the use? Same old, same old. Pretty soon all politicians started looking alike. The lines were blurred and some good citizens just didn't know where to turn.

Or who to turn to. Until, Howard Dean.

Dean spoke the language of people who felt they had been disenfranchised from the political process. He spoke to their anger and frustration. None of the other candidates connected to the masses the way Dean did.

He is one of US.

Nobody was there for us when Bush stole the election. Nobody. The whole nation cried and grieved for the death of democracy. But there were no Democratic leaders willing to stand up for us. They just let it happen.

"Bush is POTUS now---we must accept it" the chorus sang.

Kerry was one of those leaders. Where was he? Why didn't he comfort us? Maybe there was nothing he could do, we understand, but he could have tried. I'm disappointed in Kerry, and in Gephardt, and in Edwards and Lieberman. WHERE IN THE HELL WERE THEY?

Now they all want to be our President.

[FrenchieCat]

337. Thanks Will

I am bookmarking this thread. What I hate the most is that Dean said that Clark was for the war.....over and over again....

and what about Finance Reform? Add that to the list of flip/flops...

and the flag burning critiscism about Clark, when Dean signed a resolution in Vermont in May of 2001 against the desecration of the flag. Then had his friend Rob Reiner publicly criticize Clark about his "honest" answer when he was asked.

That's what I don't like about Dean; he lies on others to give himself the advantage.

When asked last night at the debate if there was ever a time a President should lie to the American people...instead of saying "NEVER"....he said mmm...mmmm....mmm....When there's a national security risk??? Why would you lie though? You might refuse to answer a question.....omit the information....say "I won't answer this question because of the national security nature of it"...but WHY SAY YOU WOULD LIE? Well I already know that Dean has lied about so many things, and on so many people, it's not even funny! Witness the FLAG THINGIE HERE!
---------------------------------
in May of 2001.....I am not making this up....Since you don't know much about your candidate, here you go:
Dean's cute flag flap
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/14/friday/?ref=http://images.salon.com/src/ads/aol/aol_splash2.htm
Joe Conason's Journal: Nov 14, 2003
Several readers distressed by Wesley Clark's remarks supporting the flag desecration amendment wrote in to declare that they had dropped their support of the retired general in favor of Howard Dean. But others pointed out what I didn't know about Dean's own record on this issue. Two years ago, as governor of Vermont, he brokered a legislative resolution that urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag." While a bit vague, that sounded much like an endorsement of the Constitutional amendment.

Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year. So now that he is running for president, the candidate who prides himself in speaking bluntly should explain the limits of his support for the First Amendment -- in plain English.
<8:22 a.m. PST, Nov. 14, 2003>
--------------------------
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks Dean said he believed the Legislature would want to act on the question and suggested that it would be important for voters in the upcoming elections to know where their candidates stood.

"I do think the Legislature should pass a resolution," he said. "I think the public is going to want to know where people are standing in the 2002 election."

But Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002. He may, however, be a candidate in 2004, if he decides to run for president.

"First of all, I'm sure I'm on record on that at some point in last 10 years," he said. "Second of all, when you're trying to engineer a behind-the-scenes compromise it's best not to be public about what that is." (a lot of pandering, without any substance)
------------------------------
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/journal/SJ010116.htm
Journal of the Vermont Senate

Joint Resolution Referred

J.R.S. 9.

Joint Senate resolution of the following title was offered, read the first time and is as follows:

By Senators Campbell, Ankeney, Bartlett, Bloomer, Chard, Condos, Cummings, Gossens, Kittell, Leddy, Lyons, McCormack, Munt, Rivers, Sears and Shumlin,

J.R.S. 9. Joint resolution in opposition to the desecration of the United States Flag.

Whereas, the flag of the United States is one of the greatest symbols of our nation, and

Whereas, this symbol represents the defining principles of our country, and

Whereas, these ideals also include the democratic principles of individual freedom enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution, especially by those amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, and

Whereas, Americans have placed their lives in harm's way and, in hundreds of thousands of cases, have sacrificed their lives defending these principles, and

Whereas, their willingness to sacrifice their lives in defense of these cherished principles demonstrates one of the purest and most commendable forms of patriotism, and

Whereas, these patriots have focused on the flag as the ultimate symbol for which they and their families have sacrificed, and

Whereas, the flag serves important ceremonial functions at public gatherings, funerals, celebrations of patriotic holidays, parades and countless other gatherings, and

Whereas, respect for the flag and the various protocols attendant thereto (such as proper display, proper folding, saluting, et cetera) serves as the first introduction, for many young Americans, to the concept of patriotism, and

Whereas, therefore, we, the American people, accord our flag a unique position of respect, love and admiration, and recognize the importance of providing dignity and honor to this symbol, now therefore be it

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate and all members of the Vermont Congressional delegation.

Thereupon, the President, in his discretion, treated the joint resolution as a bill and referred it to the Committee on Judiciary.

Joint Resolution Adopted in Concurrence

J.R.H. 15.
-----------------
Resolution was signed by Howard Dean, May 2001

[LuminousX]

340. The ABD crowd is still groping for a silver bullet

I remember when the war was on and everyone 'closed ranks' behind the President, because it was anti-patriotic to say negative things about Bush. One clear voice rang out from the Gov. in Vermont saying, "This war is wrong. Bush is wrong."

Others may have been saying it, but Dean was saying it over and over.

Cherry-pick, question, and doubt is 'resolve' all you want. It won't change the fact that this is what brought him to my attention. At the very time I wanted Kerry to step up and 'lead', he turned his bow towards the enemy to offer the slimmest target possible. He ducked and covered his ass. Fuck that noise. All he had to do was renounce his vote.

This isn't a silver bullet. It won't sink the Dean campaign, it won't even rock the boat.

[mzmolly]

347. HERE HERE LX

:yourock: There it is!

[slinkerwink]

346. Will, check out my post which refutes what you said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=874417&mesg_id=874417&page=

[Paragon]

348. Two straight awful posts from you, Will

Sad to see.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

350. Post #5. (And....the beauty of BOLD)

From your original post:

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.



Now let's change it.



DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.


Funny how bold works, innit? (And your response to #5 was....lacking)

[incapsulated]

351. Put this on the front of Truthout and I'll be impressed

People have been posting this here for months now. To what end?

It doesn't matter to the Deaniacs, who are forever in denial.

It doesn't matter to the media, who believe whatever the press kit tells them.

It clearly doesn't matter to Gore.

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

There is your "pure" anti-war candidate, the one who feels completely at ease ripping Kerry and his other opponents to shreds over their vote, one I am convinced he would have made himself at the time. Lucky for him he didn't have to. All he had to do was repeat the "I am the anti-war God" over and over, because Americans are simple minded and will believe anything if it's repeated enough.

[mzmolly]

355. Dean never claimed to be an anti war God...

What he did claim over and over again *including in the story WP linked here* is that "pResident Bush has not made the case for war" ~ Howard Dean...again and again and again and again and again and again and again and......................................................

[incapsulated]

360. He has said...

Over and over how he was the "only one" to be against the war "from the beginning". I guess it depends on your definition of "the beginning".

C'mon it's his bread and butter, the rallying cry of his troops, the reason Dean supporters feel so justified in ripping Kerry to shreds. The "VOTE"!! Not, "The Quote!!"

[mzmolly]

369. Dean was against the war from the beginning..

He never claimed to be anti-war. That's where 'deanophobes' fall short of their understanding.

He did not believe Bush made the case for war, he did not support the resolution Kerry voted for. He supported other methods of handling the situation in Iraq.

Also, a minor correction, Dean supporters are not 'troops' your confusing us with Clark supporters.

Lastly, you and others greatly underestimate the ability of Dean suppporters to grasp Dean's well thought out positions on this an other issues. :hi:

[stickdog]

359. If he WERE antiwar, you'd be telling us he's unelectable. (nt)

[incapsulated]

362. So, he's not anti-war now?

Has he "evolved" again?

[Scott Lee]

365. ahem...NO candidate has claimed to be "anti-war" in principle.

I've not seen a single statement from any of them to that effect.

[incapsulated]

410. So now we are playing semantic games

It depends on what your definition of "anti-war" is... :eyes:

How about "I've been against the Iraq war from the beginning!!" or "I'm the ONLY ONE that's been against..." deliberately ignoring Kuchinich and Sharpton as "not major candidates", of course.

He's been beating that drum for months and months now, for chrissakes, and beating up all his opponents with it as well.

Or are we now going to have another "evolvment" from Dean now that the facts don't jibe with reality?

[bpilgrim]

363. "Liberal base voters never trusted * and believed in their hearts" - lol

"In the end, that is perhaps the greatest obstacle for Kerry to overcome. Liberal base voters never trusted George W. Bush from the beginning, and believed in their hearts that he was approaching the Iraq situation with bad intentions. The fact that Kerry trusted him, and trusted him enough to ignore Senator Robert Byrd’s dire warnings of constitutional abrogation of Congressional responsibilities which was inherent in the resolution, makes it hard for those voters to trust Kerry."

yeah... it was all in our heads or GUTS


War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know
By William Rivers Pitt

on edit: yeah, and i'd love to see a link to this DU thread at the bottom of the article, too ;->

peace

[David Zephyr]

354. John Kerry: "Bush Misled Me" ----Simply Pathetic By Any Account

"Bush misled me"?

Tell your John Kerry to provide the "evidence" that Bush "misled" him with, William.

I and millions of other Americans were not "misled" by any of Bush's public statements, Cheney's public statements or Powell's public statements.

So, either:

1.) John Kerry was "misled" by the very same "evidence" we were presented with (balsa wood planes with weedwacker motors, plagarized college papers from the internet and more); or

2.) John Kerry was "misled" by some other non-public "evidence" that Bush shared with him.

I believe that John Kerry had no more "evidence" presented to him by Bush than the public had and that Kerry's "Bush misled me" statement was his pathetic first response at winning back the millions of Democrats who were angry with his vote AFTER the war turned to shit.

Sorry, William.

You can't dance around the fact that Dean opposed the war EVEN when it was going "well" with the media and the public and your candidate was all gung-ho for it----that is until the war turned to shit and Dean soared in the polls.

Kerry has lost and this nonsense will only harden people FOR Dean, not against him.

Kerry should have apologized long ago for his crappy vote. I posted here begging him to do so. Either his pride or his belief that the war was the right thing to do kept him from doing so---and neither of those are worthy of respect.

[Scott Lee]

375. All this shows me is that Kerry is ineffective at standing against crime

And the Iraq War is a HUGE crime. If a Senator will not make a stand against a criminal president, how can that Senator ever MAKE a good president?

[wabeewoman]

358. Well I read the whole thread

(whew!) and I have to say it would be easier to convince me that george bush was a compassionate, intelligent, competant leader. When I was so pissed off at how everyone (including Kerry) was bending over for bush and his neocons, Dean's voice was very clear in opposing the war. You can bring out all the quotes out of context and they won't change that. Gephart lost me when he jumped in ruining any chance of democratic unity and stood next to bush. Those senators were bombarded with calls, emails and faxes. They choose NOT to listen to the people and not to look for the truth. Senator Byrd knew, we knew, Kerry and Gephart could have known. I don't buy the anti-Dean propaganda but I must say Rove would be pleased.

[Schmendrick54]

370. Schmendrick raises his hand.

Hello Will,

You wrote:
Raise your hand if you really believe:
a) That Dean's position has been consistent;
b) That the Bush campaign won't use this against Dean, nullifying one of the strengths of his campaign.

OK. I will raise my hand. Here is my justification.

(a) It seems to me that the question is "what the meaning of "it" is? (Sorry, I couldn't resist) When Dean said he would "take the President's word for 'it'", the 'it' in question is in the next sentence, namely: "But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future." So I believe Dean has consistently said he was against the war because it was not justified, but in this case he gave an example of conditions that would justify it.

(b) It seems to me that the President has gone to great lengths in the last several months to claim that he never said any such thing. If Bush had been forced to state that before launching his war, he would certainly be having a harder time selling the story that he never said there ws "imminent" danger. So I do NOT think that Bush will be anxious to make a point that IF he (Bush) had made the claim above, THEN Dean would have favored the war. I just do not see how that helps Bush.

Having said the above, I would like to address what I think is your real motivation for this post; you wrote

But wait. Kerry is evil. Dean would *never* have voted for the war.

I will not say there have not been people claiming that Kerry is evil, but I have not said that (nor do I think it is true.) I believe Dean has criticised Kerry for his vote, and I think that criticism is based on the notion that Kerry did not insist on the kind of unequivocal statement above. Is that hairsplitting? Perhaps. But it seems to me it is well within the usual bounds of politics.

I will admit that the invasion of Iraq is a BIG issue to me, since my son was one of the soldiers within a few miles of the front as our troops moved into Baghdad. This war is something for which I cannot forgive Bush. But I bear no grudge against John Kerry. I understand his belief that Bush had to be posturing to put pressure on Saddam. And I know that if Kerry were President this invasion would never have occurred.

So if you want to support Kerry for President, Will, you will get no argument from me. I humbly suggest that it is not necessary to try to find some inconsistency in Dean's position to justify it.

I remain a huge fan of your writing, and would be glad to buy you a beer next time you are in DC.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[blm]

401. Then you missed the larger point.

Dean was using the IWR to attack those who voted for it while knowing that his own support for Biden-Lugar had the same provision he was attacking, which allowed Bush to make the determination for use of force.

Was Dean's stance really that far from those who he has beat on relentlessly?

When does deception matter? When Dean's the nominee and Rove throws up all of his conflicting statements in heavily rotated ads?

[Schmendrick54]

427. Maybe, but I think I saw the point.

Hi BLM,

Sorry I did not see your response earlier.

It seems to me that as far as their positions on the war, Dennis Kucinich was by far the most vociferous opponent, Joe Lieberman was at the other end of the candidate spectrum, in that he seems to think the war was the right thing to do, (but even he thinks Bush botched it) and the positions of the other (major) candiddates were closely bunched. And I agree that Kerry's position is very defensible, even for someone like myself who was strongly opposed to the invasion for both practical and personal reasons.

I think the biggest difference between Dean and Kerry with respect to the war is that Dean (who was a longshot candidate at the time) took a political gamble and made criticism of Bush's Iraq policy a major issue for his campaign. Kerry, who was at least among the frontrunners if not the favorite at the time, chose what appeared to be a politically safer course. He used his influence (vote) to try to steer Bush toward a sane policy in Iraq, but he also (in my opinion) did not focus his campaign on this issue (because, I think, he felt that if Bush's Iraq policy was deemed popular, he could avoid the political damage of having opposed it, and still hope to defeat Bush on economic issues.

I do not think Kerry is evil or stupid for this choice. I think it was a principled decision and a calculated risk which just didn't work out. Dean's gamble, on the other hand, could be ascribed to luck or great political instincts, but his vocal opposition to Bush got him the attention his campaign needed to catch fire with the media. Combine this with his briliant use of the internet and suddenly the dark horse is the frontrunner.

If Kerry supporters feel frustrated that their candidates position is being misrepresented, I can sympathize with that. It happens a lot in politics. But even though Kerry's position was not that much different from Dean's with respect to Iraq, you will have a hard time convincing me that Dean was not emphasizing his opposition to Bush's approach much louder and sooner. I was paying very close attention, since my son and many of his friends were camped at the Kuwait border while this was happening.

As far as your second set of questions, deception matters. It matters less when I tell someone their hair looks nice (even if I do not really think so) than when a President is deceptive about the motives for an invasion.

Is it deceptive for Dean to criticise the candidates who voted for the IWR even though he indicated support for Biden-Lugar (which was similar, but not identical)? I do not think so. I suspect you do. Fair enough.

As far as Rove spending money on ads on this issue -- I do not think that will happen. Such an ad would simply focus attention on the fact that the Democrats were trying to push a different approach to Iraq which may well look like a good idea now. The Rove spin will be that the choices were the Bush way or "do nothing".

The Rove Wurlitzer will be hammering on points far less subtle than this, I am quite sure.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[blm]

466. I think the conflicting positions

will be used as part of the overall campaign that Dean changes as the political opportunity arises. He has given plenty of fodder for that impression, as evidenced by even Democrats who are disgusted by his switching policies.

When 30 and 60 sec ads are run using Dean's own words to make him sound unstable in his inconsistencies, then more of you will be on the same page as I am now. Not that I am saying he is unstable, I think he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, but the GOP will.

Also, Bush has 87 billion dollars to fix Iraq enough for the VENEER of success and he'll have had an election there after the nominee is chosen. He has most of the press who will be complicit in singing the praises of the mission and thousands of Iraqis will be have told their stories of rescue from Saddam's evils.

Most of this will occur during the Olympics where Bush will make sure that Iraqi athletes and notables are highlighted with lots of Praise George Bush, our hero, thrown in for good measure.

Dean will become the guy who wouldn't have taken Saddam out.

[LuminousX]

374. But wait. Kerry is evil. Dean would *never* have voted for the war.

Anyone recall any prominent Dean supporter claiming Kerry was evil? I don't either. Nice hyperbolization.

As for whether Dean would or would not have voted for the IWR, that is neither here nor there because even as the U.S. was 'winning' the war in Iraq, Dean was denouncing it. I don't care if Kerry voted for it or not, I just wanted him to renounce his vote - earlier. As soon as Bush violated the resolution, Kerry should have been up there saying Bush was untrustworthy and had lied.

Oh, that's right. It is the media's fault.

[Melinda]

376. Great piece of fiction and way to show how its done, WIll.

No offense Will, but way to take it out of context.

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: Good morning. We begin in Austin, Texas, this morning where Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is. In San Francisco we find Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in Chester, Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd. First to Governor Dean.

Governor, you are unabashedly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, out already raising money for that.

You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that.

I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.


The real condensed version: Just say Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to the US, Mr. Bush*, and that's proof enough for me.

[clarknyc]

377. Flamebait

Please lock.

[Selwynn]

381. Welcome to DU - please continue to lecture the community...

..on what kind of threads should be open. Maybe earn that 50th post!

[clarknyc]

383. Thanks for the welcome!

Here's post #50, just for you.

BTW, this entire thread was flamebait. I'm as sure of that as I'm sure that you'll hit the alert button. Don't let me down. But hey! It's great to be here!

[farmbo]

380. That's the extent of your argument...that's it?...Bogus!

One statement taken out of context compared to this and many other contemporary news items of the day:

<snip>
Vermont news briefs for Sept. 19, 2002
September 18, 2002

Dean a holdout on Iraq policy

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Most Democrats considering a run for president in 2004 are taking an aggressive stance on military action against Iraq, but Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday he has not seen enough evidence to warrant that step.

“The president has to do two things to get the country’s long-term support for the invasion of Iraq,” Dean said in a phone 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 that he has the means to use them. He also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment in that country — up to a decade.

“He’s an evil man,” Dean said of Saddam Hussein. “But we don’t send our kids to die to get rid of every evil person in the world.”
<snip>

Sorry Will...no one thinks Kerry is "evil"...not even the Dean people. Take your stress pill and go to bed...you have 2000 words to get on paper tomorrow and your brain is hurting tonight.

:)

[Tinoire]

385. Dean was never anti-this war

and hence the anger that many Kucinich supporters have against the Dean campaign. Dean's campaign is based on smoke and mirrors and exploits the righteous anger we have against Bush and this war. It's not even Dean's fault as it is that of some people who prefer to bury their heads and come up with specious arguments to defend their candidate as if they were juveniles arguing over which side of the 100-yard line the football fell on. After 4 years of Bush, I want the BEST candidate we can come up with based on the TRUTH of his positions- not based on the spin of candidates and web-logs and political opportunism.

Liberals were warned by Vermont activists (1.) that Dean was not against this war but because he came up with a few good lines... people projected their own desires on Dean and made him out to be something he isn't and never was. I have posts book-marked where Dean supporters were practically ready to shoot anyone who dared suggest that Dean was not a Liberal- now most admit he's a Centrist and that they knew it all along (??!), at the beginning the word was Dean is anti-war (got those book-marked too) then when Deans support of Iraq I and Afghanistan came out, the rhetoric shifted to "anti-THIS-war" despite quotes (2.)

What naivete to think that politicians weren't reading forums like this to see which way the wind was blowing to adjust their positions accordingly!


1. According to Vermonters, Dean is a shrewd operator who saw millions of anti-Iraq (news - web sites) war demonstrators last spring for what they were: untapped Democratic primary voters. A few well-placed verbal broadsides spread his reputation as the only presidential contender willing to go after Bush while other Democrats remained silent or supported his war. His opportunistic Bush-bashing attracted liberal voters tired of being taken for granted and disgusted by do-nothing "Republican Lite" Dems.

http://thomasmc.com/0813b.htm

2. Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

(from "Defending American values–protecting America’s Interests," Drake University, Iowa, February 17, 2003, available online at www.deanforamerica.org )

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml



Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html


Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

----

We all know that nothing would have stopped Bush from going to war- billions rode on that, but that is NO reason to give a free pass to a candidate who tapped into our anger with smoke and mirrors, thereby cutting the anti-war support for Kucinich and Sharpton. Unseal your records Dr Dean. Let us all see with our own eyes what you were saying AT THE TIME. Campaign rhetoric is too cheap and you wouldn't be the first or only politician to deceive for votes but you won't get all the votes you need for free or for cheap.

You can NOT be anti-war and pro-occupation. What is occupation if not low-intensity war-fare? Anyone who has any doubts need only ask the Palestinians what the difference is.

The saddest thing is that Dean himself told the the antiwar crowd that they shouldn't fall in love with him too much but people were so busy projecting that they ignored it. Dean would have been an absolute fool not to take advantage of such an opportunity and the man is no fool.

On edit: I frankly could care less who people vote for. Vote for Bush, vote for Nader if you want- it's your vote to vote your conscience and that's what this democracy is supposed to be about especially in the primaries but damn it KNOW what/who you're voting for! My 3 best friends at DU are going to vote for

Kerry
Clark
Dean

and you know what? I don't care. It's all cool but they all three KNOW and OWN UP to exactly who/what they're voting for. They researched and admitted from the beginning what Clark did, admitted how Kerry voted, admitted that Dean is no anti-war candidate and I can respect that. What I can't respect is the lies and the spin and watching DU be used as a candidate rah-rah board as opposed to what it basically used to be- a place where you could at least discuss things and get to some facsimile of the truth even if you did get bloodied in the process. Now we're SNOWED with rudeness and propaganda. It's too discouraging.

[AP]

398. That's a great post.

I hope people don't miss it.

[blm]

403. same here....another amazing post from Tinoire.

Truth matters.

[bpilgrim]

405. "if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent"

i would support an attack as well and i am usually a dove :hi:

i think dr. dean stepped up to the plate when it counted and he is reaping the rewards.

i myself am a dk supporter but i also appreciate what dean is doing not only for the party but focusing and justifying DISSENT against the neoCONs we should all be applauding him.

peace

[Tinoire]

407. You have always been a lover spreading peace everywhere you go

I am simply more cynical than you. When I go buy a new dress, I look for the flaws in it before plunking down my money. It makes for a hell of a day in the store examining buttons, zippers, fabric, stitching (oh and examining the obligatory non-sweatshop label) but I end up always happy with my purchases because they last and I know exactly what I bought. I think for a political expedition, it takes people like you and me to get us there safely...

How about this, while you applaud and energize people, I'll play the bad critical cop and in the end we can both win- eyes open :) Have no fears though, no statue was ever created for a critic ;)(can't remember who said thta- wasn't me)

:hi:

[Scott Lee]

406. POOP.

[Tinoire]

408. Jeez dude- take some Kaopectate or something

You can't go through life pooping all over the place! People might consider you unpleasant company.

Take some hints from the DDF (Dean Defense Force) www.deandefense.org , use W-O-R-D-S. You know, vowels and consonants mixed together to convey thought. You can even cut and paste from there if there if rephrasing is too difficult.

If there are certain words on that web-site that you don't understand, don't be ashamed to ask someone in the Lounge.

[Kat 333]

477. I think he is still reeling

from the earlier post making the point, to him, that Dean's claim that he was the only candidate to be against the war from the start is a major lie. One he, noticeably, didn't bother to respond to.

:hi: Tinoire

[oasis]

409. That post shines like a new penny. Thanks

[ThirdWheelLegend]

412. Tinoire agreed again..

I think we are separated at birth, but you got the organizational skills and I got the ... not sure what I got. :P

Kick for a great post.

TWL

[_NorCal_D_]

437. Thank you Tinoire

Excellent post.

[Schmendrick54]

456. Here I go trying not to be juvenile or to use specious arguments.

Hello Tinoire,

I think you raise several good points, and I hope I am not one of the "some people who prefer to bury their heads and come up with specious arguments to defend their candidate as if they were juveniles", since I prefer not to bury my (or anyone else's) head.

I think your best point is that Kucinich and Sharpton can take umbrage at Dean's claim that he was the only candidate to be against the war from the start. I am certainly well aware that this has been one of the pillars of the Kucinich campaign.

But I do not see your point when you say that quote 2 implies that Dean was NOT against THIS war. The quote again was this:

2. Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

I believe that this quote says nothing more than the fact that in the HYPOTHETICAL case described he (Dean) would not fail to use the US Military to "protect" America by invading Iraq without UNSC backing IF (very big if) the threat was (1) imminent and (2) could not be contained or deterred. This is the question that the Bushistas were promoting because to say you would not do so would cause the 75% (or more) of Americans who do not pay close attention to believe that Dean would not protect them if he could not get the UN to agree in time to do so. Dean's statement is worded so carefully because the invasion that happened did NOT meet this standard. Saddam's weapons posed NO imminent threat to the US (or his neighbors as it turns out).

That is why I think you are wrong to say Dean supported THIS war. But I think you are right to criticise Dean for not recognising the consistent anti-war stances of Kucinich and Sharpton.

As far as the Dean=Liberal question, I do not dispute that you may have posts bookmarked where Liberals insist that Dean is Liberal. I would wager that I can also find posts from just as far back from folks who recognize that he is not. I believe a truer answer is that, like most of us, he is liberal on some things and not on others. If I had to reduce it to a one dimensional scale I guess I would rate him a little closer to Lieberman than Kucinich, but even Lieberman looks liberal next to Bush.

I think it would be fair to say that one of the things which attracted me to Dean was his willingness to stand up and announce that the Emperor has no clothes. I have seen the savage vitriol that has been poured on anyone who dared criticize the right-wing icons in recent years, and in my opinion Howard Dean was the first candidate who was both willing to risk the response and able to articulate it in a way that resonated with a critical mass of supporters. I am not saying that others have not been critical of Bush -- I give Kucinich and Sharpton high marks for that as well. But Howard Dean was somehow able to capture a spark with a broader group.

I recognize that some of it is an emotional response to rhetoric, but that is important too. I remember reading an essay called "At Dawn the Teachers Rise" by a young man on this forum a while back, and I found it very inspiring. Just as I find the passionate writings of the other people whose opinions I respect here inspiring (and I include you in that number, Tinoire.)

I agree with you that sometimes it seems like the lies and spin and candidate Rah-Rah factor can seem overwhelming sometimes, but I hope you don't get let it discourage you too much. Beneath all of that there is still a lot of valuable discussion and I think it is worth the effort to find it. I think we have to find common ground here soemhow so we can do the hard work of restoring the ideals of our country which the usurper has been trying so hard to destroy for three years.

Sincere regards and thanks for your thoughtful post,
Schemdrick

[Kanola]

392. Will, sorry Kerry is losing

But you are sounding like sour grapes here. You are not going to stop the Dean momentum based on Dean may have supported the Iraq war II. I am for Dean because he is turning Dem politics upside down and empowering voters. That is the crux of the Dean campaign. Kerry cannot fathom how to do that. If you want to crush Dean because of his successes and Kerry's political miscalculations, well you are wrong Will.

[virtualobserver]

404. Dean stood up when no other Democratic politician would.....

and attacked Bush and his Democratic party enablers.

That was when I felt a great weight lifted off my chest. Until that moment I had felt betrayed by my party. Democrats in Congress didn't just give Bush a blank check for Iraq, they handed him the checkbook on more issues than I can count.

Dean and Gore are behaving like leaders and it is nice to see that in the Democratic party again.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

411. Media successful in convincing another!

I think you meant Kucinich.
He is the ONE who voted AGAINST the war, but thats not important when you have a 'point' to make!

TWL

[virtualobserver]

425. my post wasn't about a vote......

just standind up to the Democratic establishment, but you are right.
Kucinich did show great leadership in and out of Congress.

Kucinich is a great man and I'm sorry that I didn't acknowledge him in my statement.

[RetroLounge]

395. Wow! The Anti-Dean circle jerk has a new member

How sad that partisan infighting has come to this. Time for some people to check their ego, I think.

In the meantime, I believe you've inspired me to donate once again.

Governor Dean and President Gore thank you.

[Kanola]

399. I agree time to donate to Dean

This stop Dean campaign is bullshit. Will you have sunk to partisan lows.

[mistertrickster]

397. Okay, you're not my hero anymore.

Anybody can pore through a zillion interviews and pick out lines that seem to suggest that a candidate has been inconsistent or hypocritical.

Dean was hedging a little bit, of course. He didn't want to go on record as saying the President . . . (oops I mean the UNpresident) was full of shit, when he didn't know what the Chimp knew.

Unlike Kerry and other members of Congress, he wasn't privy to reports and doesn't have a foreign policy staff working for him.

What I hear him saying in these lines is that Bush has to make a convincing case, not just ANY case, that Saddam is a threat. The implication is that Bush hasn't and won't be able to. That's not really inconsistent.

Mr. Kerry is from Mass and you're from Boston. Great. But the bones have been rolled and there's no way to un-roll them. Kerry's out--Dean's in. It's a foregone conclusion. Get used to it.

[molly]

423. Ever been to Truthout?

http://www.truthout.org

[mistertrickster]

467. Yes, I LOVE truthout.org

Okay, WillPitt's still my hero . . . but I deg to biffer on this particular issue.

BTW, is this the biggest post that has ever been on DU?

Biggest one I've seen. (And please, no "that's what SHE said" jokes)

[Algorem]

400. To 88.8% of Americans,"Bob Schieffer" means"hit the snooze button it's

not pre-game time yet",said a recent Funckin-Wagnall/Reese's Pieces poll.His baggy dog-eyes hypnotize Americans into extra Sunday-sleep weekly.A million writers with a million Sherlock-fucking-Holmes magnifying glasses could not make this microscopic trivia mean as much as whaleshit on sonar.Kerry will not Lurch ahead and catchup with this.

[Duncan Grant]

413. For crying out loud, Pitt...use the entire quote.

Really, for a man who just recently warned DU of the impending 'civil war among the democrats'...it's nice to see you doing your part to preserve the union (yes, that's meant as sarcasm). And, you've made repeated calls for civility in GD...so what's up with this?

Your citation of Dean's quote concludes with these words:

"...But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future." - Howard Dean

Why not BOLD the ENTIRE quote? Because it reveals Dean's consistent arguement about this war (and the pResident).

Schieffer's second question is purely hypothetical:

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

I not sure if you (and all the folks in Al Franken's apartment) have noticed but Dean *now* (more often than not) clarifies his answers to hypothetical questions as just that -- hypothetical. Perhaps he was careless in this regard on FTN (over 1 year ago). To take this quote out of the context of 9/30/02 and to use it to build a justifiable explanation for Kerry's choices seems a bit disingenuous -- and very political.

I expect to see innumerable DU spin now about what a missed opportunity we have in Sen. Kerry; because if Will says so, it must be true. As for me, I continue to hold on to a vision of the big picture --- ANYONE BUT BUSH -- even if Dean doesn't get the nomination.

[VermontDem2004]

415. Don't really like spending time at GD

But that last quote was taken out of context like most of the quotes you have.

[CWebster]

418. You are desperately, pathetically stretching, like your master

You search for something you can highlight out of context and then try to prove you have a solid case on one line that runs contrary to the scores of lines to the contrary.

You're a faithful hack, that's for sure.

[mkultra]

428. seems pretty clear

from reading the story that the statment was that bush "doesnt have to prove" that saddam was a threat to the US as this is believable. The problem was that he had to make a much better case for a rush to unilaterialism which was stated clearly in the same article. This rush to disrespect the rest of the globe in an effort to deal with a global problem is what has pissed alot of people off. I dont think anyone believes that Saddam is worth a damn, but that doesnt mean we can act like a bus load of Hill Billlies. There was obviously no rush: no biological, no chemical, and definitley no nuclear. The eminient threat idea that cheney spouted was what was used to sell the invasion to the people. This is what i am against and exactly what dean is against.

[Clark Can WIN]

431. "I don't think he really has to prove anything.

The Republicans won't have to put Bush or his face or his policies on the line at all. They'll be able to run 2 minute minformertials of nothing but Howard in his own words.

[Gringo]

433. All I know is, as the war momentum was building, and as it unfolded...

I saw Dean and Sen. Byrd arguing forcefully against it, when most of the other democrats abandoned us and left us twisitng in the wind.

I also saw Clark on CNN numerous times gushing about our troops, our weaponry, and our prowess, giving blow-by-blows as we illegally invaded Iraq. I never ONCE heard him utter a peep of opposition in that time. He was a private citizen and had a chance to make his views known, but didn't do so. I believe he was waiting to see how things would go. If the war had followed the Bushies' rosy scenario, Clark would have continued to support it. Since it went FUBAR, he pounced on the opportunity to become a democrat and run for president. That's why I percieve him as an opportunist. Dean has been much more consistent on this from the beginning, no matter what kind of gymnastics you do to try and make it seem otherwise.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

436. That's it, right there

Dean was speaking out against the war when polls still showed 70% of Americans supported it.

[bloom]

440. Can't let go - hey Will?

I suppose having lunch with the guy makes it even tougher.


:(

"My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

It's not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block and tell people we're going to do what we want to do.

We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will. But I think the time now is for getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies."

(The rest of Deans quote - as mentioned up there somewheres.)

[truthspeaker]

441. raises hand high

His position has been consistent. He said he would only support a war to disarm Saddam if the evidence was there. I will repost the exact same quotes you provided:

Sept. 4: "As far back as September 4, 2002, a full month before the vote in Congress, Dean was cautioning the president about going to war. ' needs to first make the case and he has not done that,' Dean said. 'He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.'"

Sept. 30: "DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that."

Seems like he's saying the same thing on both dates.

I admire your writing and your zeal, William Pitt, but such deception is beneath you.

[Cha]

442. Thank you for this!

24/7..keeping the record straight around here.

[w4rma]

443. Sunday, October 6, 2002

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[TLM]

445. Will this kind of quote spinning is beneath you...

The fact is Dean says pretty much the same thing in both quotes… that Bush had not made the case for war.

The issue of trusting Bush or not trusting Bush is a side issue to the greater issue of Bush not even making the case for war in the first place. Dean is right, if Bush had made the case for war, most people would have supported it, but he did not make the case for war. So it is disingenuous to act as if statements about what Dean would have supported IF Bush had made the case for war, are the same thing as statements Dean made about being against the war because Bush HAD NOT made the case for it.





As far back as September 4, 2002, a full month before the vote in Congress, Dean was cautioning the president about going to war. "' needs to first make the case and he has not done that,' Dean said. 'He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.'"

…..

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

”So Howard Dean is totally against war with Iraq on September 4, and then, by September 30, he is NOT totally against a war with Iraq. In fact, he is fully admitting that he may have to trust the president, and that there may be valid reasons for disarming Iraq by force.”



Will what you are doing is taking a comment about why Dean was against the actions in Iraq, and another quote about under what circumstances Dean would support those actions, and acting as if they are contradictory statements.

What Dean is basically saying is he does not support the war because Bush has not made the case, then later in another quote he says that if Bush made the case that most people would support him. But you ignore that the second statement is prefaced on the fact that Bush had not made the case.

[Gringo]

447. True. Ever since he got hitched to the Clark bandwagon...

I was always a fan, but this kind of misleading stuff is out of character. Dean may very well not be the best candidate, and he may no be able to beat Bush, ( I think that's the fear driving Will & the Clarkies to this sort of anti-Dean desperation - that and the fact that they think Dean's strength in the polls is a media-Rove designed setup for a big GOP win in '04) , but he's got a strong following, and he's convinced many of us that he will stick by us.

Will, please focus more on telling us how and why Clark is the guy to beat Bush, and in what way he is going to further democratic ideals if he wins. Dissecting every odscure Dean quote you can find, to try to make him out as some sort of flip=flopping DiNO is deceptive and unfair. The same goes for the Deanies who would make Clark out to be some sort of trojan horse, but I think the Dean smears are much more numerous.

[Melinda]

449. Mastering Novakian techniques... a move toward to the dark side

I can not begin to express how disappointed I am by WillPitt's apparent conversion - even if it may be an unconscious act.

[WilliamPitt]

457. The Clark bandwagon?

Try again, fella. If you're gonna question motives, have your facts in order.

[bigtree]

455. good work William Pitt

:kick:

[littlejoe]

458. Don't feed us a line of bullshit

and then expect us to tell you it tastes good. also, do us a favor and quit being such a pompous self-promoter.

[robbedvoter]

459. "I told you so isn't a policy" Wesley Clark - my signature tag in mail

I was happy to hear it because about a months ago I wrote this piece:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/20/7034/0480

War vote, schmwar vote - just make the damn thing stop!
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog on Thu Nov 20th, 2003 at 07:00:34 AM EST

Who cares now a day how everyone voted? (except for some rabbid  Dean&Kuchinich supporters)?
   Many parents confronted with fighting siblings came to the point of saying: "I don't care who started it, just make it stop"
I just surprised myself realizing that  while reading and viewing Dean's spot attacking  Gephardt. ...More...
This shouldn't even be an election issue. It mattered to me then - I protested and care about it still. But, now it's a ridiculous issue to fight about - and Gore's endorsement speech "the only major candidate to oppose war" only made it more ridiculous - and a lie to boot.
As an economic argument: watch Clark featured in this 2002 Fiore cartoon:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html
He opposed it. This is still not the burning question.
I don't care who voted for it. I want to know who can lead us out of it

[John_H]

460. This triggered an idea

I'm going to start a daily Dean record of the day discussion, in which his supporters can help us make is record fit his rhetoric and vice versa.

[windansea]

461. hi Will

I agree with most here that your post is a stretch...I hink you might have better luck assembling a bunch of Dean's quotes on WHAT HE WOULD DO NOW, TO END THE WAR....mr Dean seems to be all over the place on this issue.

[bigtree]

468. The view from the Kerry camp

snips:

"Just because the president blundered his way into Iraq, that doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a problem that had to be dealt with or that dealing with him might not have required a military solution.
Certainly a strong show of force was all that would have gotten inspectors back into the country.

Now we know that Saddam's WMD programs were far less active than we thought.In critical respects, they seem hardly to have existed at all. But remaining in the dark about what Saddam was up to was simply not compatible with our national security. And it was only by putting inspectors in the country that we could confidently assess the threat he posed, particularly on the all-important nuclear front.

Or set aside inspectors. One conceit of the antiwar crowd is that Saddam could have been held in check indefinitely by stationing a few tens of thousands of troops on the country's borders. Perhaps so.

As nearly as I can figure it, Kerry's position was to get inspectors back in the country and then see if America's national interests could be safeguarded short of war. If war was necessary, he was willing to wage it. But if he did so, it would be with the mix of planning and international support that would avoid the parade of deadly misjudgments we've seen over the last few months."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0902d.html

me:

In Kerry's stance on Iraq, there is a consistent willingness to take Saddam on with the support of the international community. That's not necessarily anti-war, but it may be seen as a reasonable position in the face of Saddam's snubbing of the U.N. and the international body's dependence on U.S. leadership to enforce such resolutions which challenged the Iraqi regime.

Kerry wanted Saddam accountable, and authorized the president to effect that challenge to the Iraqi regime with the congressional war resolution vote requiring the president to exhaust all diplomatic options before proceeding with military force. The president, before the world, disregarded any reasonable proposals from the U.N. to resolve the standoff, short of full military engagement. Inspectors were allowed back into Iraq only after the Congress voted. Saddam actually began destroying missles to stave off an invasion.

The last best chance to force Saddam's hand without war was the last minute proposal by the French and Germans for a limited force in support of a larger team of inspectors.

Bush apparently never intended to honor the restraint implied in the congressional resolution. He apparently never intended to honor the direction from the U.N. although he had sought their approval.

I see this a Bush's failing, rather than foisting the blame on those who legitimately sought to reign in Saddam with supportable, resonable means. It's hard to imagine how the detractors of Saddam could have opposed the resolution that emerged.

Of course, in hindsight, it's easy to cover the war resolution supporters with the sins of Bush. It's not accurate, however, to label these war resolution supporters as pro-war.

[mitchum]

470. kick

because I have grown so accustomed to its being on the front page

[Shanty Oilish]

473. Rofl, mitchum

Only you would kick a 478-post thread. :yourock:

[mitchum]

472. kick

back to the top