In Response to Lies about Dean's Record on IWR

[slinkerwink]

This is the complete text that was cherry-picked to make Dean sound like he lied about being against the Iraq war. I'll highlight the pertinent statements in bold.


(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.

[Cha]

1. Thanks for your hard work!

"I'd also like to say that whatever it is that Howard Dean knows, or whatever it is that he eats for breakfast every morning, if I could give it to every other Democratic office holder and would-be office holder, we would immediately become the majority in the Congress and we would have about 35 governors. I have to tell you, I think a big part of it is just producing for people, actually doing what you say you're going to do at election time."

-- Bill Clinton, 12 November 1997

[slinkerwink]

10. no problem! I just can't quit GD on this note.....

[LuminousX]

28. Excellent - thank you

[slinkerwink]

46. no problem!

[polpilot]

205. Brilliant strategy...Attempt to paint Dean as pro-war..desperate measures

for desperate people.

Dean '04...

[WiseMen]

196. Any Record of Dean Anti-War Positions or Protests Before Campaign

Every report from Vermont portray Dean as a politics-as-usual fiscal conservative with very little interest in progressive causes.

If there is some other record please post it.

[Don Claybrook]

2. Thank you

I was avatar-less until the "battle lines" were drawn in that ridiculous hit-piece on these pages, but because of it, I'm sporting a new logo.

Thanks for the clarifying and mitigating quotes.

[slinkerwink]

4. thanks! welcome to the Dean campaign!

Someone's got to stop that silly meme.

[wtmusic]

3. Slinker, you deserve a medal when Dean's elected

wouldja settle for a cabinet post?

[slinkerwink]

6. actually, I found that post in Will's thread and reposted it

the credit belongs to a Dean supporter named Gloria. I thought her post deserved a post here.

[Pastiche423]

75. Slinkerwink's medal

[slinkerwink]

85. awww, thanks!

the honor really goes to gloria, a dean supporter who posted the quotes in their entirety in Will's thread.

[mzmolly]

5. Dean consistant on IRAQ.... keep it kicked folks!

:kick:

Thanks Slinkerwink! :toast:

[slinkerwink]

7. no problem!

:yourock:

[frustrated_lefty]

8. Slinkerwink....

How DARE you place quotes in context! That's inflammatory, doncha know... ;)

[slinkerwink]

9. well, they HAVE to be placed entirely in context!

[Code_Name_D]

14. Yep, always out of context.

And its getting old. Not to mention that seeing Willam Pitt stup to such slimy tatics has removed any remaing respecti I once had for him.

[slinkerwink]

21. I hope that a certain someone knows he's wrong now

[blm]

206. Will isn't wrong. You are taking ONE appearance as final word.

You are completely bypassing the fact that there are dozens of statements from Dean that conflict with each other and conflict with the fact that he supported Bush having final say for use of force, including unilateral force, while he attacked the others for that same support in IWR.

To pull out one appearance and declare that proves Will is wrong is absurd. You can pull out dozens that match...fine...there are others that conflict....but Dean said he would have VOTED for Biden-Lugar if he had the vote and it is that vote that would have given Bush the same power he had with IWR that Dean later attacked others for. People get held up for their votes around here don't they? Why not Dean?

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

15. But quotes are so much more fun OUT of context!

"It's... good... to be the bully on the block."

[slinkerwink]

18. *snickers*

[mzmolly]

40. Yea, it's no fun to actually read information in context...

;)

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

42. That stuff sucks!

[slinkerwink]

49. hey, let's take other candidates' stuff out of context just for fun

heh, kidding. It's so stupid to take quotes out of context here on GD.

[slinkerwink]

64. or rather, Bush is the bully on the block

;-)

[dajabr]

11. And, the award for "Deaniac of the Week" goes to....

SLINKERWINK!!!

Nice post!

B-)

[slinkerwink]

12. thanks!

:hi: the credit actually goes to Gloria in Will's thread.

[dajabr]

20. You've earned it this week anyway!

Go Gloria! :loveya:

[slinkerwink]

22. definitely kudos to her for providing the complete text

:-)

[cindyw]

13. Wow, thanks for proving that Dean was in line with Kerry on this.

You have proven better than anyone else I have seen that Dean's views were in line with Kerry's. By the beginning of the year it became clear that Bush was intent on war. There was no immediate threat and that Bush would not respect the process. Both Kerry and Dean made the decision that Bush was abusing his authority. Dean was against this war and so was Kerry, but for Dean to say "from the beginning" is confusing. What was "the beginning" what does "against" mean?

If you think Dean supported going to war in March then don't vote for him.

If you think Kerry supported going to war in March then don't vote for him.

It's about time that someone prove that Dean was right in line with Kerry.

[slinkerwink]

16. no problem!

[janx]

154. HA!...

.

[Rose Siding]

26. What if I think...

that Kerry facilitated Bush's imaginary "leadership" persona by giving him what he wanted, when he wanted it :shrug:

(and Dean didn't)

[mzmolly]

34. Too bad Kerry didn't stay "in line"...

He fell in line instead.

[sandnsea]

62. No kidding

Totally agree.

But Kerry is talking about Dean's Biden-Lugar support back in October anyway. I don't know why they keep posting stuff from March to explain Dean's position in October. :shrug:

[slinkerwink]

76. and the reason the amendment dropped through was that no one

in Congress supported it.

[sandnsea]

95. Gephardt rammed through the other one

It's not that no one in Congress supported Biden-Lugar at all. But it doesn't matter, they both supported Bush determining when diplomacy stopped and when war would start. The post itself says:

"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."

What is this, except support for war?

[slinkerwink]

104. you're cherry-picking once again.

:nopity:

[sandnsea]

169. A vote is cherry-picking

when you didn't have to vote. Especially when you took the exact same position of the people you're criticizing.

[janx]

173. NO. That's not true. Otherwise, I could bank on my

next door neighbor for views she held before, right?

A vote is a vote, and a record is a record.

Consistency is also consistency, and that counts for something.

[sandnsea]

174. Consistency is the most important thing

Kerry is consistent. Dean is not. So the vote is cherry-picking when you compare it to the more important quality of consistency.

[slinkerwink]

181. so you basically ignored my post

mmm, ok.

[janx]

184. How is Dean not consistent?

?

[sandnsea]

186. from the start

He hasn't been against this war from the start. He can't support a resolution that would allow war and then turn around and say he's against war. It doesn't matter what the resolution said. If he was against the war from the beginning, then these conversations shouldn't even exist. There would be NOTHING to debate. There isn't with Dennis Kucinich because HE was against the war from the beginning and has been absolutely consistent right down the line. It's not so with Dean, his words are out there. He said them.

[slinkerwink]

212. *rolls eyes*

[rucky]

17. Dean has been consistent with his statements on Iraq

There is nothing to indicate he was lying when he said he wouldn't have voted for IWR. If you wish to fault him for playing Monday morning quarterback, I have news for you:

We're ALL playing that game. The Republicans have been in control of all 3 branches of government for the past 3 years. We have been powerless. The only thing ANY opposition candidate can do is attack *'s record, tell the people what he would've done, and what he will do to fix the damage.

Can we all agree that the Monday morning quarterback criticism is moot?

[slinkerwink]

19. that it is.......

[Cleita]

25. Only this.

:toast:

[slinkerwink]

30. thanks!

:toast:

[blm]

23. Any ONE of Dean's statements is NOT the problem is it?

It's when they are all taken together and some of them match up and others do not.

He also used the IWR to attack candidates for THEIR support of the provision that allowed Bush the final determination on use of force, while he supported that SAME provision in Biden-Lugar that gave Bush the final say on use of force.

It's the hypocrisy. He gainsed support by attacking others disingenuously.

[slinkerwink]

27. it's called using it in the right context by providing the entire quote

Remember when Clark said "Help, Mary?!"----he said it in a joking context but others took it to mean that Clark couldn't handle the journalists. That's what happens to quotes. It's important to put them in the right context.

Biden-Lugar, however, holds the President accountable. Apparently Bush didn't provide Congress enough evidence so they could hold him accountable......that's why he was able to get away with it by using the IWR instead of the Biden-Lugar amendment.

[blm]

44. Wrong. B-L said Bush determined whether use of force was needed.

The end. Nothing else mattered and it was THAT point that Dean attacked the others. They gave Bush a blank check, he said, when he had to know they got Bush to present evidence to the UN, got inspectors back in, and no expanding operations into Iran and Syria.

He knew that. He knew what he supported in B-L. He knows that the passing of B-L would have STILL put us in Iraq. He just chose to ignore the truth for a storyline that fit the mood of the antiwar base.

And i repeat, ONE statement from Dean isn't the problem with or without context. The problem is ALL of his statements before and after are inconsistent with the staunch antiwar stand that he receives credit for and his disingenuous attacks on the others.

[slinkerwink]

51. ::rolls eyes::

:nopity:

[blm]

109. Here...see for yourself, dear.

>>>>>>
Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

Dean himself admitted in the debate that he did indeed support it. Mustering some faux shock that his rivals would attack him on this issue, he retorted, "Let me use the first five minutes to correct an important thing that Dick Gephardt just misinformed us about."
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.
>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[slinkerwink]

125. that was a lie Kerry made about Biden-Lugar

[blm]

147. Oh, now John Kerry is lying about Biden-Lugar? Please prove that. claim.

That is quite a claim you make that Kerry is the one lying about Biden-Lugar. Kerry and Gephardt are both wrong, eh?

Please show us all how they are wrong about B-L and YOU are right.

[slinkerwink]

156. because he said it was a certification, but Biden-Lugar

required that the president actually goes before Congress and lays the evidence out one by one, and that other witnesses are held from other sources like, the scientists that disproved the aluminum tube.....

[blm]

202. That was pretty much the dog and pony show

that was presented to Congress and the UN with the IWR. Bush would meet ANY minimum requirement of ANY bill. B-L still allowed for BUSH to make the determination.

Dean's attacks were based on IWR allowing Bush to make the determination on use of force and to do it unilaterally if necessary. So did Biden-Lugar.

In all his speeches did Dean EVER tell his audience that in all honesty he supported a resolution where Bush had the final say on unilateral use of force?

[sandnsea]

195. OR

You're missing the OR. The OR in these is critical. All Bush had to do is TRY to get a UN resolution and then come back with the Determination (which he gave to Congress with the IWR that passed) that said he tried and there was a grave threat. The only difference between these is which UN resolutions Bush could use as authorization for war. He couldn't use the humanitarian resolutions, which he really didn't anyway. He focused on WMD, just like Biden-Lugar called for.

Besides, the real thing is you can't support ANY resolution that called for war, especially unilateral war, then say you were against the war from the start. It just makes no rational sense.

[Scott Lee]

86. POOP.

[slinkerwink]

93. lol!

[bpilgrim]

35. the others didn't make 'the case' as well as dean cept

DK, AS, CMB and no one i hope is gonna deny that.

now getting MAD at dean for capitalizing on that stake he made is pure sour grapes in this 'contact sport' no?

dean was a smart man by being strongly against the neoCONs method for war yet still admitting that if saddam - anyone - can be proven to be an immediate threat than we would be justified going in... EVEN pre-emptively as even the U.N. allows for that.

so he SCHOOLED the rest of the politicos on how to STAND-UP to these thugs and a LOT of folks have taken noticed in a very mesurable way $$$

which we all KNOW is KEY to WINNING which is what it's 'all about', right?

peace

[slinkerwink]

43. Dean still called for a multilateral consensus

[BeFree]

47. No one is perfect blm.

I'd like to see proof of where Dean said "he supported Biden-Lugar".

I have followed this IWR stuff and all I can say is that Dean is the only one who has pleased me with his anti-Iraq invasion stance. Him and about half the Dems in congress.

I know you support Kerry and I feel your pain that he didn't stand tall on this issue and do the right thing. But that's history. He had his chance to vote NO. He voted yes. That's all I need to know, your's and Pitt's arguments are to no avail.

[blm]

53. How can you say you know Dean's stance if you don't even know he supported

Biden-Lugar? That seems very strange to me.

[BeFree]

66. I said show me the proof.

You say he supported it, lay it out on the table.
If you can't that just proves to me you are just littering.

As far as I know he does not and never did support Biden-Lugar. All I know is he's been against the Invasion. Prove otherwise. This thread sets things straight, contrary to Pitt's nasty little cut and chop. Let's see you do your part, blm. Proof. On the table.

[slinkerwink]

68. Dean did support Biden-Lugar but that amendment was dropped

and instead, Kerry, with other Congresspeople gave the President total carte blanche in voting for IWR.

[blm]

70. Here it is, and has been posted a hundred times here.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml
>>>>>
Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

[slinkerwink]

71. you know, your posting that makes Dean look good

what gives? ;-)

[BeFree]

79. Thanks blm

Just as I thought, this Biden-Lugar amendment never did make it through congress. Proves the point about what Dean has said all along: It would take a sound international effort to do the right thing in Iraq. Too bad congress didn't go for it. Now we've gotta fix it.

[blm]

94. The point of contention is not the bill itself

the bill was the desired one by Kerry, too. The point is that Dean attacked the others for the PROVISION that Bush have the final say on use of force, and yet, that same provision was in Biden-Lugar.


Ryan Lizza on Biden-Lugar- :
>>>>>>
Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

Dean himself admitted in the debate that he did indeed support it. Mustering some faux shock that his rivals would attack him on this issue, he retorted, "Let me use the first five minutes to correct an important thing that Dick Gephardt just misinformed us about."
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.
>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[BeFree]

108. Proof, blm, proof

Your gonna have to dredge up the bill and present it to us. It is the basis for your argument, right?

But I will say that if the bill indeed called for disarmament without regime change, and complete UN cooperation, then we'd all be happy with letting the pres of the US go forward.

It didn't pass. Dean still looks like he made the right call, I'm happy to say.

[blm]

112. go to the link in the post

the text link is in the article.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[blm]

142. Knock it off, AWD. The text was at the link posted.

The poster just didn't see it.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[blm]

158. I posted the article with a link. Why pretend I didn't?

And if you HAD read my posts you would have KNOWN Dean supported Biden-Lugar and seen the articles stating it for the last 11 months.

Comprehension.

[BeFree]

145. Yeah, AWD, I noticed that

But he did kinda corner himself, didn't he? Ah well, litterbugs abound in this world, don't they?

Say, AWD, how's the campaing coming along? I've been trying to work with a guy running for congress in my district. He's a real longshot but it looks to be fun if we can get it up and on the run. May need to conference with you some time to get some tips. Good luck.

[blm]

151. That's rude. The link to B-L text is in the article posted.

.

[ibegurpard]

96. Biden-Lugar was not the same. You know it, I know it, and the ACLU

knows it.

[blm]

120. I never said that. The PROVISION allowing Bush final determination WAS

the same. Why do you all see the need to misrepresent what I say to make your case?

Did Dean attack the others for giving Bush the authority to make the final determination on use of force? Yes.

Was that same provision in Biden-Lugar which Dean supported? Yes.

[RetroLounge]

136. and both bills were written on paper and in English

See, they are the same!

[slinkerwink]

148. heh

;-) :yourock:

[drfemoe]

199. um . no .. right from the beginning

he asked NOT only about Ir*q, but NCLB, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and why no one had the balls to stand up to res on ANY Issue ..
.. which is the way I saw from over here. It is more disingenuous to claim to be the democratic party and then vote with the pups every time.

In your scenario, what was the intention of Senators Lugar and Biden? Was that just another bait and switch back-up plan?

The ACLU didn't think so ..
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise: ... con't ...

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
...
Even though it is being referred to as "war" (on "terrorism"), having never been declared by Congress, it is an "action". What should have been preserved, no big surprise, was the Constitution. Let's try to get back to a point where we are defending our Constitution rather than deeming it "irrelevant".

[madfloridian]

24. And a great Guardian article for Slinkerwink...by Sid Blumenthal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1104370,00.html

SNIP.."Gore's endorsement of Dean is the most important since grainy film was shown at the 1992 Democratic convention depicting President Kennedy shaking hands with a teenage Bill Clinton. Gore's endorsement is not the passing of the torch to a new generation, but another conferring of legitimacy. For Democrats, he personifies the infamy of the last election. He is not another politician, but the rightfully elected president, by a popular majority of 539,895 votes.

But the Gore of today is not the Gore of 2000. The careful political figure trying to distance himself from Clinton and contorting his personality to project likability has been tempered by defeat. "If I had to do it all over again, I'd just let it rip," Gore said a year ago. "To hell with the polls, the tactics and all the rest. I would have poured out my heart and my vision for America's future." (This is why Gore endorsed Dean....this is what Dean is doing)

Gore now calls the rightwing media a "fifth column" within journalism, and he's raising millions to build a TV network of his own as an alternative. In his own way, he's absorbed the lessons of the past three years and become a representative Democrat. His endorsement of Dean is his commentary on his campaign and the conduct of his party since.

· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and author of The Clinton Wars

I have seen his book praised here often. I am reading it now along with 2 others. I respect him, the article is appreciated.

What is going on here breaks my heart.

[slinkerwink]

29. it'll be okay...

:hugs:

[Duder]

33. From Newsday:

...

'Trippi said he had a feeling Gore's endorsement was the big secret, but he didn't find out for sure until late Sunday night or Monday.

He said the courtship began in September 2002, when Gore gave a speech denouncing President Bush's position on Iraq. He said the address stiffened Dean's opposition, and the former Vermont governor praised Gore in conversations some time after the address.

The pair had several talks in the next 15 months, with Dean peppering Gore about foreign policy. In the last six months, they talked to each other every two weeks, mostly by phone.'

...

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gore-the-decision,0,7823474,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[janx]

178. Mine as well, but the brawl will lessen, we hope.

.

[slinkerwink]

31. :kick: where are the Dean bashers?

quiet all of a sudden when faced with EVIDENCE?

[bpilgrim]

37. crikets

peace

[slinkerwink]

38. what's the meaning of that pic?

[bpilgrim]

69. that it's quite

you must be city folk ;-)

peace

[slinkerwink]

72. ha, you got that right----no crickets here

just a lot of traffic outside my window

[frustrated_lefty]

39. Good post so far, don't go picking a fight.

If your aim is to make a point, stick to it. There's no need to invite a flamefest. If you just was to bash heads, jump into the original.

[slinkerwink]

59. I'm sticking to my post

[goobergunch]

41. I was wondering the same thing

Great post, BTW...and rather amazing that I haven't felt the need to zap it (due to flame-warrage) yet!

[slinkerwink]

45. thanks!

:hi:

[dajabr]

32. As long as we're talking about old Dean quotes today...

Here's a (semi) oldie-but-goodie. How are we doing on these by the way?

Mr. President, beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, we need to know who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited uranium evidence in your speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech.

Mr. President, we need to know why anyone in your Administration would have contemplated using the evidence in the State of the Union after George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002 to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech. (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why you claimed this very week that the CIA objected to the Niger uranium sentence "subsequent" to the State of the Union address, contradicting everything else we have heard from your Administration and the intelligence community on the matter. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

Mr. President, we urgently need an explanation about the very serious charge that senior officials in your Administration may have retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally disclosing that his wife is an undercover CIA officer. (The Nation, Corn, David, 7/16/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration persisted in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claimed categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims. (CNN, 9/08/2002, Knight Ridder News Service, 10/04/2002)

Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld created a secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon that selectively identified questionable intelligence to support the case for war 'including the supposed link to al-Qaeda' while ignoring, burying or rejecting any evidence to the contrary. (New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, 5/12/03)

Mr. President, we need to know what the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking al-Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to al-Qaeda. (NY Times, Schmitt, Eric, 9/28/2002, NY Times, Krugman, Paul, 7/15/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why Vice President Cheney claimed last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war. (AP, 9/20/2002, NBC 3/16/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Powell claimed with confidence and virtual certainty in February before the UN Security Council that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." (UN Address, 2/05/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on March 30th in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (The Guardian, Whitaker, Brian and Rory McCarthy, 5/30/2003)

Mr. President, we need an explanation of the unconfirmed report that your Administration is dishonoring the life of a soldier who died in Iraq as a result of hostile action by misclassifying his death as an accident. (Time, Gibbs, Nancy and Mark Thompson, 7/13/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration has never told the truth about the costs and long-term commitment of the war, has consistently downplayed what those costs would be, and now continues to try to keep the projected costs hidden from the American people.

Mr. President, we need to know why you said on May 1, 2003 that the war was over, when US troops have fought and one or two have died nearly every day since then and your generals have admitted that we are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. (Abizaid, Gen. John, 7/16/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why your Administration had no plan to build the peace in post-war Iraq and seems to be resisting calls to include NATO, the United Nations and our allies in the stabilization and reconstruction effort.

Mr. President, we need to know what you were referring to in Poland on May 30, 2003, when you said, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (The Washington Post, Allen, Mike, 5/31/2003)

Mr. President, we need to know why you incorrectly claimed this very week that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work. (The Washington Post, Priest, Dana and Dana Milbank, 7/15/2003)

If you can't or won't answer these 16 questions, Mr. President, I call on the Republicans in Congress to stop blocking efforts to create an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate what is a matter of the highest importance: whether your decision to go to war was sound and just.

The American public deserves answers to all of these questions. I urge you to lead with the honor and integrity that you promised as a candidate.

Sign the petition demanding that Bush answer the sixteen questions:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/16

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7000&news_iv_ctrl=1441

Dean's "Iraq Truth Center" http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq is a treasure trove of nuance and flip-flops! :eyes:

[slinkerwink]

36. I signed the petition for that-----it was awesome!

[robsul82]

48. Like I said before.

It's amazing what happens when you go into a room with a politician for hours.

Later.

RJS

[slinkerwink]

50. yep, I was in Congress for two months, surrounded by politicans

still haven't lost my sanity. ;-)

[quinnox]

52. Cleland sums it up best

Cleland said Dean "avoided the war of his generation and now is finally admitting that he did support a resolution for unilateral action against Iraq. The truth will out in my point of view."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=694&e=3&u=/ap/20031210/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_2004

[slinkerwink]

58. Cleland is a Kerry supporter, so that doesn't tell me anything about

his judgement.

[robsul82]

61. As we've learned today, quinnox...

...Kerry supporters aren't exactly the most unbiased people around. ;)

Later.

RJS

[slinkerwink]

63. heh, so true....

[KFC]

54. What Lies?

According to your post, he was not misquoted. And the context changes absolutely nothing, so spare me the lies of omission.
==========================================================
"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?"
==========================================================

This was precisely Kerry's take. He trusted the president. Bush had not told Kerry that "that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future." Also, Kerry was very much supportive of waiting until we had our allies on board.

I am not slamming Dean, just re-emphasizing that he was no more anti-war than Kerry. Or the rest of them, excepting Kucinich.

ABB

[slinkerwink]

56. Kerry still voted YES

that's what sunk Kerry.

[KFC]

90. Dean had no vote

So he seems to take credit for that. He did not have to make the tough decision. Armchair quarterback.

Kerry voted yes because he trusted Bush at the time. In hindsight, a mistake. But we would all like to travel back in time and change something.

[slinkerwink]

105. you say Dean has no foreign policy exp. but Dean saw through the ruse

and was against the war CONSISTENTLY.

[KFC]

130. He was consistently against the war after the fact

Which is fine.

He was not compelled to make a difficult decision. He had no vote, and can say anything he wants now.

The fact that he stated he would take Bush's word about the war BEFORE the war started is what is important.

Believe me, I always said that Gigli was a bad idea from the start.

[slinkerwink]

135. and THEN he said the president had no real evidence to present

and your movie review supposedly backs up your all-knowing cherry-picking of quotes?

[KFC]

159. Listen up, now

I predicted that K State would beat Oklakoma 35-7. Guess what happened?

Dean was not strongly anti-war until after the invasion. He trusted Bush.

Now he trys to paint himself as the anti-war candidate. It may work, but savvy Democrats are not buying it.

Enough.

The winner of the primaries gets my vote. Even that fat-necked, five-foot tall, roll-sleeving, comb-over wearing, pasty yankee from Vermont.

[slinkerwink]

179. oh please.....he said that "but bush doesn't have all the evidence"

and NO ONE, even you, can predict the future!

[KFC]

189. I give up

I like Kerry.

But I will vote for Dean if he gets the nomination.

You are relentless.

[slinkerwink]

191. heh, thanks

that's a compliment, I think. ;-)

[robsul82]

111. So Carol's an armchair quarterback too? Sharpton?

If you're going to start with that against people of conscience, better go the whole nine.

Later.

RJS

[Paragon]

55. Damn, girl - you're a badass!

Awesome job. I'm very sad that our most visible DUer (who shall not be named) has chosen to become such an irresponsible partisan for his candidate -- and you really kicked his/her ass. ;)

[slinkerwink]

57. thanks!

:hi:

[slinkerwink]

60. :kick:

[WilliamPitt]

65. Um...

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.

The vote was 12 days away. Six days prior (and unbeknownst to Dean, who was fortunately-for-his-campaign not a Senator), the Director of the CIA appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee and handed them the as-yet-un-debunked Niger nuke evidence. Ergo, Dean's "grounds to intervene" had been provided by the chief intelligence officer in the country. The Refutation of that did not come until March.

So...this proves nothing to me, except that Dean would almost certainly have voted with Kerry, Gephart and Clinton on the IWR.

Nice try, though. By the way, it is against DU rules to take a flame war into another thread.

[slinkerwink]

67. and after the vote was called, Dean was still against the IWR

nice try, Will.

[VelmaD]

81. How about instead...

of trying to be snide or cute or whatever you maybe actually adress Will's point. Your guy said if Iraq had the means to give nuclear material to terrorists to bring into the US that would be grounds to attack Iraq. Will pointed out that Kerry was given information that this was the case - yes the Niger uranium story turned out to be bogus but we didn't know that at the time now did we. Seems to me that might well have met your candidates threshhold for acting unilaterally. But I suppose it's easier to snipe than to adress inconvenient facts.

[robsul82]

84. Yes, we did know the Niger uranium story was fake.

Remember WHY the "sixteen words" thing became huge? Because people were TOLD and Tenet was removing it from speeches MONTHS before the SotU address!

Later.

RJS

[VelmaD]

102. People in the administration may have known...

but it had not been publicly debunked. Hell, the head of the CIA had just been up to the Hill peddling the story.

This is why it's hard to talk about all this in retrospect. We know a lot now and we forget that we didn't always know it.

[frustrated_lefty]

121. There were several stories in the news questioning

the administration's flawed evidence from the very moment in was presented. If you insist, I'll be happy to track a half dozen or so down from archives? The least research into Powell's claims before the UN would make any sensible person demand for substantiation before permitting a declaration of war.

[VelmaD]

132. That's ok...

I'm about done with this argument for today anyway. I'm willing to concede that there were concerns about the evidence from the very beginning though I for one at least hoped that they were showing more to the Senate Intelligence Committee than they were putting out publicly. I could be wrong about that. My whole point in having this argument was this - it's way too easy to examine the past through the lens of what we know now. It's too easy to forget that we didn't always know everything we know right this very second.

Do I think voting for the IWR was wrong - yup.

Am I willing to throw out a candidates entire record over it - NO!

Kerry has fought for a lot of causes I believe in for a very long time. He's a liberal. I don't understand how other liberals can support someone like Dean who is WAY to the right of Kerry. I just think if you looked at Dean entire record you would likely find actions he took as governor that would make you just as angry as you are at Kerry over IWR. And it doesn't make any sense to me.

This is not me being mean or snide. This is genuine confusion on my part. My best friend is a Dean supporter and he can't explain it to me either.

[frustrated_lefty]

146. Thanks for explaining, and I agree

with your point that these are difficult topics to address in retrospect. It's very difficult to do that productively. I also agree with your point that it would be wrong to refuse to fairly consider a candidate on the basis of a single vote.

Kerry is a good man, and I am not particularly angry with him, although I do think this congress has laid down too often before the temper tantrums of the boy-emporer. That's not Kerry's fault, it's systemic.

I'm not a Dean fan because I dislike any of the candidates; I'm a Dean fan because I like his message and think he's building the necessary momentum to get the job done next year.

Kerry and Graham, in particular, always had my respect.

Take it easy VelmaD, thanks for sharing a brief interlude of civil discussion. :)

[VelmaD]

157. No matter how het up I get...

or how much I want to pick a fight, I always seem to default to civil discussion. It's a curse I tell ya. :-)

[frustrated_lefty]

185. To try and answer

"Kerry has fought for a lot of causes I believe in for a very long time. He's a liberal. I don't understand how other liberals can support someone like Dean who is WAY to the right of Kerry. I just think if you looked at Dean entire record you would likely find actions he took as governor that would make you just as angry as you are at Kerry over IWR. And it doesn't make any sense to me."

From my perspective, it boils down to one key, all important issue. I firmly believe he has the momentum to kick Bush out. I like his populist approach, I believe it is desperately necessary for a democratic leader to pull the base together. We've been kicked in the teeth for the last 3 years, and I appreciate a democratic candidate recognizing the fact that the party needs to be pulled together from the roots up. In some ways, I perceive that as a process of healing which is utterly essential to our success.

So, I believe he can do it. I like his policies for the most part and am willing to tolerate things I wish weren't on the table (civil union vs. gay marriage or the repeal of middle class tax cuts, for example) because I would rather take a candidate I mostly agree with who can win the office and achieve what he said he would, than back a candidate I may agree with slightly more but who failed to develope the momentum necessary to achieve the office much less the policies.

There's more that I just simply like about Dean, but those are the basics of why I lean towards him, or at least the ones that can be explained in a way that might make sense.

[slinkerwink]

91. that uranium story was widely reported, and debunked

us Duers knew it a long time ago before Congress did.

[VelmaD]

110. Read Will's post again...

I'm starting to think you never bothered before you responded. The IWR vote happened before the Niger uranium story was debunked. The head of the CIA had just been up to the Hill and shared that Niger info right before the vote.

We are all looking at this through the lens of what we know now...and what we know now to have been a lie.

[slinkerwink]

131. I knew that the war on iraq was a lie because of fake 9/11 connection

and the fact that Bush ignored the UN, and several early reports about not finding any WMD came out from the UN inspectors. Do you remember Hans Blix?

[VelmaD]

140. Yes I remember Hans Blix and the rest of it

We don't fundamentally disagree. I wish Kerry had not voted for the IWR. I don't think he did the right thing. I'm just tired of watching that one vote get blown completely out of proportion when considered in the totality of his voting record in the Senate.

I guess my basic question is this...are you a liberal or a centrist? If you're a centrist then go support Dean with all my blessing. But, if you consider yourself a liberal then I don't understand. I've got another post on this thread that explains my confusion and I don't want to get redundant.

[slinkerwink]

143. I'm a centrist and a liberal

I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. ;-)

[VelmaD]

153. You sound just like...

my guy best friend and he's a Dean supporter too.

I got no problem with people who are supporting Dean because they have a fundamental agreement with him on the issues. What drives me nuts are the people I know who are supporting him who I KNOW don't agree with him.

I think I'm gonna have to go to bed before I get any more annoyed at the world. :-)

[slinkerwink]

160. I don't agree with him on the guns issue and the gay marriage issue

but I support him anyway because I share a majority of his views, and I'm not going to be a "one-issue" supporter this election.

[VelmaD]

164. What we have to do no matter who wins...

is follow one of Will's better pieces of advice - stay involved (don't rest on our laurels like we did after we elected Clinton) and hold whoever's feet to the fire on the issues that matter to us. I don't agree with Dean on guns either. If he gets elected it's up to us to give him hell until he does what the majority of us want on gun control. Same goes for any of the other candidates cause they've all got issues where we need to poke them in the right direction.

And on that concilliatory note I am headed to bed.

[slinkerwink]

197. good night!

[Scott Lee]

99. You don't pay your money before you test drive the car.

Kerry and the other Democrats in congress should have DEMANDED to see conclusive proof of this "Nigerian Uranium" bullshit story, withholding their vote on it until then.

Just shrugging and saying "I trusted Bush, he betrayed me" won't cut it. I expect more from my representatives.

[slinkerwink]

107. and Kerry's being roasted for it along with Geppy and others

[VelmaD]

117. Do we know what "proof" they were given?

Is being told by the director of the CIA and having it appear in the intelligence estimate not enough? What would have satisfied you as sufficient proof short of them rolling the uranium out into the Senate chamber?

[hedda_foil]

180. Well, the chair and next ranking Dem on the Senate Intel Cmte voted NO

(At the time that was Graham and Durbin.) And Durbin, Byrd (senior Dem on Foreign Relations) I'd say it's quite clear that the split on whether or not to vote on the IWR had nothing at all to do with the intel. If the intel was all that believable there's no way on earth that Graham, Durbin or Byrd would have thought twice about voting yes.

The truth is that the B-L resolution was the final attempt to hold the President accountable to some extent. It was a bipartisan resolution sponsored by the Chair and ranking member of Foreign Relations. It wasn't as complete in pinning Bush down as several defeated resolutions had been, but this one looked like it could actually pass. And it limited Bush from going to war against Saddam for any old reason at any old time. Not completely. Not air tight. But at least well enough that he would have been caught in a fairly tight web between the Senate and the UN. If the UN said "no way, Saddam's cooperating" and the Senators were actually looking at the evidence ... well then ... it would have been pretty hard for Bushieboy to come back and whine and scream for war. Not impossible, but harder. Much harder. And that was the plan. not a perfect plan but a workable one.

Bush was being forced to go to the UN. There was no way around that. But he didn't want to be held back at all. So he told the Repubs and Gephardt that he wouldn't go for Biden-Lugar. The Dems still held the Senate at that point. They could have held him to it even with Gephardt selling out in the house, but the DLC Dems caved. They thought they'd be painted as unpatriotic. They thought they'd lose the election coming up. They wanted to run on the economy. They gave in and went home.

And that, my friends, is Biden-Lugar in a nutshell. An imperfect but potentially workable way to hold Bush in check in concert with the UN.

And that's why the 23 Senators and 130 some House Members (including very senior ones) and Dean put their reputations and (in many cases) their elections on the line against the IWR even though they would have passed B-L.

And remember, if the insiders had been right Dean would never have been noticed. He never would have gotten our attention with his "What I want to know" speech in the first place. And the smart money said the insiders were right.

[AP]

106. Correct me if I'm wrong, but uranium from Niger was not the ONLY thing...

...that convinced Congress to vote for the IWR.

However, if you believe that Rove wants Dean to get nominated, wouldn't you find it curious that the MOST outrageous bit of evidence -- something that was such a clear forgery that ex-CIA agents interviewed on Democracy,Now! speculated that Mossad might have made it intentionally obviously faked to throw off people from thinkig Mossad did it -- was the piece of evidence that gets leaked into the press?

Is it possible that Democrats have been intentionally played?

Is it possible that the dossiers were filled with good and bad information, and if Bush needed to rely on the good info, it's there, and if Bush needs to undermine Blair and get Demcrats to nominate and unelectable anti-war candidate, they can take care of that as well?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[robsul82]

114. Heheh...

...wow, Edwards must've been SUCH a pothead hippie in college. He must've been the best dorm roommate ever, look at that hair. And the car, for Christ's sake.

Later.

RJS

[slinkerwink]

122. no need for that attack

;-)

[robsul82]

124. That ISN'T an attack!

Seriously, Edwards looks like probably the coolest dude on his floor.

Later.

RJS

[AP]

163. It reminds me a little of Dazed and Confused -- the whole 70s thing.

I notice I'm watching more of That '70s Show the more I get excited about Edwards.

[robsul82]

167. I so would've been chilling with Edwards and Dean.

See the college pic of Dean? Same deal. Long hair, TOTAL stoner. lol

Later.

RJS

[AP]

176. However, Edwards was able to keep his grades up.

Didn't everyone have long hair in the 70's?

[robsul82]

177. Heheh, no.

Hey, being a stoner in no way says anything about your grades. Somebody I know told me that...yeah.

Later.

RJS

[AP]

204. Maybe Dean was the stoner, and Edwards wasn't?

[slinkerwink]

116. wow......that's a really FAR reach to say that Bush thought Dean was the

one to beat back in 2002 and convinced ALOT of Democrats in Congress to vote YES on IWR for the purpose of making them look idiots so that Dean can come out the winner.

That's just a really lame argument.

[AP]

165. It's not far fetched to have alternative plans.

Clearly, they want to draw Democrats into a bind on the national security issue.

What if the Democrats go along with it? One reason JFK was able to beat Nixon was because he was bigger fucking anti-communist hawk than Nixon. (Which he stopped doing once he became president -- it was just a big lie to get over the hump for Democrats of being perceived as weak on national security and soft on communism.)

So what if the Democrats out-hawk him? Well, then rope a dope. Have a back up plan. Get yourself a McGovern, like Nixon did in '72. Make them hate you so much that they pick a candidate who will take the bait.

Maybe they didn't know Dean would be the one. Or maybe they did know. Who knows. But they got him.

And it's smart to have multiple strategies and exit plans. That part shouldn't surprise you at all.

[BootinUp]

166. Your not

actually trying to get slinker, to admit that Dean was the master of political double-talk? I mean whether there is any accuracy to that or not it ain't gonna happen...

[mzmolly]

73. Your using a 'fake' scenario Dean was questioned about to

bolster your case? :eyes: This is getting bad man.

[slinkerwink]

74. yes, it is.......

:nopity:

[slinkerwink]

210. and it will get worse before it gets better

[Paragon]

83. What the hell happened to you, Will?

Wolfowitz shuts Germany, France, Russia, and Canada out of Iraq rebuilding contracts -- proving beyond the shadow of any doubt it was always about money and oil -- and you waste all of our time with this shit.

Pathetic.

[robsul82]

88. Spent time in a locked room with Kerry.

I'd imagine if slinkerwink did the same, it'd probably be the same results.

Later.

RJS

[slinkerwink]

100. ha, nahhhhhh.......

I worked in Congress for two months, surrounded by politicians who voted for IWR----still hasn't changed my position on it. ;-)

[Scott Lee]

89. POOP.

[Duder]

92. Um...

If we're just offering speculation then here's mine. Kerry got passed over for vp previously because he voted against the first Gulf War and so this time he voted "yes" based not on the evidence, but for his own political gain.

Since Dean was consulting with the former vice president in September 2002, perhaps he had more insight than Kerry and would have voted as he's stated, "no".

[slinkerwink]

97. good point.

[killbotfactory]

101. Sleep it off, Will

You're a good writer, but man... you took some kind of horrible drug tonight.

Your arguement is nonsense.

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

Oct 6th is before the war vote, right?

[slinkerwink]

103. right.

[Pastiche423]

118. War rag vote was on October 10, 2002

[SadEagle]

77. Thanks for posting this.

eom

[slinkerwink]

80. no problem!

:hi:

[slinkerwink]

78. still, it's interesting my post haven't gotten mention from most of the

anti-Deanites.....

[Zomby Woof]

82. that's because

Time is too precious to waste.

[slinkerwink]

87. heh, ok.........................

:beer:

[mitchum]

98. ZW, you are indeed a very witty man

I just had to tip my hat to you (even if it did mean kicking this stupid thread)

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[robsul82]

138. Uh, nor I.

Hear ye.

Later.

RJS

[slinkerwink]

144. heh, thanks for hearing me out

;-)

[blm]

162. They are Dean's own statements posted.

If you don't like them, take it up with Dean.

And of course you don't address the rest of the post. The point that your ONE appearance transcript doesn't stack up to ALL Dean's statements made during this period that DON'T add up.

[QC]

182. You seem devastated that you didn't get a flame war.

I thought you were tired of all the nastiness here and all that.

[incapsulated]

113. What about this, then?

It's from the Salon story. You can read it here: http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index_np.html

You don't have to sign up for anything, just click the "Free Day Pass", watch a internet commericial, and your in. It is on page 3 of the article.


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.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that 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.

[slinkerwink]

119. are you forgetting that US didn't even give Saddam 30 days to disarm

and went to war instead?

[incapsulated]

123. Are you saying that you would have supported an invasion...

If we did wait 30 to 60 days? That sure sounds like what Dean was saying.

[slinkerwink]

127. the fact remains is that there was no multilateral coalition and Dean took

issue with that. For that reason and others, he was opposed to IWR.

[incapsulated]

139. The fact also remains..

That he is on record as supporting a unilateral invasion of Iraq under a 30 to 60 day deadline to "disarm".

That doesn't sound like a person who "was against the war from the beginning" as he likes to say.

He was simply lucky that Bush didn't wait for the deadline to invade.

But he supported the idea. Did you? I know I didn't believe there was any reason to unilaterally invade Iraq, even if they told us to fuck off and die. From the beginning.

[slinkerwink]

141. seems like you didn't read my post

[incapsulated]

150. No, it seems...

Like you don't have any answer to mine.

Except to say that "Lucky Dean" didn't have to live with the consequences of his statement in support of unilateral action because Bush jumped the gun.

[slinkerwink]

161. Dean was against the war, and against the war after the war......

makes sense to you now?

[incapsulated]

170. How can I argue with such logic?

If you say it enough, it must be true.

[slinkerwink]

193. if you say "Rove isn't a genius" over and over again, you cease to be

frightened by him.

[incapsulated]

220. What is your point?

What does Rove have to do with this discussion?

Oh, wait, you don't have an argument, so you've changed the subject!

BTW, as for Rove, there is a difference between being "frightened" of him and having the necessary respect for a very powerful and effective enemy who can hurt you if you are foolish enough to ignore him. I'm not afraid of 5-year-olds, either, but if I handed one a bag full of grenades, they would be pretty dangerous. I leave it to you to figure out that metaphor as it relates to Dean.

[blm]

203. But he supported allowing Bush to make the final decision for unilateral

war even. He said he was against war. Well, so were the others. But even Dean supported a resolution to ALLOW Bush to have the final determination even if the war was unilateral.

[killbotfactory]

128. IF the UN didn't enforce it's own resolutions

IF IF IF IF IF IF

That didn't happen. They were enforcing their own resolutions and we didn't find shit in Iraq. There was nothing there. Under Dean it never would have come down to the 30-60 day ultimatum, because he would have let the UN do it's goddamn job.

[slinkerwink]

133. again, so true!

[GreenArrow]

211. oh right

if after 30-60 days nothing had been found, Rummy, Condi, Dick and the rest would have been all over the tube talking about how Sadaam was not complying and that absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, etc. etc. ad nauseaum. Bush was going to have this war. And based on his own statements, Dean would have gone along with it.

[janx]

126. Slinkster, you are a very strong and bright young woman.

Very enterprising, too.

Keep it up!

[slinkerwink]

129. thanks!

:yourock:

[RetroLounge]

149. Kick

:kick:

just because a good Dean Researcher needs to be read.

thanks slinkerwink!

The truth hurts, obviously...

[slinkerwink]

152. awww, thanks!

"Let's give 'em hell, Howard!" ;-)

[tameszu]

168. Sorry, but this is equivalent to what Clark said

and Kerry too, but Kerry of course had to cough up a vote after Biden-Lugar died, whereas Dean didn't (neither did Clark, of course, which makes his stance worth significantly less too, but at least he doesn't bludgeon other Dems over the head with it).

So when Dean says, "I'm the only one who opposed the war (except Congressman Kucinich*)" but Clark, Kerry, etc. supported the war, Dean is full of crap. Plain and simple. Sorry, this is where Dean really bugs me. I'll work for him if he wins too, but I absolutely cringe everytime he attacks the other candidates with this. It's utter hogwash--they all had the same positions; Dean supported Biden-Lugar at the time, and as far as I know never gave an opinion on the final IWR between the time Biden-Lugar was rejected and when it actually went to a vote. IIRC, he only started attacking the IWR as it was written in February, after it began to be apparent that Bush would not go back to Congress and wasn't going to be terribly flexible with the UN. If you can provide some evidence of Dean hitting the Congressional Dems prior to February 2002, then I might concede the point. And, no, criticizing Bush from Nov. '01 to Jan. '02 doesn't count--lots of Dems, including Clark, did this too.

The lie for me isn't that Dean isn't "anti-war" or "anti-Iraq War" enough; it's whether he has the right to say that he advocates a more moral or trustworthy national security policy than the other candidates because he choose a more correct stance on the war than they did, as he claims. It is THIS claim that is false and it is wrong and sad that he attacks the other candidates with it (except Lieberman; do what you want with him,...maybe Gep, because he helped sink Biden-Lugar...but these differences are now, of course, completely obscured because of Dean's litmus test. This is an utter disservice to Dem voters.).

*Good of him to have finally added that, after DK threatened to sic the FEC on him for his blatantly false commercials.

[incapsulated]

172. Exactly

I don't have a problem with him waffling, they all did except for Kucinich. I believe them when they say they are commited to ending the occupation now and any of them would do a million times better job than Bush. It's all the other crap that you pointed out that drives me crazy.

edit: Especially how he has used this to crucify Kerry. Kerry is a good man and more of a true Democrat than Dean will ever be in his dreams. He has fought the good fight his entire career. He doesn't derserve this, not from anyone, especially not from Dean.

[SadEagle]

171. Another thought.

This reminds me of what the Bushists have been doing a few weeks ago --- going around claiming that they never said Iraq was an imminent threat, and all that spin. What I find interesting about Dean's position in this quote, and wrt to Biden-Lugar, is that it's almost a "put this in writing" one. And to me, it makes sense, if I turn off my 'Bush is talking, he must be lying' instinct. Despite all the "Dean is a wacky far-left hippy pacifist" spin, he is really acting very much like a moderate here --- not antiwar per-se, but requiring explicit statement of goals and threats, and a lot of effort put into cooperation. Yet he is also very smart to require a huge paper trail for accountability. Heck, he is acting almost like, uhm, he was trying to make a decision based on best available facts, and not ideology, while making it very explicit that a support for a narrow sensible war is based on the Bushies not lying.

[slinkerwink]

175. good post.

[David Zephyr]

183. Nice.

:thumbsup:

[slinkerwink]

187. thanks!

[slinkerwink]

188. :kick:

[RevolutionStartsNow]

190. Thanks Slinkerwink

You are a force to be reckoned with. Glad you're on the Dean team.

[slinkerwink]

192. thanks!

I'm glad to be on the winning team also ;-)

[slinkerwink]

194. :kick:

[drfemoe]

198. yes, thank you very much

I did notice the *lie* version had been *creatively* edited (I read the whole transcript) .. didn't have energy to form a reply that would likely be ignored anyway .. so :thumbsup: for setting the record straight.

[slinkerwink]

200. thanks.....

:hi: Amazing what lengths some people can sink to? It's too bad I once admired them.

[JaneQPublic]

201. Excellent research work, Slinkerwink!

"Cherry-picked" is a good term for what they did to Dean's quotes.

"Desperation" is a good term for their motiviation.

[slinkerwink]

207. no problem!

:hi: there is no excuse to cherry-pick!

[slinkerwink]

208. kick

[slinkerwink]

209. kick

[LeahMira]

213. If anything...

... this highlights what was the thinking at the time those statements were made, and at the time the IWR vote was taken.

I don't hold anyone especially "accountable" who voted for IWR, although at the time I honestly felt that the administration couldn't be trusted with a free hand and that it would have been better to put some conditions and limitations in writing.

At the time, we all were led to believe that Saddam had weapons and that his possible sale of those weapons to groups who could use them against us posed a real threat to our safety.

Now, we know that information was manipulated and some was hyped... hyped beyond belief!

Indeed a few courageous Congress men and women did vote against IWR, and they are to be honored for their wisdom. I hope they all continue to serve the nation in years to come.

But now our job is to decide who has the best plan for resolving the mess we're in and leading us into a better future.

[slinkerwink]

214. that's true, and that's why Dean had us donate to Boswell, to help his

race out even though Boswell voted for IWR.

[littlejoe]

215. Attaboy, slinker!

[slinkerwink]

217. thanks!

:hi:

[littlejoe]

216. Attaboy, slinker!

[slinkerwink]

218. you must be really pleased because you posted twice, ha

;-)

[slinkerwink]

219. KICK

[tameszu]

221. You're kicking, but not responding to the substantive point I made

that shows that Dean is being full of it on the IWR. The point is that he is a hypocrite in politically exploiting IWR as a litmus test when his own statements were so similar to the congressional candidates, when his own position was cheap talk (as he never had to vote for the IWR and you have not shown a statement by criticizing the IWR in its final form until long after the resolution was passed and it began to be clear that it would not work out as some of the resolution's moderate to dovish Democratic supporters hoped). Worse, he has bolstered his attacks on other candidates by distorting, or, as Dennis Kucinich has pointed out, straight out lying.

Care to answer any of this, or are you just going to keep promoting your original post?

[slinkerwink]

222. look, eric

I know you're threatened by Dean's momentum, his rise in the polls, and his organizational power, but it was political suicide at the time to be against the IWR. It explains why the other Dems voted for it because they thought it'd be politically expedient.

[tameszu]

224. I accept your confession of guilt, even if preceded by an ad hom, Noelle

Wow!!! So you admit that it was political suicide at the time to be against the final version of the IWR--and I presume that this is your justification for Dean not speaking out against it at the time. So you are effectively saying that Dean is a hypocrite and is being disingenuous in bashing the congressional Dems for voting for or not speaking out against the final version of the IWR.

That's quite fair of you, although I think you may want to consider apologizing for calling Will Pitt a "liar." The point of his post, after all, was not to say that Dean wasn't anti-Iraq war, but that he doesn't have any grounds to claim that he was any wiser on Iraq than the candidates he criticizes for voting against it.

And as for your psychological/ad hominem speculations, of course I would rather that Clark be more than less competitive in this race, but, no, I'm not "threatened" by Dean's rise in the polls. And I definitely do not feel "threatened" by any Democratic candidates (well, maybe except for Lieberman when he used the #%^$#@Q^ phrase "Axis of Evil" in a POSITIVE manner in the debate Tuesday), and you probably will not find many Clark supporters who admire his organizational power more than I do (and I tell this to the official Clark campaign people every chance I get--"we should be more like Dean); I will be very happy to have it on our side if Dean wins (or, I hope, even if Dean doesn't win).

What I will NOT be so happy to have is Dean's divisiveness and his occasional willingness to smear other Dems with distortions (not that this tendency is limited to Dean, but I will condemn it wherever I see it; no, I wasn't the happiest with Clark's shot at Dean for skiing during Vietnam, but it was clearly a <not entirely well-considered> joke).

Note also that I gave you a significant "out" and I am open-minded on this. I will be all sorts of nice to you (not as thought I need much help to do so) and Dean on this issue and retract almost everything I said if you can find a quote that shows him unequivocally opposing the final version of the IWR (as Clark supporter Charlie Rangel did) before Congress voted for it, or even soon after. If you can even find me something from anytime between February, then I will give you half a point. Get Googling! =P

[incapsulated]

223. You will wait forever, tameszu

She doesn't have a response to your argument. She just wants her fellow Deanies to keep posting "Great Job!" like a bunch of ditto-heads without answering any of the questions.

Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt.

[frustrated_lefty]

225. Begads, just get a room you two. :p

[tameszu]

226. Actually I disagree, because I think slink is quite thoughtful

as are many if not most Deanies (and I would hope, most Clarkies), if you catch them in their private moments, away from the push and pull of online forums.

I have to say that I was even somewhat impressed that she did answer my 2nd attempt at my query quite honestly, if you throw away the psychological stuff about my being "threatened"--although, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, because I know slinkerwink to be usually a bright and warm person.