A Spin-Free Discussion About Dean, Kerry, Gephardt & Iraq

[rucky]

None of them are lying, but ALL of them are spinning. If you wish to make a distinction between the two to excuse your candidate, then do so for all the candidates. If you wish to call another candidate a liar, then do so to all the candidates. If you call one candidate a "spinner" and the other a "liar", then you are spinning (or lying, depending on one's point of view).

Let's stop the intellectual dishonesty & set the record straight:

Dean was not the only candidate opposed to Bush's version of unilateral war before the IWR vote. So when he says "I am the only candidate that was opposed to the war from the beginning," he: 1) Disregards Kucinich entirely. 2) Doesn't take into account Kerry & Gephardt's positions before and after the IWR vote.

Dean has made his position clear on where he stood with Iraq in his support of the Biden-Lugar Amendment. The contents of the Biden-Lugar amendment would have been consistent with Dean's view of the war. Here is Kerry's October, 2002 summary of the key differences in Biden-Lugar versus the IWR:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has." (Read the rest to learn Kerry's reasons for supporting IWR)

But Dean omits two key factors in his criticism for the other candidates' eventual support of IWR: 1) That amendment was dead in the water from the moment it was introduced. 2) Changes were made to the IWR in committee that adopted some aspects of Biden-Lugar - this was a senate compromise, which is about all the Democrats can do on anything in the senate.

Kerry & Gephardt - instead of clarifying their positions - took the offensive on Dean. Dean was not the one who put them on the defensive - his questions are legitamite. The IWR vote is puzzling to many Democrats to this day. It is up to the candidates to explain their vote clearly and convincingly.

But the Senators are spinning & dancing, too. They need to make their rationale for supporting the IWR clear, and hope it sticks with the public.

At any point, any one of these guys could've taken the high road - yet they still continue to take unnecessary swipes at each other. And everybody thinks the other guy should apologize first - that's how things are between people with a nomination at stake. You can either blame all parties or none of them, depending on how you view it. But once again, it is dishonest to just blame one side.

Dean is not at fault for not being in a position to vote, but Dean should not fault the Senators who did. If you do some digging, you'll find that the senators have stated their positions clear, and they are essentially the same as Dean's. The key difference, of course, is the actual IWR vote.

It is fair play for a candidate to play monday morning quarterback & say how they would or would not have voted, when going up against somebody elses record. We will all agree that any candidate challenging an incumbent president should be able to attack the incumbent's record. Same goes for primarys.

The media has oversimplified the Iraq issue. Dean has oversimplified it by dubbing himself the only antiwar candidate. Kerry & Gephardt have oversimplified it by calling Dean a liar.

But ultimately, it should be up to the voters to decide whether or not the IWR vote is a dealbreaker or not - THIS is the issue of the debate: Not Biden-Lugar. Not who the "antiwar candidate" really is.

This shifts the focus of the attacks where they belong: Bush. His ploys to expand executive powers, and his doctrine of preemption. All of the Democrats are against that. It shouldn't even be a topic for debate in this forum.

[rucky]

1. My apologies to the Edwards supporters

I didn't mean to leave him out. he hasn't really been a part of the flame-fest in DU and beyond - MUCH to his credit.

[dave29]

2. a nitpick

while it might not mean much to many who will respond here, Dean has been saying he's the only "major" candidate to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning - which is still spin - but just tryin to keep you honest.

Spin is spin is spin. They all do it, and it makes you dizzy sometimes.

[rucky]

3. Yep...that would put it in the "spin" category over the "liar" category

Thanks for setting the record straight. I must've been going off of secondhand spin when I quoted him.

:crazy:

[blm]

4. But the anger at Kerry and Gephardt comes after almost a year

of Dean being given free rein by a lazy press to attack them for the very same measures that he supported, too.

NOW people want to get upset that Kerry and Gephardt are holding up Dean's support for those measures after suffering 11 months of attacks by Dean and his supporters for those same measures? I know where the irony is, but where is the honesty? Those attacks were WRONG. Now those who were attacked are being blamed for defending themselves.

[rucky]

5. The press is responsible for dragging this out

Kerry & Gep & Edwards have every right to defend their position. The mistake on all sides is they can't resist peppering their positions with counterattacks - then that's the only part that sticks in the press, who are working their damndest to keep the infighting alive.

All the candidates - Dean included - need a one-sentence standby response to explain their position in Iraq. Ideally it would be essentially the same sentence for every candidate. And they need to repeat it over and over again and not worry about the other guys - not even as a side comment. That way the media can no longer exacerbate this issue & we don't have to have a group hug about it - just move on to bigger and better things - like Bush, Cheney & PNAC.

Agreed?

[blm]

6. Yep...but it was Dean who got 10 months of free hits on IWR

without be called on it.

I hope it IS the press that deals with the discrepancies and NOT the candidates having to point out what the press refuses to cover.