Have we heard the last of the Kerry effort to suggest Dean was for IWR?

[frank frankly]

Not flamebait, a genuine question.

It seemed this was a developing strategy within the Kerry campaign last week. After the capture of Saddam, I haven't heard anything about this claimed discrepancy.

I would also like to note that there were enormous political risks in opposing this war. Now, after the irrelevant (to the war question) capture of Saddam, we are again seeing the full force of the media/BFEE propaganda, as we did in Jan-March 2003, and it is worth remembering the Dean and Kucinich and others took a huge risk by telling the truth.

No imminent threat. Faulty or forged or cherry picked and pressured intelligence. No plan for post "war." Enormous war profiteering. And on and on and on it goes.

peace out.

[arcos]

1. and now he favors unilaterism... and criticizes Dean!

"Kerry noted that Dean, bunched atop the field of Democratic contenders in most polls, supported the war in Iraq only with UN Security Council authorization.

Dean embraces a "'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first," Kerry said. "That is just as wrong as George Bush's policy of school yard taunts and cowboy swagger." "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=272798

Supporting the war only with UN authorization was the wise thing to do, IMHO.

[jpgray]

2. An uncharacterstically sloppy comment from Kerry

It obfuscates his own position in an attempt to separate himself from Dean. They both wanted UN approval, but somehow Kerry wants to draw the distinction that Dean wouldn't have *sought* such approval, but rather wouldn't have held Saddam accountable at all unless the UN moved first? That's the only logical way I can interpret this, and it's a mischaracterization of Dean's position.

[killbotfactory]

3. Either that...

Or Kerry thought the UN wasn't doing it's job, or Saddam was an imminent threat.

[frank frankly]

4. JK is walking a very fine line and after this week, I can't say it works

Can't have it both ways.

The risk Dean took is now easy to remember.

Remember March 2003? When I and probably you were dying for someone to just tell the truth.

I remember. Right now, it feels like fucking deja vu.

[killbotfactory]

5. "Right now, it feels like fucking deja vu"

Yep.

All over again.

[blm]

8. Nope. You guys missed what that comment was about.

He was holding Dean accountable for something he said early last year. Dean said if he was president he would never go to war without UN approval. Well, that was precedent setting, because NO president and NO pres. candidate had ever made that remark. Dean realize later he overdid it and backed off that remark.

Kerry's point is that dean says things without thinking them through which matters alot in foreign policy discussion that have far reaching implications.

[killbotfactory]

10. He was twisting Dean's words and lying about it.

Dean wanted UN approval because he didn't think Saddam was an imminent threat.

It's pretty clear.

The more Kerry attacks strawmen, the more foolish he looks.

[blm]

13. Nope. Dean threw out a statement in the passion of a speech moment.

He got caught by wiser heads who asked him if he was setting a precedent. Completely fair game. He backed off. Kerry was reminding people that dean doesn't have what it takes. He speaks first and thinks about it later, when we already have a buffoon in office that does that.

[killbotfactory]

22. Bullcrap

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

Note the part I put in bold

[blm]

26. That's not the comment and you know it.

It's when he made a DNC speech where he said if he was president he wouldn't go to war without UN approval.

[BootinUp]

24. Take issue...minor point

When does * think about it?

[jpgray]

11. In that case, the sentiment is too easily misinterpreted

And I am a supporter of Kerry--I think there are better ways for him to draw distinctions between himself and Dean than an issue on which they essentially agree.

[WiseMen]

14. DEAN took same Position as Kerry at One Time. Then Changed Rhetoric.

Howard Dean opposed the Iraq war because he believed that it was the only way to get his campaign off the ground. Prior to a campaign strategy decision, around the time of the IWR vote, Dean is reported as making varied and ambiguous statements on the Iraq question, many of which were similar to other Democratic candidates. Dean’s own campaign staff described this newly discovered anti-war sentiment as a political maneuver to capture the “activist” movement.

Excerpt for the Oliphant report on Dean's anti-Gephart campaign in IOWA summarizes the history of Dean's statements on the Issue.

___________________________________

By Thomas Oliphant, 11/23/2003

WASHINGTON

.........

In the TV ad, a voice (female, of course) states ominously, "October 2002. Dick Gephardt agrees to coauthor the Iraq war resolution giving George Bush the authority to go to war."

Retorts Dean from a small-town street, "I opposed the war in Iraq."

The ad also notes that Gephardt voted for the recently passed $87 billion appropriation for military and reconstruction costs, with Dean's voice responding, "And I'm against spending another $87 billion there."

Both points are unworthy of a serious presidential candidate. This junk is generally accepted in politics, but the situation in Iraq is too serious and deadly for tolerance of it now. As the facts show, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean was; the facts show that each of them was basically in favor of the same thing, namely bringing matters with Iraq to a climactic head. Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Moderator]

28. WiseMen

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[blm]

6. Nope.In fact Kerry hit Dean today that he was all over the map with Iraq.

And that's the truth. Dean was FOR Bush having the final say for use of force, even unilaterally, and then he went around the country attacking the others for that exact same provision.

Dean's inconsistencies are part of the reason he's too dangerous to run in the general election. Dean is the one who turned a nuanced argument and made it black and white, antiwar and prowar, and exaggerated the differences to do it, just to take advantage of the growing antiwar movement and its organization.

[frank frankly]

7. thanks, blm, for your info, although I don't agree

I will look for Kerry's comments today unless you have a link. Thanks and I do understand your point...it's just not how I see nor remember it.

[blm]

12. here's the full speech from today

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

[WiseMen]

19. Thank. Speech too thoughtfull as usual.

[frank frankly]

9. hey, a request

blm, what's JK's stance on BushCo's 9/11 culpability?

Has he made public statements regarding this?

I ask because the consistent (and VERY important if accurate) portrayal of JK as the only one who can take down the BFEE.

thanks. i respect your opinion and always take it into consideration...

[blm]

15. There's a thread out there about Bush and Saudi Arabia and 9-11...

It shouldn't be too far back in GD. I think Kerry is ready to make a case.

[frank frankly]

17. I will look and thank you, blm

you're a fine representative of JK...one of the reasons I am still undecided and looking closely.

peace out

[Sterling]

16. I seems Dean thinks W might have known about 9-11

At least the Pukes are trying to Cynthia McKinney him. I think it is great if we can get the pukes to step in it re 9-11 LIHOP, MIHOP or just the plain stupidity of the Neo Cons that made 9-11 possible. 9-11 stuff is kryptonite to pukes if we are allowed to look at it in terms other than the "Bush as hero" propaganda that is the only mainstream political discourse on the matter so far.

[frank frankly]

18. that's why I would love to hear JK on this--LOUD AND CLEAR

this would go a long long way to proving JK is The Candidate who will take down the BFEE.

[blm]

21. uh...Dean said NOTHING definitive and then backed off what he did say.

Please. Don't pretend he did something substantive. When you only toss out something you heard but refuse to back it up, that's hardly prosecutorial.
Kerry says what he says in the SMART way. He picks something specific and verifiable to start. Let's see where it leads.


Winning War on Terror Requires Reconsideration of Saudi Alliance

America cannot afford to hold its nose and play nice with a country whose actions often speak louder than its words when it comes to fighting terrorism. It's time to put the American-Saudi relationship on a frank and balanced basis. Not surprisingly, the Saudi-friendly Bush administration has failed to get this point.

Saudi Arabia's role in financing terrorism is well-documented. A report published by the Council on Foreign Relations tells us that "For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for Al Qaeda. And for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem."

Perhaps even more disturbing is the allegation that Al Qaeda continued to receive money from inside Saudi Arabia long after the September 11 attacks. According to the council's report, "some, whose donations go to Al Qaeda, know full well the terrorist purposes to which their money will be put." The Saudi government now claims to be cracking down on terrorist financing, but its actions have not yet matched its words.

One would think that an American president who threatens the world by announcing "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" would be particularly troubled by the actions of the Saudi regime. But then one would be underestimating the hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration.
>>>>>>>>>

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.12/oped1.html

[Scott Lee]

25. You will never "win" a war on terror. All you can do is decrease it.

A fact that the political spinsters for any camp still don't get.

[Scott Lee]

20. Bush-hole's reaction seems to confirm the possibility

It really seemed to get under the little Jerkoff's skin. Good. Maybe he can start practicing the perp walk.

[arewethereyet]

23. I expect it will come back if the money holds up

otherwise he'll go off and cry into his condiments.

[blm]

27. btw...it's DEAN who suggested he was for provisions in the IWR

that he was attacking others for. Don't try to play Dean up as a victim of a smear. Dean was FOR the same provision that would allow Bush final determination of use of force, even unilateral force. That was in the Biden-Lugar bill.

[BJ]

29. If it's good for Raytheon it's good for John Kerry

From the December 8, 2003 Boston Business Journal

Defense dollars flow to broad range of area firms

Sheri Qualters
Journal Staff
As the conflict continues in Iraq and the war on terror rages on, the area's defense contractors are awash in Department of Defense money, with such unexpected industries as advertising and pharmaceutical companies sharing the wealth.

Not surprisingly, defense contractor Raytheon Co., which is slated to open its new headquarters in Waltham on Dec. 5, topped the Boston Business Journal's first-ever list of the area's largest defense contractors, with more than $6.9 billion worth of contracts awarded in 2002.

Raytheon's government and defense sales increased 9 percent in 2002, according to the company's annual report. For the third quarter of 2003, which ended on Sept. 28, Raytheon logged $4.4 billion in sales, compared with $4.1 billion during the third quarter of 2002. Sales to the Department of Defense accounted for 69 percent of sales during the most recent quarter, compared with 64 percent during the third quarter of 2002.
(-snip-)