Dean ignores call to stop libel

[sandnsea]

I called on him to stop libeling candidates with unsubstantiated claims of running the Osama ad. So there.

[dreissig]

1. Kerry Voted for the War

Not only did Kerry vote for the war, he openly crowed about it. So it's not a mistake after all. He's proud of giving Bush carte blanch to kill thousands of Iraqis.

Not my kind of guy, either of them. Bush or Kerry.

[_Jumper_]

5. Dean supported IWR-lite

The Iraq war would have still occurred if Biden-Lugar was passed.

[w4rma]

40. ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
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:

• Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
• Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
• Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=769599

[HuckleB]

43. Gracias.

It doesn't look "lite" to me.

[_Jumper_]

57. We'd still be in Iraq today if IWR-lite was passed

n/t

[Karmadillo]

46. Here's a link to the text of the Biden-Lugar resolution.

It wasn't quite as formidable as the ACLU would have us believe.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093002.htm

<whereases deleted>

Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force. - The President, subject to subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate -

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or (2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. - Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) 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 pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Section 3. Consultation and reports

(a) Consultation. - The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.

(b) Initial Report. - (1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information - (A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq; (B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and (C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.

(2) Classification of report. - The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form. (c) Subsequent Reports. - Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.

Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements

(a) Specific statutory authorization- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (b) Applicability of other requirements. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Have any of the candidates denounced the ad yet?

Especially the ones with ties to the scumbags who made the ad.

[Clark Can WIN]

60. Has Dean apologized for his lies and distortions yet?

He got free air time for those. Except for his paid ad where he said he was the ONLY candidate who was agianst the war from the beginning. BIG LIE. Somebody had to pay to tell the truth about Dean.

It's all politics right? Till somebody calls mr. thin skin on his soft spots.

[_Jumper_]

3. Have you heard the theories about the ad?

The most interesting theory that I've heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved – is that Dean supporters are behind the ad because this will help Dean raise funds, gain sympathy, and discredit his rivals in Iowa.

[sandnsea]

11. That's my theory

Spin it ba-bee!

[oasis]

12. "Interesting theory....nothing more than a theory...it can't be proved"

Now where have I read that?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

47. LOL! I caught it on the first read

Oh man we've got some good minds here. :)

[Cheswick2.0]

51. that is one of the dumber theories I have head

the add ties him to osama. He'd have to be a moron to do something like this and he's not that dumb.

[_Jumper_]

55. Well, he has benefitted from it hasn't he?

Of course, it is just a theory that can't be proven and there are a lot of crazy theories out there.

[Myra]

4. I know you're just making a point, but it does seem like libel.

And unsubstantiated leak smearing two other candidates...
Assuming of course it could be traced to Dean.

[sandnsea]

10. It's on his web site

Joe Trippi released an open letter. It's coming straight from Dean.

[HuckleB]

33. "Seems like..."

Please explain this. I see no libel.

[KaraokeKarlton]

6. are you all better now?

The Dean campaign called on the other campaigns to condemn an ad that was done by people with ties to their campaigns. Kerry isn't looking half as bad as Gephardt is looking. The president of the group donated the maximum amount to Gephardts campaign. The unions that endorsed Gephardt were solicited to donate to the group and one of them is calling for a refund of their donation and agree that Gephardt needs to condemn the ad. All he said is "I don't control what they do." Kerry doesn't have to condemn the ad, but he should seeing as one of his prior staffers is involved. It looks bad for both Kerry and Gephardt and if they don't condemn it, they imply that they approve of the thing.

And the campaign didn't accuse either Gephardt or Kerry of being involved, they just provided the facts available on those who are running the ads and calling for those campaigns to clear their names. They apparently don't want to do that and they will lose support over it. Their choice.

[Myra]

7. Wow, two Dean supporters in a row totally miss the point.

What are the odds?

(Luke, you must denounce the ad...)

[_Jumper_]

9. think this post is another smear and should be edited...

...alert...

[corporatewhore]

8. Dean has a history of misleading people

first with his ad saying he was the only one to oppose the war and then on his position on the war.I think the osama ad is tasteless but i think that he should wait and find out who did it . I am leaning towards karl rove myself only he can be found lurking at those depths but with liebermans recent attacks i think it could be him but main point is that dean should wait till he getrs hard proof

[pruner]

13. the money has already been linked to unions backing Gephardt

Karl Rove is not lurking in EVERY shadow.

:tinfoilhat:

[corporatewhore]

14. But it seems so him

i guess karl has a friend deep down in the pits of low class

[IndianaGreen]

15. Dean never made that claim

but the Washington Post did point a finger at Gephardt's people, and provided some evidence to back it up.

[sandnsea]

16. It's on his web site

He absolutely made the claim. It was on his web site over the weekend with the Kerry and Gephardt names in it. The call to the Kerry & Gephardt campaigns to disavow it. The caption was "When Democrats Attack Democrats". The implications are clear.

[TLM]

48. What claim did he make up?

That he hopes that Kerry and Gephardt had nothing to do with it and wants them to publicly disavow it?

I have not seen Dean make any accusation to either Kerry or Gephardt. Rather he's said only that this came from another democrat... and now it seems as though it was Gephardt.

So where's the part he made up?

[shance]

53. S&S - why JUSTICE always for Dean and MERCY for everyone else?

Who are deliberately slandering our Democratic front-runner?

I have no proof who is behind the ads, but there are consistent insinuations being made by our press and media, perhaps to shield from the real perpetrators - who knows at this point.

However, there have been numerous articles insinuating Gephardts link to the ad, through Union money his campaign used for the ads. And what about the threat his aid made the other day regarding the Dean campaign? This information did NOT come from the Dean campaign. It came from the newspapers. But apparently that is not the information you wish to broadcast.

Why are you supporting an overall dishonest position Sandnsea? Whats the vested interest in trying to scapegoat Howard Dean?

What you are doing is the opposite of fair and honest. Its dishonest and agenda-driven. Why are you so supportive of some pretty immoral, conciousless behavior?

Dean has no agenda other than to work hard to become president. These other candidates have not shown the leadership to be the frontrunner like Dean and and so THEY ARENT THE FRONTRUNNER.

Ultimately, this could be a total waste of time, you could be a freeper for all I know, but this kind of thread is wrong and divisive and overall toxic to DU and Democrats at large.

Enough is ENOUGH.***

[Hoppin_Mad]

17. Did he take your call ? Maybe he thought you were Lieberman ! ;-)

[sandnsea]

18. ha ha

You have no idea who I am. I support Kerry because he's the most liberal candidate besides Kucinich. I'm realistic on the war vote. I'm realistic on where Americans are at on terrorism. We ignore it, we die. Both in the election and literally, Bush is going to continue with his ill-conceived wars. I want someone who can beat Bush in order to save lives, to make sure we chart the right course for the world for the next century. Kerry can beat Bush and I know what his world views are. He'd make a huge seachange from Clinton and Bush. Set us on a new course of international engagement, environmental protection, respect between cultures. It's the bigger picture and Kerry's is the most enlightened I've seen in years. Losing his leadership would be tragic for the entire planet.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. How is Kerry going to beat Bush when he can't even beat Lieberman

or Dean?... and soon probably Clark?

[corporatewhore]

19. Will some one please tell me whats goin on

i hear that several cannidates were behind the ad i here that dean said it was kerry and gep and i also here deand never said it was but wash post says it gep. But it follows Lieberman's script that he has been sayin allover corp media!!!! Still i think this ad seems so Rove and before accusing any one of being going down to Rove's depths one should have hard solid proof

[sandnsea]

20. Here's the link

This came out on the Dean site first and was posted here and linked to the Dean site over the weekend. It says basically the same stuff the WP article says, they've done a bit more research since then. The implications are clear. Dean has no proof of anything, it's innuendo and smears. We have no idea who is running this ad and it's just as wrong for Dean to smear Gep & Kerry as it was for whoever ran the ad in the first place.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002665.html

[burning bush]

22. This is libel?

The quote read:

Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs—who, until recently, worked on John Kerry’s campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt’s presidential campaign.

And as their press release says, they plan to air this ad in other early primary states, and they’ve bought “over $400,000 of airtime in Iowa for ads focusing on Howard Dean’s positions on the issues of guns, Medicare cuts and NAFTA.”

We know John Kerry’s been attacking Dean on guns, and Dick Gephardt’s been attacking Dean on Medicare and NAFTA. And just two months ago the New York Times reported that, “at least at a staff level, the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns… are sharing information about Dr. Dean that helps fuel each another's attacks.”

Maybe it’s all a coincidence that this new secretive group-- founded just last month-- has picked up the same line of attack that Kerry and Gephardt have been using for months.

We hope that their campaigns would have nothing to do with this ad—the type of ad that Senator Kerry denounced as “political hate speech” when one like it was used against Senator Max Cleland in the 2002 election.

Will the Kerry and Gephardt campaigns, as well as the other campaigns, now step forward as Kerry did for Cleland and denounce this ad, as all Democrats should do?


I'm sure you would prefer that Dean just took the attack and pouted about it, but Dean fights back. he gives evidence of connections to Kerry and Gep, then popints out that Kerry and Gep have already bashed him on the same topics.

But, and this is critical, Dean doesn't adamantly insist that they were behind the ad. He hopes that they are not, and calls on them to denounce the ad.

No libel here, just hard politics. Dirty and hard. Dean can take a hit, and fights back. That makes him a tougher candidate for Bush to beat.

How's your candidate doing?

[sandnsea]

24. I'd like him to rebut the issue

He's going to have to do it next year and if he can't, he's going to be in serious trouble.

Maybe next year will just be a big mudslinging fest, I don't know. But I don't think the majority of Americans are going to respond to Dean crying about an ad questioning his foreign policy experience. Well, they'll respond, with laughter.

My candidate is doing just fine, thank you very much.

[burning bush]

29. And Dean Would Like Gep and Kerry to Denounce The Ad

But they won't. So fuck'em :)

Let the carnage continue, it just makes Dean stronger, because he deals with the issue now, instead of with Bush, he once again resumes the mantle of outsider, and every time he stands on the strength of his decision, he appears strong in the face of opposition.

So go ahead - pile it on. Focus on Dean

Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
Focus on Dean
:)

[sandnsea]

31. He's not dealing with the issue

He's doing what he always does, running a smear campaign based on lies and innuendo.

[HuckleB]

35. Where are the lies?

Are you saying Kerry doesn't use innuendo up the wazoo?

[sandnsea]

37. On policy

Yes. Making absolutely baseless claims against another candidate, never.

[HuckleB]

39. If you say so.

What baseless claims has Dean made again? I'm still waiting to see those.

[sandnsea]

42. The ad

He has no evidence that Kerry or Gephardt is behind these ads, yet that's the way he chooses to rebut them. Smears. Slander. Libel. That's Dean.

[HuckleB]

44. Again, I will ask for actual evidence of your claims.

Thus far you have shown no evidence that Dean has smeared, slandered, or libeled anyone. If you can't show the evidence, then your claim would appear to be in the category that you are attempting to put Dean.

[sendero]

56. And you're...

... projecting.

Luckily for us, most of us can tell who is the serial misleader, who is the consummate please-all politician, and who isn't.

In recent history, governors move into the White House, congressmen do not. Simple historical fact. Spin that.

[Scott Lee]

50. By the way - HAS GepKerryLIEberman renounced the ad yet?

so far, that question is met with an extraordinary silence.

[HuckleB]

34. He's already done that. Thanks for changing the subject.

You got caught making a false claim of libel. In the meantime, Dean has addressed foreign policy very seriously this week, with a substantial speech and a list of foreign policy advisors. Why don't you criticize the speech and his advisors, if your real desire is to attack Dean on foreign policy? Instead you made a ridiculous and false claim of libel? Why?

[sandnsea]

36. This is about this ad

If you're comfortable that his foreign policy speech is sufficient to counter this ad, fine. I don't. He's not countering this ad in any way except to smear people without any evidence. That's libel.

[HuckleB]

38. You keep changing the subject.

First it's libel that's not there. Then you want to see Dean address his foreign policy even though he has. Now it's "this ad," even though, again, he has addressed the matter of foreign policy quite positively in the wake of "this ad."

He hasn't smeared anyone. On the other hand, you are smearing him by claiming libel where there is none.

[sandnsea]

41. Rebut the ad

by rebutting the ad. His foreign policy speech had absolutely nothing to do with the ad.

His only rebuttal to the ad was to claim they were made by Gephardt and Kerry when he had no evidence that it was true. That's libel.

[HuckleB]

45. You just made a serious false accusation.

Dean never claimed "they were made by Gephardt and Kerry when he had no evidence that it was true." Further, it's clear that nothing Dean does or says will "rebut" the ad in your eyes. Bringing foreign policy to forefront of his campaign is a clear rebuttal of the ad. You don't want to see that, fine. That's your choice. But stop making false accusations. Show some decency.

[burning bush]

21. And Dean ignored you? Pity.

I'm sure you gave clear evidence of libel, right? What about slander? Did you ask him to stop slandering also, 'cause you know, libel means to slander in writing, right?

Maybe Dean didn't ignore you! Maybe you just have to be more specific!

Maybe you just have to have some evidence...

[windansea]

23. when does the ad start running?

think it will affect the polling numbers?

[sandnsea]

25. We ought not talk to each other

The conspiracy theories are more fun, don't ya think?

[burning bush]

27. I agree, you are creepin' me out!

:)

[windansea]

28. heh heh

this will make it better!

[GalleryGod]

26. Just LOOK at Dean...sweating and shifty...talkin' fast...mumblin'

bad clothes,sleeves rolled-up... the 'look' has that ingratiating, contrived, "Willy Loman" quality to it,does it not?
Hmmmmmmmmm?

What's the "Over Under for the Doc-tuh?"
4 STATES

I'm convinced that he is a GWB Bookend...just a registered "D".

Hangin' out with Mr. Bojangles in the Parrish Lock-up,
G.G.

:smoke:

[windansea]

30. perfect!

Willy Loman

[HuckleB]

32. Where's the libel?

It's hard to stop doing something you're not doing. Perhaps you should stop making unsubstantiated claims of libel against Dean.

[Scott Lee]

49. "Mr. Dean, sandnsea is on the phone!"

I'll bet he walked over several assistants to take that one.

[WillyT]

54. Y-A-W-N ...

:hurts:

[mzmolly]

58. How long has this thread been open?

:shrug: If this isn't flame bait I dont know what is? I just alerted on this thread...

[babzilla]

59. details please

how did you call him on it? By letter, phone, email, through a staff member, in person?

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, does it make a sound?

[windansea]

61. kick

:kick:

[wiley]

62. Stop This Now!

This is a waste of time. The latest poll shows that Clark beats Dean against Bush. Have we already beaten each other up about that? Is this just other people's supporters jumping on Dean? There is no new ground being covered here at all.

[molly]

63. The fat lady has yet to sing!

the latest polls are the latest polls and will be the latest polls next week and the week after and until we are done - they are ONLY polls.

[quaker bill]

64. Good for you

I sent him more money to keep it up. The ad accrues to the benefit of particular candidates. They should renounce it as shameless Rovian BS. I could give a flip about who is running it.

[Moderator]

65. Locking

Please review the rules for starting a thread in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744