Who was right, Dean or Kerry?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Here are excerpts from foreign policy speeches given early in the year, before the Iraq war, giving their positions on that war. Clearly this has been labelled the issue that provides the 'Great Divide' between Dean and Kerry. So looking at it now, with the hindsight of many months, who was right, and what is wrong with what the other one is saying?

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html


In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

[seventhson]

1. Dean was right. Kerry was wrong (nf)

Easy answer and true.

nf (no flame)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Why?

[Pez]

4. ok so check 1 (one) for HD and i make 1 (one) for OMFG

i think the only way we are going to resolve this is by a heated battle of paper scissors rock.

pssst... they basically said the same thing.

[Egnever]

82. go ahead and make it 2 HD and 2 for OMFG

difference one lied about it, Voted for it and still thinks it was the right thing to do. The other oposed it from long before it started and still thinks it was the wrong thing to do.

JK lie

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.


Voted for it

SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
{b] According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

"I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable"

Even though he agrees with Howard Dean


"I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar"

"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"

"I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this."

"The administration rejected the Biden-Lugar approach"

Lame excuse John. Cause bush didnt like it you laid down?

Then you have Dean

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.


August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.


September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.


September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."


September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."


October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."


December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."


January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"


January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."


January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"


February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''


February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.


February 27, 2003

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


March 15th, 2003

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


March 18, 2003

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

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


March 20, 2003

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

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


March 23, 2003

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


April 17th, 2003

Nuff Said!

[cindyw]

3. I'm just not smart enough to see the difference

Except that Dean said it second.

:shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

5. The Main Difference For Me

Is not about the resolution vote, although it clearly is for some people. I look at two things:

1) What would they have done in Bush's place? They basically came around to the same idea, although Dean favored containment rather than active disarmament early on. I believe Dean got it right in the end, though. I give the advantage slightly to Kerry for providing a more detailed road map as to what should have been done.

2) What will they do now? Honestly, I'm not sure where Dean's position is regarding the presence of troops. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I lost track after awhile. If it close to Kerry's position, it can't be that bad.

My bigger concern is the war on terrorism. While Dean has made overtures towards building an international coalition, I have not seen anything resembling the far-reaching economic reforms Kerry has proposed in detail to "drain the swamps" of terrorism.

[Egnever]

83. hmm economic reforms like this?

Kerry's betrayal of Vietnam


:wtf:

[w4rma]

6. Dean's and Kerry's comments from October, 2002 just before the IWR vote

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.

Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, said the United States should be willing to hold Hussein accountable and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but only if there is clear international support.

"I'd be willing to be the first to put my uniform back on and go and defend this country," Kerry said. "But I don't think we should pretend that protecting the security of our nation is defined by turning our back on a century of efforts by patriots and presidents of both parties to build an international structure of law and live by higher standards."

Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[sandnsea]

7. That's all Dean said?

I just posted these to you a couple of hours ago. You're not posting Dean's entire view of the Iraq war.

Sept. 29, 2002, DEAN -- "If You Don't Do This...We Will Go Into Iraq"
On CBS "Face the Nation": After saying that the administration "had not yet made" its case that Saddam was an immediate threat, and that if we attack Iraq, "it's got to be gone about in a very different way," Dean also states: "It's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

http://www.kucinich.us/antiwarcandidate.htm

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp

[Pez]

8. dean is like a steak-eating vegan...

...when it comes to iraq. just doesn't make sense.

[stickdog]

12. Jesus Christ, we all lived through it. Dean was the ONLY national voice

condemning the war as Saddam's statue was being brought down.

Kerry, Clark & Bush are now all revisionist historians.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. The quotes provided in this thread give lie to your statement.

[Nicholas_J]

34. AS well as Deans own statements in late January 2003

Salon: On the campaign trail with the un-Bush
Salon (possibly in its death throes) pulls out a terrific profile of Howard Dean, the horse I'm backing for the Democratic nomination.

I have been concerned about his foreign policy stance. He's distinguished himself as the most anti-war candidate extant. But let's see how he says he would do it:

"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.

Easy to say at this late date, but imagine if we'd gone to the UN in September with a timetable, backed with a clear threat of unilateral action. I think things would have gone rather differently.


http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

Even the OCtober resolution does not go as far as Deans statement here.

The Resolution does not allow the U.S. to go to war with Iraq unless the all diplomatic means are EXHAUSTED, and it appears that by exhausing these peaceful means, that the U.N. will not enforce the resolutions ending the first Gulf War.


The October Resolution DOES NOT SET A TIMETABLE for the U.N.to exhaust diplomatic means

Dean did.

The other condition set by the resolution is that the U.S. and its security is under imminent threat. Then the president can act to defend its security.

This is the so called "BLANK CHECK FOR WAR" section


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to —

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

It is clear from the text of this act that no time table is set, and also, in the last two paragraphs the ability of the president to act independently is ties to TWO separate conditions.


This first is that diplomatic efforts are seen to have failed to pprotect U.S. security, and that diplomatic efforts WILL NOT RESULT in enforcement of pertinenet U.N. resolutions...

AND

THat the act is consistant with attempts to take actions against nations supporting international terrorism as it relates to the events of September 11th.

THe act read closely and legally shows that this act in no way ever authorized the president acting unlaterally and required U.N. support.

[stickdog]

40. And DURING the war? Kerry was so brave with his "criticism" before &

after.

What about DURING?

Who was hedging his bets while y'all were telling us that no anti-war candidate had a chance?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. "And DURING the war? What did Dean have to say that you are so proud of?

I keep asking, but you haven't answered.

[DrFunkenstein]

64. It Took Him All of a Week To Call For Regime Change

I don't exactly consider that "hedging his bets."

[Pez]

15. if a tree falls in the woods and CNN doesn't talk about it for months...

...it didn't happen?

out of every politician in the you.s., dean was the only one speaking out at the time? pffft. just because you didn't catch it on your network of choice doesn't mean it wasn't said.

[JohnKleeb]

16. You sure about that stick?

I know you think my candiate doesnt have a chance but just because of that stick doesnt mean hes invisible or it didnt happen. So please do not act like your candiate was all alone on the war, he was far from it. I know the day the invasion started Kucinich said something like this is unfortunate, oppose the mission and support the troops or something like that, and I 6 months later still believe that.

[stickdog]

20. Dennis was as well. But they weren't printing it or letting him on TV.

I should have mentioned that.

As for the Kerry supporters, let's see an anti-invasion statement from Kerry from the start of the war to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED day.

[JohnKleeb]

22. Yes you should have

You see stick, this pisses me off and if I come off as angry or pissed about this I am, good for those who spoke out against the war, what the media did by not even mentioning Kucinich was wrong. If theres one thing that flusters me its that, I dont desire much but I do desire the media to realize that they completely ignore him. You realize thats wrong dont you? Kucinich has been fighting the war just like your candiate has, and we all know this here at DU, and when the media ignores him I for one am gonna simply ask why and flat out say its wrong.

[stickdog]

24. Agreed. Believe me, that was a time when Kucinich's voice was needed.

Everybody was cheerleading and they only interviewed Dean to ridicule him.

However, Dean turned their crap around on them by simply telling the truth and Dennis would have done the same, but even better.

[JohnKleeb]

26. Do you know why now I have a quick fuse when

the media completely ignores him, because of this I get flustered when the newspaper articles dont mention him. I just wish the media had paid more attention to him, it infuriates me and sickens me that the media would be this ignorant, of course they were trying to ridicule him but media coverage sure does help whatever the intent.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. In all fairness

"As for the Kerry supporters, let's see an anti-invasion statement from Kerry from the start of the war to the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED day."

Let's see one from Dean. Let's see what he actually had to say that you are so proud of.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Here ya go:

Dean, in statements he issued as Baghdad was falling, said the administration's plan "for the Pentagon to administer Iraq is a disaster. Whatever else he may be, Donald Rumsfeld is no Douglas MacArthur." Dean proposed shifting civilian authority to an "international body approved by the U.N. Security Council."


Kerry called for giving the United Nations and NATO roles in postwar Iraq, saying, "The full participation of our international partners will dispel fears in the Arab world of the United States as an occupying force and will assist in building strong and lasting democratic institutions in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A33823-2003Apr15¬Found=true


Notice the difference in tone. One of them uses the word "disaster."

[sandnsea]

18. When there were troops on the ground

Something that is just not acceptable in America. Before the invasion and after 'mission accomplished', Kerry and plenty of others were criticizing this war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Just what did he have to say?

"Dean was the ONLY national voice
condemning the war as Saddam's statue was being brought down."

I'm not denying that because I don't know what Dean was saying "as Saddam's statue was being brought down." -- but I would like to know. That was April 9.

So, what exactly is the statement he made "as Saddam's statue was being brought down" that you are so proud of? Let's get it posted here so it can be part of the discussion.

All I can find is from http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=565 which only provides the single-line no context quote he "suppose that's a good thing." -- that doesn't sound like condemning the war to me. More like a grudging admission that something good had happened. And of course it would have been the wrong moment to condemn the war anyway.

The commondreams piece that w4rma posted from the next week is good, but I see no substantive differences in it from Dean's other statements or from Kerry's statements.

[no name no slogan]

76. "The only voice" ? You're kidding, right?

There were A LOT of public voices condemning the war before, during AND AFTER the statue came down. Among the politicians, Paul Wellstone and Dennis Kucinich were at the forefront; Dennis organizing the House against the vote, and Paul speaking out from the Senate.

Also, everybody could be "against the war" once that damn statue was knocked over by Chalabi's boys-- the war was basically over at that point. Dean then joined the rest of the Monday morning quarterbacks and became staunchly "anti-war" after the fact.

Face it-- Dean waffled about the war until the rubber hit the road. He was in favor of a 60-day delay until he had proof that Saddam had "disarmed" (which, of course, no amount of inspection or insistence by the Iraqi government would have been proof enough) before either going in with the help of the U.N., or going in alone if they wouldn't support us.

His position wasn't much different from Shrub's then, and it's almost exactly the same now. Peace candidate my ass.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. Dean has to try to minimize DK to distinguish himself from the pack.

[w4rma]

13. 'Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong' by Howard Dean

Published on Thursday, April 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

{Note: After reading a recent article that called into question my opposition to the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, I wanted to state my position clearly to set the record straight. I appreciate that the editors of Common Dreams have given me this opportunity.}

When Congress approved the President’s authorization to go to war in Iraq – no matter how well-intentioned – it was giving the green light to the President to set his Doctrine of preemptive war in motion. It now appears that Iraq was just the first step. Already, the Bush Administration is apparently eyeing Syria and Iran as the next countries on its target list. The Bush Doctrine must be stopped here.

Many in Congress who voted for this resolution should have known better. On September 23, 2002, Al Gore cautioned in his speech in San Francisco that “if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the Administration it is simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere, anytime this or any future president so decides.” And that is why it was such a big mistake for Congress to allow the president to set this dangerous precedent.

Too much is at stake. We have taken decades of consensus on the conduct of foreign policy – bipartisan consensus in the United States and consensus among our allies in the world community – and turned it on its head. It could well take decades to repair the damage this President and his cohort of right-wing ideological advisors have done to our standing in the international community.

Theirs is a radical view of our role in the world. The President who campaigned on a platform of a humble foreign policy has instead begun implementing a foreign policy characterized by dominance, arrogance and intimidation. The tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11 has dried up and been replaced by undercurrents of distrust, skepticism and hostility by many who had been among our closest allies.

This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster. All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.

The largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot eliminate the threat of sleeper terrorist cells. That task requires the highest level of intelligence cooperation with our allies.

Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons. This calls for an aggressive and effective diplomatic effort, conducted in full cooperation with a united international community, and preferably with the backing of the multilateral institutions we helped to build for just this purpose. This challenge requires treaties – such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – that this Administration has sometimes treated cavalierly. In any case, war should be a last resort or an option to be used in the face of an imminent threat.

The UN Charter specifically protects the right of self-defense against armed attack, and most agree that action against imminent threat is also justified. As President – as has been the case with all previous presidents – I would not hesitate to use our military might to protect our people or our nation from an imminent threat. But you will not find a Dean Administration turning to the option of force in the first instance as this President does.

The immediate task at hand of the next president will be to begin rebuilding our relationships with our allies so that we can work in concert on tackling these challenges.

The next president will need to undo the work of this band of radicals currently controlling our foreign policy – who view the Middle East as a laboratory for their experiments in democracy-building, where no such traditions exist. Their approach will drastically change the view that the world has had of the United States.

Our nation should be viewed as a moral and just power, a power that seeks to do good, one that has led by example and with a spirit of generosity, and one that works with the world community in advancing the ideals of human dignity and rule of law across the globe.

The people of this country must understand that this Administration has a far different concept of the role of America in the world. This concept involves imposing our will on sovereign nations. This concept involves dismantling the multilateral institutions that we have spent decades building. And this concept involves distorting the rule of law to suit their narrow purposes. When did we become a nation of fear and anxiety when we were once known the world around as a land of hope and liberty?

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

And not only will I seek to heal the divisions this President has caused in the world community, but I would also begin the process of healing the divisions he has exploited here at home.

This President shamelessly divides us from one another. He divides us by race – as he did when he claimed that the University of Michigan uses quotas in its law school admissions. He divides us by class by rewarding his campaign donors with enormous tax cuts while the rest of us are deprived of affordable health care, prescription drugs for our seniors, and good schools for our kids. He divides us by gender by seeking to restrict reproductive choice for women. He divides us by sexual orientation by appointing reactionary judges to the bench, and as he did in Texas by refusing to sign the Hate Crimes bill if it included gay or lesbian Americans as potential victims.

It is a Bush Doctrine of domestic division, and I want to be the President who tears that doctrine up, too. I want to restore a sense of community in this country – where it’s not enough to worry whether your own kids have health care, but whether your neighbors’ kids have health care. I want to go to the South and talk about race. White southerners have been flocking to the Republican Party in recent years, but I want to offer them hope that their children will benefit from better schools and affordable health care, too. The Republican Party has done nothing for working people, black or white, and we need to remind Southern white folks that the only hope for better schools, and better job opportunities, and health care that is affordable is a Democratic President.

I am what is commonly referred to as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I am proud of the fact that as Governor I routinely balanced the budget – which I was not required to do by Vermont’s constitution – and paid down our state debt by nearly a quarter. I had to make tough decisions, and I will admit that some of them did not make the progressive community happy. But I made those decisions because I have a guiding principle that social justice must rest upon a foundation of fiscal discipline. Because of that approach to governance, Vermont today is not cutting education and is not cutting Medicaid despite the perilous economic times brought on by the Bush fiscal policies.

One of my goals as a Presidential candidate is to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party – a line made popular by the late Paul Wellstone. Some have questioned why I would so closely align myself with a politician whose politics were considerably more liberal than mine. The fact is that I admired Paul Wellstone greatly, not only because of his politics, but because he stood up for his beliefs and fought for them until the day he died. I can only hope that someday people will say the same about me – that I, too, remained true to my core principles no matter what. I believe that the Democratic Party needs to stand for something if we want people to vote for us. And by standing against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and domestic division, we may yet rediscover the soul of our Party.

Howard Dean's campaign website is www.deanforamerica.com

###
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[sandnsea]

21. "Mr. President, Do Not Rush to War"

January 2003

"As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

We are all of us too aware, since September 11th, of the gravity of the times and the greatness of the stakes. Having won the Cold War, a brief season of content has been succeeded by a new war against terrorism which is an assault on the very progress we have made.

Throughout our history, in peaceful exertion and in armed struggle, we were steadfast - we were right on the central issue of freedom, and we prevailed. And because we prevailed the world is a far better place than it was or would otherwise have been. The world today has a strong democratic core shaped by American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit. But on the periphery are many unstable and dangerous places, where terrorists seek to impose a medieval dark age.

As we learned so brutally and so personally, we do face a new threat. But we also face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time. A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom. The debate over how the United States should conduct itself in the world is not new. After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals.

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security. I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world. Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world. We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world...."

MORE:
http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000140.html#more

[cindyw]

9. Funny you chose to only quote Kerry on the international support

He also said the following in October on the Senate floor:

"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.  And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.  As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."  It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections.  In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -  to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

 If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out.   If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community.

The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.   Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options.  But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

[blm]

10. And for that, he gets labeled a "warmonger" by the lazyminded.

How unfortunate.

[helleborient]

25. And you call people names who actually do make up their own mind...

How unfortunate!

[blm]

31. If they made up their mind Kerry is a warmonger they deserve it.

Because it is proof positive they have no concept of Kerry's entire record on military issues and his nuanced stance in regard to Iraq.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Funny that you ignore the content of the quote you provided

"Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community.

The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

by the way, could you please provide a link to this so we can read the whole thing? thank you

It would also be helpful to have the statements Dean was making at the same time to see what he was saying... since the point of the thread is to compare their positions...

[cindyw]

17. Thank you for highlighting the important parts

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

These are from October 9, 2003

Also try this on November 5, 2002

"And it is time to demand a different, better foreign policy - one that enlists our allies instead of alienating them - that relies on the strength of our ideals as well as our arms - a foreign policy that honors vigorous and honest debate instead of discrediting it. I am prepared to go to war if we must - I have gone to war before - but America should never go to war because it wants to - it should go to war only because we have to. And without an imminent threat, I will fight this President trying to do so unilaterally, pre-emptively, and precipitously!

Yes, we must strive to disarm weapons of mass destruction; but we must also seek to end the threat of mass starvation and disease, to stay the course of democracy and human rights, to be tough on terrorism, and equally tough on the causes of terrorism and instability. We must do this not just because it is right but because it's essential to our national security."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1105.html

[helleborient]

23. A few Iraq related questions for Kerry...

That have never been answered to my satisfaction....

Why, if John Kerry was truly opposed to war in Iraq and not simply being politically expedient....why did he and every other presidential candidate in congress (with the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich) vote with Bush?

Why did they not vote with Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and many others against it?

Why did they oppose these key leaders in the party...that includes the minority leader in the House of Representatives and the leader of the liberal caucus? Mr. Kerry, tell me why Dick Durbin's vote was wrong.

And why assume Howard Dean would not have voted with these leaders?

[sandnsea]

27. Anti-war vs. defense

Some Democrats are just flat out anti-war under almost every circumstance. Others see a military role on occasion, like Liberia. Like dealing with opressive regimes. Like Kosovo.

To say the anti-war candidates and other people in Congress weren't being politically expedient is also as much a distortion as saying the others were. If their constituents were anti-war and expected them to be, then that's how they had to vote.

If we'd found a series of WMD facilities in Iraq, the anti-war candidates would be looking like idiots. And, no, they did not KNOW there was nothing in Iraq. There was not sufficient evidence one way or the other.

[helleborient]

28. Durbin and Levin aren't exactly "anti-war" politicians...

In opposition to involvement in Liberia and Kosovo.

And...in case you didn't know, Massachusetts is significantly more liberal in opinion and thought of the general populace than Michigan or Illinois.

They were very specifically anti-Bush in this case, and they did not trust Bush. Also...they had been elected with strong majorities in the most recent elections. I trust they were going with their personal conviction...and, looking at a presidential race, I do believe Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards were being expedient.

I do think Carl Levin and Dick Durbin do know what a truly liberal approach is to a neo-con in government...I'm not sure about John Kerry or the other expedient candidates.

[helleborient]

29. Durbin on Kosovo...

From April, 1999

Returning from the congressional leadership delegation trip to the Balkans, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) today said our commitment to end Slobodan Milosevic's atrocities in Kosovo is a "defining moment for American leadership in the world and NATO's future in the 21st century."


http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/PressReleases/990419.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. "Dean on Kosovo..."

From June 25, 2003

"I supported the president's invasion in Kosovo and Bosnia"
http://oregonfordean.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23


So, both Durbin and Dean supported Kosovo. So what? What does that have to do with the differences (if any) between Dean and Kerry's positions on Iraq?

[helleborient]

36. I was responding to the comment...

That some Democrats are "flat out antiwar" and assumed that was referring to Kennedy, Durbin, Levin and Pelosi.

I disagree that Durbin is "flat out antiwar" or that Dean is for that matter. But I'm concerned, as I have been for some time that Kerry broke with a significant group of leading liberals in congress to vote with Bush on Iraq.

Why did he think the liberals were wrong and Bush deserved support?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Maybe you should skip the assumptions and stick to the facts.

[helleborient]

51. The fact is that John Kerry broke with liberals in congress...

To support President Bush on the Iraq vote. Other liberals, not an "antiwar crowd" but a group who did not believe the president, disagreed with Kerry. Why did Kerry think they were wrong?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. I gotta tell you

I totally disagree with Kerry's vote and I believe it was a mistake. Since Dean is not a member of Congress, it is purely hypothetical to speculate what he would have done if he were. Looking at both Kerry and Dean's positions on Iraq though, there's really not much daylight between them.

[Fabio]

32. Answers are forthcoming.

But first, explain to me why voting for the IWR was 'politically expedient' for John Kerry?

[helleborient]

35. It seemed to me...

That the presidential candidates (outside of Dennis Kucinich) were following poll numbers. Kerry voted against the first Iraq War when he was in a safe seat, but as presidential candidate Kerry, voted with Bush.

[Fabio]

47. My response would be this:

John Kerry was up for re-election in November of this year -- the IWR was voted on in October. He faced no republican opponent this year -- only a green party candidate who was anti-war. Knowing this, and that he was most likely going to run for President in 2004 (and have to fight thru a primary dominated by liberal/presumably anti-war voters) this does not seem like the politically expedient route.

The way I see it, at worst, is that the "pro-war" the Democrats in Congress fought hard to get the language of the resolution changed, and in doing so, had to compromise on a non-binding vote. That all the Congressional dems (save DK) running for President voted in the affirmative should be know surprise -- strength in defense and foreign policy has been a perceived weakness of the party for some time.

[Fabio]

48. Response to your initial question

JK was never "truly opposed to war" as you ascert/ask in your initial question. That would be a pacificist's stance.
Rather, since 1998 under Bill Clinton, JK had strongly advocated holding Saddam Hussein accountable for the gross violation of his obligation under various UN resolution. The IWR, from an internationalist like JK's perspective, was meant to give teeth to the new United Nations' resolution demanding inspection with a threat of force. If inspections were found to yield WMD and no political solution could be brokered OR if Hussein refused to have inspectors into the country -- then JK would have sought to hold SH accountable using force. The whole premise is that holding SH accountable in the court of world opinion -- exhausting rememdies, letting inspections play their course, doing every last bit of diplomacy -- would have changed the tone of any potential conflict both inside and outside Iraq.

Outside -- the transparency of the process and legitimacy by working thru the UN would have behoved Nation's to move forward or risk delegitimizing the UN Body.

Internal -- the use of a multinational force, supported by the UN, would have decreased the sense of occupation that now burdens our troops and has become a rallying cry for terrorists in the region.

In the end -- JK was against pre-emptive war. The only war he advocated was a war that sought to enforce UN resolutions -- he's an internationalists who believes in world bodies. Doing anything else would be hippocritical.

In that light, I can be said that those in Congress who voted against the IWR dont value the role of the United Nations, because they would not seek to have them enforce their own rules.

[helleborient]

52. Thank you thank you thank you

An answer I can read and understand that supports me for myself...but also leaves it fine for others to support John Kerry.

I believe that impending war is one of those issues that most calls upon a political figure to stand up to their personal values...and to seriously question all of the information they receive. I understood this as the stance of Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi and others...they seriously questioned the veracity of the Bush administration, but it seems John Kerry thought otherwise.

I would like to see John Kerry, and most of the other Democratic candidates, stand up for Israel following U.N. resolutions as much as they insist Iraq was to follow them...but that's another topic. Just don't pull out the "not supporting the U.N." garbage...if John Kerry fully supported the U.N., he would be calling on Israel to pull out of the West Bank settlements. Hiding behind the U.N. was convenient for many politicians who supported the Iraq War, but a bit duplicitous.

I hoped that our congressional presidential candidates (aside from DK) would make a strong statement that they did not believe Bush...when some others were raising that as an issue, but they didn't. I respect Kerry for his behind the scenes negotiating, but I do not trust him to stand up to public opinion and make tough decisions or stand up to the Israeli government in the Middle East when it's needed.

It's not completely a question of representation of your constituents...at the point of the Iraq vote the state of Illinois would have supported the president, but Dick Durbin made a stand otherwise...when he was up for re-election.

I am giving Howard Dean the benefit of the doubt for now...because he has taken unpopular stances at times in Vermont that he felt were right, and got re-elected. He took a stance that was deemed unpopular on Iraq, hammered it home as an issue of conscience, and he is a frontrunner for the nomination. I highly respect that.

I also highly respect Dennis Kucinich's stance on Iraq and for peace.

[Fabio]

57. About the "not supporting the UN"

That was definately an afterthought to my point--not meant to offend. When JK voted for the resolution, my heart dropped. But I read his floor speech, did a little due diligence on what had happened within Congress with the various amendments to IWR (Biden-Lugar, etc), and understood that he had advocated holding SH accountable as early as 1997.

BTW, I think we can be rest assured that none of the Senators who voted NO were trying to not support the UN -- they, like you, most likely thought the IWR was too broad, the intelligence too skimpy, and the Bush Administration to aggressive.

I guess my point was more that, from what I know, JK generally sees things in the very long term -- and in his mind, not enforcing a UN resolution for over 6 years was degrading the body's viability. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration ultimately did that in a much more direct and arrogant manner.

At the end of the day, I am confident that had any of the dem candidates been president - we either wouldn't be in Iraq (yet, at the very least, and certainly not part of some faux coalition).

[helleborient]

58. I completely agree with that

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. See, there are some things we can all agree on

[DrFunkenstein]

44. One More Time For The Memory Hole

Although clearly anguished by the vote, Kerry felt it was his Congressional duty to remain consistent with his views about Saddam's disarmament going back to 1997.

--

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.”

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

--

Kerry's position did not change one bit.

Compare Clinton's 1998 quote:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/12/17/loc_clintons_statement.html

[helleborient]

53. A centrist foreign policy...like Clinton...

And yet Kerry supporters do attack Dean and others for being faux liberals....and champion Kerry as the hero of the liberal wing. I don't buy it.

[Fabio]

55. Liberal Hawk

is the word that I have used to describe Kerry - Liberal and progressive on domestic issues, firm, but an internationalist first, on the foreign front.

IMHO, its a good place to be for our upcoming general election.

[helleborient]

59. I agree with the assessment of Kerry,

but I disagree with it being a good place to be for the upcoming election.

[DrFunkenstein]

60. It Is Right In Line With The Majority of Americans

Most Americans, even in the face of no WMDs and a quagmire, still believe that Saddam needed to be held accountable - they just wanted it done right. And most Americans overwhelming prefer that we are leaders of international goodwill and cooperation, not cowboys.

Joe Klein described Kerry's foreign policy as "muscular internationalism: active, detailed engagement with the countires in the Middle East and elsewhere; less pompous rhetoric and more of the patient scut work - the diplomatic consulatation, the building of direct relationships with local intelligence and police agencies - that will make an occasional use of force by America more palatable."

That sounds downright agreeable to me. Couple that then with his 10 years on the terrorism Subcommittee, his almost 20 years on the Foreign Relations committee, the book on international crime and terrorism, AND the national priority he will give to energy independence - you have yourself an incredible candidate.

[helleborient]

68. And we have an incredible candidate too!!

Onward....

[Fabio]

65. I hear you, but think it is a good place to be...

for the general election, but a tough one in the primaries. The fun thing is we dont get decide.

[HPLeft]

81. Once again...

Kerry simply did not trust Saddam Hussein. That should be obvious to anyone paying attention. He has been consistent in this regard since the day that the inspectors left Iraq in 1998. If Dean did trust the intentions of Saddam Hussein, then tell him that I have a bridge to sell him in downtown Brooklyn. He might have heard of it.

Kerry did not want to see a scenario where Bush went to the UN without the leverage of Congressional approval, was turned away with regard to getting the inspectors back in, and was instead left no options accept attacking unilaterally or walking away. In fact, the only sensible option was to get the inspectors back in - since, left to his own devices, Hussein would have eventually re-armed if he thought that the UN has lost interest in him. As Dubya said in October 2002, a yes vote did not mean that war is inevitable, but instead that "America spoke with one voice". Kerry and Hillary and Biden and Schumer gave Dubya the best poker hand they could, even if they would have preferred the Biden-Luger approach. Dubya chose not to play geopolitical poker at all, but make believe that he was a war President.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Back to the topic at hand, who was right in their early 2003 speeches?

Gee, they couldn't both be right, could they? It's not possible that Kerry and Dean actually agree on Iraq, is it?

So who was right?

Dean, when he said:

"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Or Kerry, when he said:

"we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[helleborient]

39. Both speeches are right...and rather agreeable, but....

There is an action to go with Kerry's statements.

Not one with Dean's.

I think it's important to look at BOTH speeches and actions...particularly since some of the anti-Dean crowd warn us that Dean may not do what he says he will...they don't trust him.

The Iraq vote, against what Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Pelosi, and others chose to do...raises the question of trust for me.

I understand for others it doesn't, but to me the action on the vote is a big big question mark on Kerry's willingness to stand up and DO the right thing in the face of a popular Republican.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. So you agree with Dean's support of unilateral, preemptive war?

[cindyw]

45. Dean had no vote. So your comparison is unfair.

Dean did not have to make a vote. Kerry explained why he was voting for the resolution.

""Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options.  But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."
John Kerry. Floor of Senate before Iraq resolution vote.

Everyone has different reasons for votes. Graham voted against because it didn't include Hamas and Hezbollah. This vote was a campaign set up from the beginning by the Repubs.

The point is, why did Dean make statements that seemed to support the war.

No politician made anti-war comments during the war.

[helleborient]

50. They support the war if Bush is right...

Dean believed that Bush is wrong...if I believed that everything Bush said was right, I might have supported it, too.

Are you telling us John Kerry believes everything Bush tells him? Apparently lots of other Democrats, particularly from the liberal side, knew better than that.

[DrFunkenstein]

61. It Was Not A Question of Imminence

Kerry said very explicitly that he did not believe the threat was imminent, but that he felt it was his responsibility to authorize the use of force as a firm demand that Saddam comply with the peace accords he himself had signed.

Perhaps you are fooled by the "misled" quote a few months back. Let me clear up two things: 1)Kerry was referring to specific claims Bush made after the resolution vote, and 2)Dean said the same exact thing. In fact, Dean went further to actually say that he "tends to believe the President."

[Mass_Liberal]

46. they are both right

the problem is that Kerry knew what would happen but still gave bush his vote. I don't understand why he did this because he clearly had good foresight into what was going to happen next.


Peace. :kick:

[Fabio]

49. Why did he know Bush would pull the trigger w/o a coalition?

a)The father did an excellent job of building an international coalition -- and was advised by many of the same people (Powell, Cheney, etc)

b)The Congress was told by the President and Powell that war was "avoidable" and a matter of last resort

World unity was pretty high in OCt 2002. It was the subsequent rush to war after the IWR that drew the ire of other nations.

[helleborient]

Why did he disagree with other liberal Democrats?

Carl Levin went on a number of the talkshows poking holes in the Bush administration's information and tactics...John Kerry apparently felt it better to cast his lot with the Bush coalition instead of the liberal wing in congress. That disturbs me...as much or more than any comments Dean makes about old-guard Democrats.

[helleborient]

54. Why did he disagree with other liberal Democrats?

Carl Levin went on a number of the talkshows poking holes in the Bush administration's information and tactics...John Kerry apparently felt it better to cast his lot with the Bush coalition instead of the liberal wing in congress. That disturbs me...as much or more than any comments Dean makes about old-guard Democrats.

[DrFunkenstein]

63. Why Do You Insist There is Only PRO-War and ANTI-War?

First of all, Dean can hardly be considered anti-war. Anti-resolution, perhaps. And Kerry can hardly be considered somehow pro-war.

Perhaps it could be described better as pro-Bush and anti-Bush.

Kerry was forced to make a no-win decision. He chose to vote consistently with his own record, despite him political misgivings about Bush.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that Levin came out about Bush's "information and tactics" as if Kerry had not. Are you suggesting that Kerry was silent during this whole procedure?

[helleborient]

69. I'm suggesting Kerry opposed the bulk of liberal Senators...

If Kerry's opposition to the liberal leadership is not a problem...then why all the carps when Dean complains about entrenched Democrats?

I insist that Kerry and his supporters be honest about his vote and recognize it is a liability in his campaign for the Democratic nomination and realize that he did not look like a liberal senator on this vote...he looked like he was being expedient and not wanting to face down the popular president the year before he was running for re-election.

He voted against the first Gulf War because he didn't believe the coalition was strong enough...he voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution knowing Bush would use it to go to war, and there was no coalition. Where's the consistency?

If he was more worried about some consistency (maybe not having to look at frozen waffles?) than joining in a strong bloc with other liberal Democrats to oppose President Bush, I don't see that as heroic or principled...I see that as running a campaign instead of governing with principle.

Those who govern can and do change their minds with integrity. Maybe Kerry and his supporters should realize that...my moral and political principles are not exactly the same today as they were 10 years ago. I read, gain experience, and evolve over time. I appreciate seeing that in a candidate like Howard Dean.

[deutsey]

56. Dean

The case was not made for invading Iraq. If we were to invade, the only way that would have been palatable to me would have been under the auspices of a UN coalition.

Kerry's optimistic "we will win" certainly doesn't seem to be holding up under the growing chaos of "the peace". And Bush has alienated us from our traditional allies, despite Kerry's well-intentioned plea.

[DrFunkenstein]

62. That Simply Is Not True About Dean OR Kerry

This was stated earlier in this thread:

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp

As for the suggestion of Kerry's naivete, Kerry said over and over and over that the winning the war would not be the problem, winning the peace would be. He said that in his Senate floor speech, and again in January at his Foreign Policy address:

"The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances."

Kerry goes on at length about the economic means of creating and stabilizing a middle class in the Arab world as a means of "draining the swamps" of terrorism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. What about while the troops were rolling to Baghdad?

The initial post was about long before the war.

What about while the troops were rolling to Baghdad?

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, whose candidacy has attracted a lot of attention because of his staunch anti-war position, said Wednesday he will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.

"It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field," the former Vermont governor said during a two-day campaign swing through South Carolina to raise money and meet with potential supporters and party activists.

"We all have got to support the troops. They didn't send themselves over there, and they're doing their jobs for the country."

But in an interview with The State newspaper, Dean stressed he's not changing his position on the Iraqi war, which he still thinks will get the United States into serious trouble.

<snip>

The 54-year-old physician has criticized his rivals for the nomination, saying everyone is afraid of taking Democratic positions.

"A timid messenger is a losing messenger," he said.
Dean to ease up on Bush

Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

"This is a democracy," Kerry said. "We could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?"

Kerry voted last fall for a congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm Iraq, but he has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts to assemble a coalition of allies. Last week, Kerry's regime change comment drew fire from top congressional Republicans who said the remarks were highly inappropriate with U.S. troops fighting overseas.

Since then, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has defended himself, arguing that unlike his Republican critics, he fought for his right to speak freely. At an elementary school in Iowa, he reminded his listeners of that past conflict and the political dynamic.

"We had an election in the middle of the Vietnam War," Kerry said. "It was the center of that election."

The lawmaker argued that the disparate views of Democrats should be central to the 2004 election, including where the candidates' stand on how the war is being conducted.

"Let's not have a lot of phony arguments here about what we can and can't talk about," Kerry said. "We need to talk in America about the things that make us strong as a country."
Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

So who was right?

[helleborient]

70. I think Kerry saw how the Iraq vote was hurting his campaign...

And realized the previous vote didn't help. He evolved...good for him!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. I guess that means you are saying Kerry was right.

Kerry: ""This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush


After all Kerry was learning about speaking out during wartime while Dean was learning about skiing bumps.

[serryjw]

73. To answer your question........Kucinich!

This is all rhetoric.....What is the difference between what Blix was doing with his UN inspections and what we are doing NOW....after losing thousands of lives and billions of dollars?......and just like Blix we have NOT found any WMD!

[JohnKleeb]

75. amen to that

Yet many wont give him a chance. Hell it was he who led the charge against this war.

[HPLeft]

80. Kucinich has been consistent

...and true to his values.

[gully]

77. They both have a point, but I prefer Dean's blunt english...

to Kerry's lofty platitudes.

[Mass_Liberal]

79. They were both right

but for whatever reason, Kerry didn't act on his legitimate instinct and instead gave an untrusthworthy bastard of a president his trust. I had a huge amount of respect for Kerry before he voted for the War. Hell, he has made fairly eloquent speeches on why he opposed the war. I just don't friggin get it. And in the future no Kerry supporter can ever justifiably talk to me about Dean flip-flops period (.)

Peace