What Dean said at the height of support for the Iraq War.

[stickdog]

http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000294.html

Here is a transcript of the interview with Howard Dean by Wolf Blitzer on MSNBC 4/23/03:

BLITZER: Last month he called it the wrong war at wrong time. The former Vermont governor, the current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's policies as far as Iraq is concerned.

With the conflict pretty much over does he feel differently now? Howard Dean is joining us from Burlington, Vermont.

Governor, do you feel differently?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road. The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in. We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society out of a...

BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don't know yet, and until we do...

BLITZER: You think it's possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don't believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we've created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that's going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don't regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

BLITZER: Does it bother you, governor, that most of the country approved of the way the president handled the situation? His job approval rating has gone way up into the 70s from the 50s, and including most Democrats approve of the way he's handling the job.

DEAN: If I changed my position every time there is a new poll, I would be like an awful lot of politicians, that's what's wrong with the Democratic party is willing to change positions every time the polls come out. I'm not going to do that. I chose my position on Iraq, because I think in the long-term future of the United States it would have been better had we used other means to get rid of Saddam's and his arms.

Well, that's not where we are now, the president has chosen to go war. But now we have to deal with a chaotic situation on the ground. I hope that we succeed. I'm very proud of our armed forces, I'm delighted Saddam is gone. We have a long way to go, and I think it's going to be a long time before we can prove this is the right thing to do.



*****************


Please show me Kerry or Clark saying the same thing in 4/03.

Right.

So shut the fuck up with your revisionist history.

[Cha]

1. Ouuuuu! It feels good to read that now! That's my Dean!

Sticking to his guns!

[RetroLounge]

2. It's nice to see the words of a real Democrat

who sticks to his guns and to what he believes.

GO DEAN!

[no name no slogan]

3. How about another blast from the past?

From February 2003:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

He's not anti-Iraq War, he's just against the way BushCo went about doing it.

---

From March 2003:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/politics/5435514.htm

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.

In other words, don't criticize the pResident, even if his bankrupt policy leads to more innocent deaths. Hardly "anti-Iraq War", IMHO. And certainly NOT corageous.

---

Dean <> anti-Iraq War-- at least not consistently.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Kucinich if anyone cares

Kucinich Takes to The House Floor To Call For An End to The War

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the War in Iraq within the House, issued the following statement on the House floor:

"Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in.

"Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war.

"Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not try to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood.

"Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores.

"Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans ' benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs.

"Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.

"Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.

"Stop this war now".

[Cha]

6. Dean is and was consistently against going in and Bombing

the Shit outta Iraq.

[stickdog]

26. I asked for something comparable from Clark or Kerry.

Obviously you have ZILCH!

Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry or Clark said against the Iraq War after that date.

[jburton]

4. Hot DAMN!!!

I first noticed Dean before he was labeled "The Anti-War Candidate" because of his health care stance. I totally supported him during his stance against the Iraq war, but kept wondering, will "The People" ever realize how he's right on this?

Just reading this makes me realize what strength he has. This was duting the whole Dixie Chicks CD burning and other hysteria. You can just tell from this how Wolf was declaring Dean toast.

[Cha]

7. Yeah! ol wolf warmongering blood on his hands wolfie.

[JohnKleeb]

8. more DK

Kucinich on the House Floor: "A War Based on Pretext"

During consideration of a Defense Authorization bill, Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- leader of anti-war opposition on Capitol Hill -- took to the House floor to again challenge the Bush Administration's deceptions on Iraq:

"This Administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq was an imminent threat, which it was not. The Secretary of State presented pictures to the world he said were proof. Today, despite having total control in Iraq, none of the very serious claims that the Administration made to this Congress, to this nation, and to the world have been substantiated.

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, what was the basis for the war? We spend $400 billion for defense. Will we spend a minute to defend truth? The American people gave up their health care, education and veterans benefits to pay for this war. And for what? Answer the questions, Mr. President."

Kucinich on the Cost of War

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition in the House to the war in Iraq, issued the following statement on the cost of war:

"The bill for this unprovoked attack is just starting to come in, and the American people should start worrying that Administration has lost control over the costs.""In fiscal terms, the costs for this unprovoked, and therefore preventable, war could have covered giving every American child safe, enriching pre-kindergarten classes or every American senior citizen prescription drug coverage for one year. "

"It is shameful and irresponsible that the Administration released this information only after Congress considered and approved its fiscal budget for 2004. The budget, passed by Congress after war had begun, included a $700 billion tax give away to the wealthy, but not the cost of war. "

"The Administration's priorities are out of step with what America needs, and this war will cause America more problems than it could ever solve: it will fan anti-American flames overseas, divert attention from unmet domestic needs, such as stimulating the weak economy, and plunge the U.S. government deeper into debt that today's children will be paying when they are adults."

"Americans are beginning to learn the cost of war in terms of human life. It is time to reflect on what this war will cost America in terms of the brave men and women who serve, in terms of the loss of innocent life, the sacrifice of the domestic agenda and the ruination of America’s standing in the world."
back to list 03/20/2003
Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
H. Con. Res. 95 “The Support The Troops” Resolution

"I support the brave young men and women who are following orders that have placed them in harm's way. I hope and pray for their safe return. My thoughts and prayers are with them, their families and loved ones in this difficult time. While I will always support the troops, I can not support this mission. Last night, the President ordered an unprovoked aggressive attack against Iraq in violation of American traditions of defensive war. This war is wrong. As a nation we must come together to support the troops but, continue to challenge the policy that has put them at grave risk."
back to list 03/19/2003
Congressman Kucinich issued the following statement upon the American attack against Iraq:
"This is a sad day for America, the world community, and the people of Iraq. Tonight, I hope and pray for the safe return of our troops and the end to this unjustified war."
"President Bush has launched an unprovoked attack against another country. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States or any of its neighboring nations. Iraq was not responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Tonight, President Bush has commanded U.S. forces to go to war in violation of American traditions of defensive war that have lasted since George Washington. This war is wrong; it violates the Constitution and international law."
Kucinich!

[AWD]

9. This thread is....

....eerily EMPTY of the usual Kerry disruptions. I wonder why they're avoiding it???

Hmmmmmm????????

[Pez]

13. i raise you... kerry: 03.18.03

kerry: 03.18.03

Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq

<snip>

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world....

<snap>

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush.

[stickdog]

27. BEFORE THE WAR BEGAN.

Sorry, but that's cheating.

Let's see something from April.

Put up or shut up.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

45. Why don't you tell us why

Clark was cheering the war and Kerry was trying to be both for it and against it after 4/9/03, the date Saddam's statue came down?

[Pez]

50. ?

could you show me kerry being for and against it?

here's an example of for and against so you have some reference...

[stickdog]

54. I can't show you an example of Kerry saying anything about Iraq

in April after 4/9 -- because the man was in hiding.

[Pez]

55. weak

[Demobrat]

10. I remember when he said this

and how much it meant at the time. It was how I knew I wasn't going nuts.

[stickdog]

28. IT MEANT EVERYTHING!!!

And the revisionist Clark & Kerry supporters who dismiss it care more about their candidates than they care about American troops, innocent Iraqis or the truth.

Because the truth is that -- at the exact time the Dean was standing up for what was right -- Clark was CHEERING THE WAR IN THE LONDON PAPER and Kerry was hiding, hemming and hawing because they both had their fingers in the wind.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

11. Love that man!

This was one reason I started backing him before the summer. He made it safe to criticize the war and the WH without as much fear of being called a traitor and anti-American.

Go Dean!

[DrFunkenstein]

15. Dean DID NOT attend ANY anti-war protests

He really made me feel safe to go out and hit the streets - it's good to know there are people putting their money where their mouth is.

I'm talking about Kucinich, of course. Dean was playing possum - just in case, you know, it looked bad later on.

[stickdog]

29. Weak.

Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry said against the Iraq War after that date.

[Pez]

42. why are you so obsessed with statue FIRSTIES

?

[stickdog]

46. Because Kerry took a dive when the going got rough.

Just like he always does.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism - April 7, 2003

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."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

[stickdog]

30. Where does Kerry say the war was a mistake?

Where does he say that he is against the war?

He doesn't.

He's standing up for the right to dissent.

Saddam's statue came doem on 4/9/03. Show us the next time Kerry hammered Bush about the Iraq War after that date.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[stickdog]

32. And? He's for the war but upset with the lack of diplomacy.

Trying to have it both ways, as usual.

And where is he when Saddam's statue is coming down.

Hiding, hemming and hawing, that's where.

Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry said against the Iraq War after that date.

[JohnKleeb]

16. No one cares about what Kucinich was saying huh

Well I am off to bed. Remember this war wasnt only legally wrong it was morally wrong think about that too, think about the stories of those who fell, they still fall, they still, and it saddens me. This war was so wrong.

"Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country.

"Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral.

"Stop this war now".

Dennis John Kucinich, US house of representives, April 1, 2003 on the Iraq War.
Dennis thank you so much for all you have done, it was a pleasure to meet you, and remember peace and justice shall prevail in the end. Good night guys, I am off to the world of our dreams in my dreams. Sorry for being poetic like I just felt like it.
One last thing may the souls lost in this war and others rest in peace.

[DannyRed]

24. I certainly do.

Kucinich said the right thing from the get go.

He was brave and committed, and showed even more spark on the issue than my candidate, Dean.

I support Dean for more reasons than his Iraq stance...if the Iraq stance were the ONLY thing, then I would support Kucinich...

Kudos for Kucinich, and bravo!

[Pez]

51. the difinitive anti-war thread...

...should be pro-kucinich, really.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Pez]

19. yeah

i think this shouldn't be an issue. but if it isn't, what will dean try to hold over kerry?

also, almost 2/3rds of the general population (you know, the majority of the country that doesn't hang around on political sites bickering about candidates over 6 months before the first primary) don't care or have no opinion about the iwr. it happened, they deal with it... they're not interested in who's claiming "firsties". i think kerry's plan for the reconstruction, international relations and how to deal with terrorism in specific (with hart on board, how can you go wrong) is impressive. that's what people care about... the f-u-t-u-r-e...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. ouais

you know, the majority of the country that doesn't hang around on political sites bickering about candidates over 6 months before the first primary

ouch lol. But really Iowa is more like 3 months away.

[Pez]

44. reheheh

but this has been going on for a long time... no?

[stickdog]

36. Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry said against the Iraq War after that date.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. And what did Dean have to say? "suppose that's a good thing."

That's the grand stirring statement that Dean made.

[stickdog]

65. Here's what Dean had to say.

BLITZER: Last month he called it the wrong war at wrong time. The former Vermont governor, the current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's policies as far as Iraq is concerned.

With the conflict pretty much over does he feel differently now? Howard Dean is joining us from Burlington, Vermont.

Governor, do you feel differently?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road. The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in. We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society out of a...

BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don't know yet, and until we do...

BLITZER: You think it's possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don't believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we've created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that's going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don't regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

BLITZER: Does it bother you, governor, that most of the country approved of the way the president handled the situation? His job approval rating has gone way up into the 70s from the 50s, and including most Democrats approve of the way he's handling the job.

DEAN: If I changed my position every time there is a new poll, I would be like an awful lot of politicians, that's what's wrong with the Democratic party is willing to change positions every time the polls come out. I'm not going to do that. I chose my position on Iraq, because I think in the long-term future of the United States it would have been better had we used other means to get rid of Saddam's and his arms.

Well, that's not where we are now, the president has chosen to go war. But now we have to deal with a chaotic situation on the ground. I hope that we succeed. I'm very proud of our armed forces, I'm delighted Saddam is gone. We have a long way to go, and I think it's going to be a long time before we can prove this is the right thing to do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. Yeah, 14 days later. First, he said

he suppose(d) that s a good thing." -- hardly a courageous comment, but nothing I'd fault him for -- it was a non-event and that's pretty much how all the candidate's treated it. Kerry used it as an opportunity to praise the troops. He'd already lashed out at Bush a few days before.

[stickdog]

73. Kerry used it as an opportunity to waffle and then disappear for awhile.

You can't rewrite history.

We just lived through it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. Waffle?

This is what the master waffler was doing at the time:

turning up the volume on his passionate antiwar rhetoric in relatively liberal Iowa and then muting his war criticism in the more conservative key primary state of South Carolina.

Dean visited the southern state early last week, and Lee Bandy, political columnist for The State newspaper of Columbia reported that Dean would "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," Bandy quoted Dean as saying. "We all have got to support the troops. They didn't send themselves over there, and they're doing their jobs for the country."

In Des Moines, Iowa on Monday, Dean told reporters he would not criticize President Bush "in a partisan way" while the war continues in Iraq, but won't abandon his firm opposition to the war. "I'm certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don't see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp

Ok, that's what Dean was saying as the troops rolled toward Baghdad.

What was Kerry saying?

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

How do you like them waffles? Next!

[DannyRed]

25. cindyw,

Everything you state is correct, up until the point where we get to the actual vote...

When I read Robert Byrd's speech and warning, and his plea for his fellow senators to vote against the IWR, and his attempt to fillibuster the vote...

I thought...WOW! surely Kerry, DiFi, Daschle and the rest of the Liberals will now vote NO on the IWR...right?

Kennedy voted no. Leahy voted no. Even GOP Chafee voted no.

Why did Kerry vote Yes? Harkin? Feinstein?

They were WRONG.

And for that, they deserve criticism. And we deserve an explanation.

Dean has nuanced a few points, and hedged a few bets, and he should certainly be called to clarify those...but in the main, and in public (on TV, in op-eds, and in interviews) he opposed the Iraq War, and is on record as completely opposing the Bush Doctrine.

If that makes you feel badly about your candidate, that's not my problem, it's yours.

It SHOULDN'T make you feel badly about your candidate, it should make you ask your candidate for a decent explanation...one issue does not a candidate make.

[stickdog]

33. Where was Kerry when Saddam's statue was coming down?

When did Kerry say he was against the war?

Let's see it.

Kerry still hasn't admitted that he made a mistake when he voted for the war resolution.

Saddam's statue came down on 4/9/03.

Let's see the next thing Kerry said against the Iraq War after that date.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Kerry didn't wait for the statue to come down. 4-3-03

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

That's before Bush's ridiculous staged statue stunt that seems to have impressed you so much.

[stickdog]

53. Kerry HID once the statue came down and Bush's approval

skyrocketed.

[Pez]

57. in the same vein: who is whiter, dean or kerry?

back it up with links. i want PROOF.


oh yeah AFTER THE STATUE FELL m'kay.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Yep, that's about the level of this

:nopity:

[stickdog]

64. It's at the level of this: Kerry compromised and played it safe

while all of Kerry supporters tried to argue that no candidate who was against the war would have a chance against Bush.

Meanwhile -- while freepers everywhere were gloating like they'd just won the lottery and every news station was trying to outFox Fox -- only Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton were standing up for what was obviously right.

[stickdog]

62. Look at this chart.

Note how Dean spoke out against the war when Bush's 2003 approval was peaking.

Meanwhile, Kerry was HIDING until Dean proved it was safe to come out again.

And Clark was CHEERING the war!

[Pez]

66. oooh-- sprinkles :d

but you are yet to show compelling evidence one way or the other proving the inherent superior whiteness of either dean or kerry.

[stickdog]

68. But I have proven that, politically speaking, Kerry was much

yellower.

[Pez]

74. you're dodging my original question

who is ~whiter~?

and i want links man... LINKS.

[caledesi]

18. I watched that interview with Wolfie...

and I remember being so pissed at Wolfie for "trying" to make Dean look foolish and out of touch. Dean was very cool that day...said exactly what he thinks and he was right.

[sandnsea]

20. Why would they, this is stupid

He doesn't know if the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam. This is just one more reason I don't support Dean. I don't understand why you people can't see that America is NOT going to vote for a President who says stuff like this. Are there a bunch of liberals in hiding I'm not aware of?

As far as the rest of it, the how to govern after the war part, every candidate has been saying that since day one.

And he says it would have been better to use other means to get rid of Saddam and his arms. I have yet to see him state a solution to this that would allow sanctions and the no-fly zones to be lifted. He says he believes Saddam has arms and also says we should get rid of Saddam, but has no solutions. Well, unless you count that 60 day warning then unilateral invasion thing Deanie's don't like to admit to.

[stickdog]

34. Now the real Kerry/Clark mentality comes out.

Dean was saying the AMERICANS might not be better off without Saddam.

And guess what?

He was 100% right.

Meanwhile, Clark was cheering and Kerry was hiding, hemming and hawing.

[sandnsea]

43. What?

"But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf."

Watching you guys spin this is going to be a hoot.

[w4rma]

21. 'Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong' by Howard Dean - 04/17/03

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

[DannyRed]

23. Indeed.

Seems like some people are bitter and nasty, and cannot seem to see their way clear to criticizing with valid arguments rather than spewing filth, calling names, and lying.

Kerry is a good man, and a good candidate, who (in my opinion) made the wrong vote.

It is not a fatal error on his part, but he needs to work through his clarifications.

Dean is a good man and a good candidate, who said the right things at a time when it was extremely difficult to say those things, in an environment that was incredibly hostile, when the airwaves were totally flooded with patriotic war fever, administration lies and misinformation, and images of hate.

I support Dean. If Kerry is nominated, I will vote for him.

But Several Notable Kerry Supporters need to get it through their heads that shouting "Shut the Fuck UP" and continually sliming the boards with oft-refuted parsings and dredgings, spins, unsubstantiated gossip, and outright lies does nothing for them, or their favored candidate...

Nor does it do anything to detract from Dean...it makes him more palatable to many.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Senate Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq -- October 09, 2002

Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism - they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy - they best protect our troops and our national security.

Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the Administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the Administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq - seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms - and there are many in this body and beyond - can take heart in the fact that they have had an impact on the debate over how best to deal with the Iraqi threat and on the administration's attitudes and actions. The Bush Administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The Administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism - today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The Administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The Administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property - last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

<snip>

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 has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. 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.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.

[stickdog]

38. Let's see John Kerry being COURAGEOUS.

Not hemming and hawing and trying to have it both ways.

Kerry -- every sentence comes with a built-in waffle!

[sandnsea]

47. Hemming and hawing, like this?

"On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

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."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said."

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

[stickdog]

56. Dean consistently tied his support for war to the case for war.

When Bush was at his height of popularity (after Saddam's statue came down), Dean was still speaking against the war.

Meanwhile, Kerry was hiding.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. "we need a regime change in the United States"

How equivocal.

[stickdog]

58. So Kerry wanted a Democrat in the White House.

How courageous!

Let's see you quote him saying something against the war in the days and weeks after Saddam's statue came down when Bush's popularity was at the highest point of his term since the days after 9/11.

Kerry was HIDING because Kerry had his finger in the wind.

AS USUAL.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Why are you so obsessed with Bush's media stunt?

[stickdog]

63. Because Dean stood up to it while Kerry went into hiding. (NT)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Dean said: "I suppose that's a good thing"

What a stirring, inspiring statement.


You start this off with what you called "What Dean said at the height of support for the Iraq War." April 23, and challenge us: "
Please show me Kerry or Clark saying the same thing in 4/03. Right. So shut the fuck up with your revisionist history."

So we respond with Kerry's statements BEFORE THE WAR on March 18 and DURING (as if it's over now -right) on April 3
-- and suddenly it's all about who made the first statement after Bush's stupid statue stunt.

:nopity:

[stickdog]

69. No, this is what Dean said while Kerry hid:

BLITZER: Last month he called it the wrong war at wrong time. The former Vermont governor, the current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's policies as far as Iraq is concerned.

With the conflict pretty much over does he feel differently now? Howard Dean is joining us from Burlington, Vermont.

Governor, do you feel differently?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road. The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in. We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society out of a...

BLITZER: But governor, nobody -- nobody disagrees there are going to be problems. But aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?

DEAN: We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don't know yet, and until we do...

BLITZER: You think it's possible -- excuse me for interrupting that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?

DEAN: I do, I do. We have to think of this from an American perspective not an Iraqi perspective. The reason the president gave for going into Iraq which I disagree with is Iraq was a security threat to the United States. I don't believe Saddam was. But I believe a fundamentalist Islamic regime would be. That we have to guard against, that may be very, very difficult. I think the jury is out in terms of what we've created. The other thing is, you have to remember that this president has now created a new American foreign policy a preemptive doctrine. And I think that's going to cause America some serious trouble down the line, too. I don't regret my opposition to the war, I think in the long term interest of the United States, we have yet to see whether the war is going to be successful or not.

BLITZER: Does it bother you, governor, that most of the country approved of the way the president handled the situation? His job approval rating has gone way up into the 70s from the 50s, and including most Democrats approve of the way he's handling the job.

DEAN: If I changed my position every time there is a new poll, I would be like an awful lot of politicians, that's what's wrong with the Democratic party is willing to change positions every time the polls come out. I'm not going to do that. I chose my position on Iraq, because I think in the long-term future of the United States it would have been better had we used other means to get rid of Saddam's and his arms.

Well, that's not where we are now, the president has chosen to go war. But now we have to deal with a chaotic situation on the ground. I hope that we succeed. I'm very proud of our armed forces, I'm delighted Saddam is gone. We have a long way to go, and I think it's going to be a long time before we can prove this is the right thing to do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Yeah, 14 days later on April 23. On April 9

he said he suppose(d) that s a good thing." -- hardly a courageous comment, but nothing I'd fault him for -- it was a non-event and that's pretty much how all the candidate's treated it. Kerry used it as an opportunity to praise the troops. He'd already lashed out at Bush a few days before.

[stickdog]

72. 14 days later was the HEIGHT of Bush's popularity!

You know, when Kerry was hiding.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. Whoopity doo!

Is that all you can do, keep repeating "Kerry was hiding"?

Kerry wasn't hiding, he was speaking, on April 9 for instance, to a labor group, where he said:

You and I have many things in common. We love our country. We know it needs a new direction. And we believe that our rights as Americans include the right to organize.

But you and I have something else in common too. The Republican leadership has attacked our freedom to speak and even our very patriotism.

Recently Tom Delay tried to make a political issue of my call for new leadership. Well, I refuse to have my patriotism questioned by him or anyone else. I fought for and bled for and earned the right to express my views in this country. If they want to pick a fight, they've picked a fight with the wrong guy.

And they clearly picked the wrong fight when they questioned your patriotism and valor. Three months ago, Tom Delay said organized labor "exploited World War II." And he said that now you're a quote "clear and present danger to the security of the United States at home and the safety of our Armed Forces oversees."

How dare those who have made their careers tearing people down attack those who do the work of building America up.

You are the red, white and blue collar men and women who have made America what it is today.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0409.html

On April 16 Senator Kerry announced his Veterans Prescription Drug Reform Act:

Presidential candidate John Kerry visited the Arizona Democratic Caucus on Tuesday, proposing a plan that could reduce the backlog of veterans waiting to see doctors.

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts, on a two-week, whistle-stop tour while the Senate is in recess, announced his Veterans Prescription Drug Reform Act in front of a roomful of Democratic legislators. The act would allow veterans on the waiting list to use the Veterans Administration pharmacy to fill prescriptions written by a private physician.

"This is an essential way of breaking the backlog, and I think it's an essential way of keeping faith with the people that have served our country," Kerry said.

Currently, the 515,000 Arizona veterans eligible for VA care have only three hospitals, one each in Prescott, Phoenix and Tucson. Many are waiting as long as six months before they receive primary care treatment.

Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, said he is proposing the act because of feedback from frustrated veterans.

"People are telling me the problems they're having. They can't get their prescription, and they can't get into the VA to get a doctor's appointment," Kerry said. "Our job is to make the government work, and that's what I'm doing."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_0416.html

Perhaps these problems aren't important to you, and maybe it's not as glamorous as repeating the same rousing stump speech over and over. I guess if Kerry wasn't giving a speech on Iraq everyday he was hiding :eyes:




On April 22, Senator Kerry gave an Earth Day Address:

We need to strengthen environmental protection, not roll it back. We need to strengthen the Clean Air Act and reduce mercury, sulfur, nitrogen and carbon emissions. We need to clean up more toxic sites and reduce the harmful chemicals being released into our air, water and land. And we need to lead the world in reducing, not creating, the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Our commitment to the environment is a compact with our children, our grandchildren and the generations beyond. To keep clean the water they drink, the air they breathe, the yards and parks in which they play and laugh, and the communities in which they live.

And this commitment isn’t there just for the sons and daughters of privilege or those who live in certain neighborhoods. Our commitment is for all of America’s children and all of our people.

Some environmental challenges – like global warming – require us to act today to prevent terrible harm from occurring in the future. But other challenges require action because of the danger they clearly present right now.

Sometimes it’s not enough to preserve the environment. Sometimes you have to repair it.

<snip>

Dangers from the environment are creating a national environmental health crisis that needs to be addressed. No community – of any income or any race – should have their children endangered. And it is wrong when communities that don’t have the economic or political power carry an unjust burden of pollution.

Environmental activists all across America need an ally in the White House. I know about environmental activists first hand. I’m not only married to one, I was raised by one. My mother started a local recycling program. When I was young, she would wake me up in the early hours of the morning to walk with her in the woods listening to the sound of wild birds. At the time, I wasn’t so happy about being woken up. Now, I understand she was teaching me a lesson about leaving your little piece of this planet better for your children than you found it.

Today, committed activists like you are working to lift the unjust burden of pollution off their neighborhoods’ shoulders. You are speaking out and organizing; meeting and marching; and you’re making a difference in communities that need a voice. I believe its time you had a government that helped you in this cause.

<snip>

Today, I am announcing three new policies that would put environmental justice center stage if I am elected President.

First, I believe we need to create Environmental Empowerment Zones that will help communities help themselves. These zones will be designated areas where the federal government will make sure its resources are backing up the fight for environmental justice and where communities will get help to build a better environment for themselves from the ground up.

Second, we will reinvigorate action on environmental justice at the federal level. I will create a new Assistant Administrator position for Environmental Justice at the EPA and will revive the Office of Environmental Justice. Today, this office is under-staffed, under-funded, and undermined on a daily basis. We will bring it back to life so it can serve as a resource and advocate for community activists all over America.

Third, we need to track asthma and other diseases that are caused by the environment. For example, in Texas, there are hundreds of thousands of children going to school within two miles of a chemical plant. When the alarm bell rings, they know it doesn’t mean a fire drill. It means they need to shut the windows and turn off the air conditioner because of a nearby chemical release. But we have very little idea about what is happening to these children on a daily basis. We need a national tracking system to monitor environmental health hazards.

<snip>

And we need to give people something to vote for, too. So let’s get the word out. And then let’s work just as hard to make sure that environmental justice rolls through the rivers of this country, that it seeps into the soil of our cities, and that it spreads through the air and touches every neighborhood in America. On this Earth Day, let’s have a new commitment to make environmental justice the law of the land.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0422.html

Seems like while Kerry is hiding he's also shouting about environmental justice! Perhaps you dismiss this issue out of hand as unimportant -- perhaps you don't live in a poor minority area that been turned into a hazardous waste zone -- but to the "Nearly one million American children (who) have lead levels in their blood that are high enough to cause irreversible damage to their health" it might actually be something that matters.

[stickdog]

77. Thanks fo proving my point. (NT)

[sandnsea]

31. Do Not Rush To War - 1/30/03

“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.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000172.php

[stickdog]

35. A 1/03 urge of caution doesn't cut it. (NT)

[Egnever]

39. I dont understand why you fight this

kerry was wrong. is it a deal breaker for america? probably not but he was wrong just tyhe same. This says it all.....

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
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.
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.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

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.
SEN. KERRY: That’s precisely the point. That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community. Now, either it was stretched politically in the many visits of Dick Cheney to the CIA and the way in which they created a client relationship, but the information we were given, built on top of the seven and a half years of what we knew he was doing, completely justified the notion that you had to respond to give the president the right to put inspectors in. The president said
when he put them in “War is not inevitable.” Colin Powell said to us, “The only rationale for going to war was weapons of mass destruction,” and it was legitimate to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to get the inspectors in. I’m saying to you that I don’t believe this president did the job of exhausting the remedies available to make us as strong as we should have been in doing that and certainly didn’t do the planning to be able to win the peace in the way that we need to. And I still think we can do it, Tim, but we’ve got to
get about the business of doing it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
SEN. KERRY: I didn’t base it on the nuclear, but the most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t

[Pez]

48. ...

is there more to that interview?

if the inspectors had been allowed to do their jobs without bush jumping the gun (which he would have done earlier had kerry and the dems not included certain additions to the resolution-- u.n., inspectors, allies) perhaps we would not have had to go to war...

bush talked smack about iraq and we had to deal with it. the president of the you.s. can't just make claims like that and then "take it back". i'm sure that didn't warm them to america. bush = idiot.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. He is quoting from

the August 31 Meet the Press interview. Here's another part:

SEN. KERRY: I don’t wish I’d been a naysayer from the start. I did the right thing. My vote was a vote for the security of the United States of America based in the information we were given. Tim, for seven and a half years, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we found them. We destroyed them. We knew they were there. We also knew there were some there that we hadn’t finished destroying, at which point the inspections stopped. For four years you had no inspections. During that time, we are told by our intelligence community and by the president the following things are happening:
he’s reconstituting, he’s building. We were even shown photographs: “Here’s what’s happening in this building, Senator.”
MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?
SEN. KERRY: That’s exactly correct. Now, we may find them in the next months. I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, absolutely correct. And anybody who doesn’t believe it wasn’t correct ought to go dig around in those graves or even make a judgment about what would happen if you left Saddam Hussein alone to do this. Incidentally, Howard Dean supported the Biden-Lugar resolution. Howard Dean said himself, after Colin Powell’s presentation at the U.N., “I believe he has weapons of mass destruction.” So everybody accepted the notion that there were some weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: Biden-Lugar resolution, to the American people, explain that.
SEN. KERRY: There was a resolution which would have required the president of the United States to go through certain diplomatic efforts, come to the U.N., then come back to the Congress and report on what was happening.
MR. RUSSERT: So you’re suggesting Howard Dean was in favor of the war in Iraq.
SEN. KERRY: No, I’m saying that what—he was in favor supposedly of holding Saddam Hussein accountable somehow. He’s never really explained how. He has said there were weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/960385.asp

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. John Kerry -Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown - January 23, 2003

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.

<snip>

Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security.

So how would this approach, this bold progressive internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.

While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

<snip>

it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

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.

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism.

<snip>

destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships. We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot permanently endure. They must reform or they will finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down.
In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to be free.

What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes out of touch with their own people.

We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism. We must help bring modernity to the greater Middle East. We must make significant investments in the education and human infrastructure in developing countries. The globalization of the last decade taught us that simple measures like buying books and family planning can expose, rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that children are no longer brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers and terrorists are deprived the ideological breeding grounds. I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all.

<snip>

The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.
The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

<snip>

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our inaction the worst instincts of an already troubled region.

<snip>

This is a fateful time - a time for new American leadership in the world and new leadership in America that sets before us the great challenges and honestly addresses what we must do to meet them. The effort will not be easy. The task will not be simple and success will not be swift. But it's our challenge to look to the long term - beyond the next election to the next generation - bending the course of history, recognizing that other nations share it with us, and joining with them in resolve and hope, thereby making safer the life of America and making better the life of the world. With a progressive internationalism. shaped by our bedrock values, and quiet confidence in our strength and in our cause, we must once again demonstrate to an anxious world. America's resolve to bear the burdens and pay the price of leadership so that we may, as President Kennedy said on a cold January day long ago, "assure the survival and success of liberty."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[Skinner]

79. I'm locking this thread.

The first post is just plain rude. If you're looking for a discussion, don't start off by saying "shut the fuck up."

Skinner
DU Admin