Dean, Kerry Exchange Insults Over Iraq

[DrFunkenstein]

CONCORD, N.H. - Democrat Howard Dean and John Kerry traded insults Monday over the war in Iraq, with Kerry faulting his presidential rival for a lack of policy and Dean complaining that "we wouldn't be there if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry."

The latest scrap between the two candidates started Saturday, the first anniversary of House passage of the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. To bolster its argument that Kerry had switched sides since voting for the measure, the Dean campaign issued a list of quotes from the Massachusetts senator that it said highlighted his inconsistencies.

Kerry responded Monday, telling Vermont Public Radio that Dean has never laid out a clear plan for how Iraq should be handled.

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy," he said. "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."

In a conference call with reporters Monday, Dean at first said he wouldn't respond to Kerry's criticism, but then did just that.

"I find that quite amusing that Senator Kerry, who's been on every side of this issue, would even have the nerve to say that, but I suppose if you have the nerve to cover your own vote and then try to pretend you didn't vote that way you'd have the nerve to do anything," the former Vermont governor said. "The fact is, we wouldn't be there if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry."

Dean said his policy would have been based on containing Saddam without going to war. Now that the United States has acted, it should follow through by getting the help of foreign troops so U.S. soldiers can return home, he said.

Kerry voted last year to give Bush the authority to use force but has been critical of the president's diplomacy. He has said the Bush administration gave Congress faulty intelligence and agreed to build an international coalition before launching a strike — a pledge the president has broken.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=8&u=/ap/democrats_2004_iraq

Let the games begin.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Why does Dean even bother with that meddlesome gnat?

:shrug:

[DJcairo]

3. Because Dean is going to lose NH to him

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. If Kerry loses NH, he's toast.

Toast, I tell ya!

[DJcairo]

9. Ditto for Dean and you know it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Nope.

2nd is a victory. Kerry MUST have NH! Or buh, bye!

[Pez]

14. do you read palms, too?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Yes.

Yours says: You're backing the wrong horse.





Note: Your Life/Heart line conjunction makes this perfectly obvious. :D

[Pez]

18. that's not what my crystal ball says

i'll just say this: live every day as if it were your last. and don't let big disappointments get you down.

:evilgrin:

[polpilot]

40. 2nd is a slam dunk victory for Dean. 1st would shake the rupubs to the

core. If Dean takes Iowa and NH then this prez race will be taught in ps classes for a hundred years...or is it bs classes??? or maybe ski classes??

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[MrPeepers]

86. Mhm.

Especially the part where Dean comes out losing 49 states in the general election.

"Dean's campaign reminds me alot of what we did 30 years ago."
George McGovern

Peepers

[BushGone04]

90. Not anymore

A few months ago, second place in NH would definitely have been a "slam dunk victory" for Dean. Not now. With all the polls showing him with a commanding lead, all his fundraising success, and the great amounts of press coverage he's gotten, if Dean doesn't win NH, it'll look like his campaign is stalling and has hit the wall. Fact is, NH is something of a must-win for both campaigns.

[polpilot]

113. No.

.

[BushGone04]

143. Good answer

As Kerry put it, "'no' is not a policy." It, by itself, is also not a good response in an debate. Perhaps you could tell me why you disagree with what I said, rather than just saying "no."

[sandnsea]

20. Dean started it, again

Read the article:

"The latest scrap between the two candidates started Saturday, the first anniversary of House passage of the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. To bolster its argument that Kerry had switched sides since voting for the measure, the Dean campaign issued a list of quotes from the Massachusetts senator that it said highlighted his inconsistencies.

Kerry responded Monday, telling Vermont Public Radio that Dean has never laid out a clear plan for how Iraq should be handled."

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. This is wrong...

"I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."


He voted to hand the president a blank check...Which is now being filled in to the tune of 87 Billion and a bit of change in blood.

[DJcairo]

8. In what way was it a blank check

1)In the way it called for UN inspections?
2) In the way it limited any and all possible military action to Iraq? (unlike the House version which 'limited' itself to the entire Middle East)
3)In the way it asked for updates made to the Congress on the progress of diplomatic action?
4) In the way it called for war only as "a last resort"?

Please enlighten me on what you think this blank check said. The fact is Bush could have started the war whether Congress voted Yes or No or didn't vote at all. The only thing Congress can do is to refuse to fund a war two months after it has been started. Well, the "War" was over by then-albeit simply transforming into a deadlier second stage. It is a testament to our democracy that Bush and his cronies were forced to go 'on the record' as it were with regards to this war and are now being faced with their lies and deceptions. Congress acted admirably, and "I told you so is not a policy." Responsible Congressional leaders believed their president in an era of heightened fears about terrorism and voted for what they thought was in the best interests of the security of the United States.

This war and it's aftermath are Bush's fault, no one elses.

[ozone_man]

32. 4) In the way it called for war only as "a last resort"?

"A last resort" is open to interpretation and only a very naive senator could be fooled into thinking that the interpretation wouldn't be played with.

Saddam didn't disarm as was made abundantly clear by Colin Powell (sarcasm), and so "as a last resort" they were invaded. Somehow our two Senators (VT) and Senator Kennedy (MA) weren't fooled by this, what was wrong with Kerry? I think he was going along with Bush for political convenience. We really need senators with backbones.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[DrFunkenstein]

34. How Is This Motherfucking Shit Not Deleted?

just wondering...

[DrFunkenstein]

41. Thank You, I Try Not To Swear Much

n/t

[MrPeepers]

60. Yet another time...

let me explain Kerry's stance on the IWR. Kerry voted for the resolution because he felt it was nessicary for the United States Congress to give the Administration the power it needed to sucessfully bargain with Hussein. Kerry voted for the resolution because he thought it would avert war. As soon as it became apparent the Bush Administration was going into Iraq regardless of international support and without sufficient justification, Sen. Kerry voiced his outrage along with the rest of us. Of course it was a big deal, but all of us are human. Senator Kerry couldn't have known the Administration would act the way it did. It would have been irresponsible for him to have assumed the administration would act the way it did. He had two choices: vote for the resolution and hopefully give the President the leverage he needed to force Hussein to back down, or vote against the resolution, which had two possible out comes. First, he garners the support needed and defeats the resoltion. Would that have stopped Bush from going into Iraq? I think not. Then Kerrry is faced with pondering whether or not an approval of the resolution could have prevented the mess in the first place. Or second, the resolution passes anyway, and it makes no difference. Sen. Kerry made a judgement call. He overestimated the integrity of the Administration. He won't make the same mistake again. It was a big deal. It still is a big deal. But that resolution is over and done with, and we can't do anything about it. What matters now is that John Kerry has a cohesive plan for how to win the peace in Iraq, prevent any further bloodshed, get the International Community involved in the re-building process, and start erasing some of the ills the Bush Administration has created. You can find it at his webpage, www.johnkerry.com. You may disagree with Kerry's vote on the resolution to authorize force, but I argue that Kerry is making up for any mistake with his efforts to remedy the situation in its current state. That's why I support Kerry, because he has a concrete plan of how to go about fixing things, and dosn't spend all his time screaming about how evil Bush is. But that's just my take on things. It wasn't so cut-and-dry as people like to think. Not everything is black and white.

peepers

[killbotfactory]

63. ...

Kerry voted for the resolution because he felt it was nessicary for the United States Congress to give the Administration he power it needed to sucessfully bargain with Hussein

He was wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.

[Pez]

65. without being able to see in the future...

...how would he be able to tell bush would make the most irresponsibly foreign policy gaffe in history?

the terms of the resolution did not always point to war as the outcome. if the inspectors found weapons and hussein wouldn't destroy them on his own, it was a possibility. bush didn't cultivate international support. he didn't give inspectors enough time. that isn't kerry's fault...

now that we are in this mess though kerry does have the most intelligent plan to get us out, and the experience to carry it out.

[killbotfactory]

70. Bush said he would go in without the UN

He surrounded himself with neocons who've been publicly declaring we should invade Iraq for several years.

It doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out what would happen.

And when it did happen, Kerry went along with it anyway.

Whoops!

[MrPeepers]

85. Ok, right. No! NOOOOOOOOO!

Here's a thought. No! He did NOT surround himself with neocons! Prove that! He's what we call a "democrat who's been fighting vehemently for democratic ideals for his entire adult life." It dosn't take a fucking genius to figure that out. Kerry sure as hell did not go along with it anyway! Back that up! Explain to me how, exactly, Senator Kerry went along with the War in Iraq. Really, please, because I must be missing something.

[killbotfactory]

87. Read my signature

Kerry wanted to give diplomacy more time, but he thought Bush did the right thing when he "disarmed" Saddam. That's called going along with the war.

I was referring to Bush who had surrounded himself with neocons. Unless you really believe that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz aren't neocon's who have all publicly declared we should invade Iraq for years and expressed disfavor of the UN.

[MrPeepers]

89. Ok.

So apparently it was cool that Sadaam loved to kill people then. It's a damn good thing he's gone! Ok, I thought you were saying Kerry surrounded himself with neocons. Did you even read my first post? He thought disarming Saddam was the right thing to do. He thought the way we went about it was completely unacceptable. That's just the fact of the matter.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

94. He didn't think it was completely unacceptable

It was just his "strong personal preference" to do it a different way.

And YAY Saddam is gone! Huzzah! He wasn't a threat to the US or worth one goddamn American life, much less the 300 or so who have died in this useless and counterproductive war. Hurray! Al Qaeda has been on a recruitment bonanza thanks to our action! Yippie! Everyone of our soldiers in Iraq is now a moving target for any Osama bin laden wanna-be who can pull the trigger on an AK-47 or make a pipe bomb! Wheee! What a striking blow in the war against terrorism.

[MrPeepers]

97. So I guess the people

who were tortured by the Regime, repressed by the Regime, literally raped by the regime, were just being whiney and didn't really have a problem. I don't know about you, but I don't like oppressive dictatorships. The problems we're having there arn't the result of the collapse of the Saddam regime being bad, they're a result of poor planning and execution on the part of the Bush administration. Kerry has a comprehensive plan on how to get us out of Iraq, and get the UN in. I think, also, you might be a little off in saying that Kerry didn't think it was unacceptable. A "strong personal preference" is just that, it's what he wants. He, therefore, had a strong personal disagreement with the way the Administration handled the whole matter. Stop trying to demonize a man who's worked his ass off fighting this Administration's policies.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

103. Don't give me that shit.

There are tons of regimes around the world who do worse things that Saddam, especially in the middle east, and some are our allies. The humanitarian angle is bullshit. It's just the last excuse because the case Bush made for war has fallen apart.

If it was unnacceptable to Kerry that Bush rushed to war and bungled diplomacy, then he shouldn't have supported the invasion. He knew what would happen.

[MrPeepers]

109. So we should just leave them all as they are?

We sure as hell can't take them all at once. YOU don't give ME that shit. Sure as hell don't give the people of Iraq that shit. Do you think that letting the people of Iraq keep on suffering is OK, because other people have to deal with it too? Are you denying that the fall of Hussein was a good thing? I don't care if its Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, if an oppressive government falls, I think that's good. When Kerry voted on the resolution, Bush hadn't gone to war. He hadn't bungled diplomacy. None of that had happend by that point. He did not know it would happen. Unlike some other people, those in policy making positions can't afford to make too many assumptions. Assuming a President is lying out of his ass is NOT A RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO. Kerry acted accordingly.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

111. There was evidence the President was lying

It wasn't just an assumption. And you don't give the president authority to conquer a nation without him offering proof.

There was many different ways we could oust Saddam without taking over responsability for the entire nation, pissing off the world, and sending hundreds of thousands of troops into an unstable region of the world.

[MrPeepers]

124. It was an assumption.

Where was the definitive evidence that the Administration was utterly fabricating its entire position? You don't call someone a liar without proof. Concrete proof.

Name some of those ways we could oust Saddam. Without opening the door for a fundamentalist regime, without violent, chaotic uprising, without creating a problem at least as big as the one we have currently? It is an unstable region. That's exactly the point. If someone is going to oust Saddam, they would have to have the power to fill the vaccum Saddam would leave behind. The US has the power to fill it. The key, however, was to share that power with the rest of the world. That would prevent the US from becoming a sole target for anger, and it would prevent the scale of our own military presence. That is what Kerry wanted, in lieu of what the Bush Administration wanted, and that was still a worst-case scenario.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

129. UAV, Niger documents...

There was a whole slew of things. Saying a bombed out bakery in an area not even controlled by Saddam, was one of his "death labs". Saying the area out of Saddam's control had "ties" to Al Qaeda as proof Saddam was working with OBL. Saying a tape of OBL condemning Saddam is proof they were working together. Saying Saddam's people met with Mohammed Atta in Prague during a time where the FBI has reciepts showing he was travelling in the United States. All the CIA reports were full of qualifiers in the margins. The aluminum tubes were proven not to be for uranium production. The close ties to Chalabi who is a known criminal and made up a whole bunch of stories about Saddam before. Using reports from defectors which are notoriously unreliable since they will say anything for good treatment. The absolute lack of any evidence put forward or shared with our allies which would prove Iraq is a threat. Numerous gov't officials quitting, foreign officials in the British and Austrailian gov't saying they have no proof.

Those should have raised some red flags.

I don't really care about Saddam. He's an evil dictator in a sea of evil dictators. There was no good way to overthrow him, that's the whole problem. There was no good reason to overthrow him, either.

[MrPeepers]

144. As far as anyone knew,

it was just bad intel. The Bush Administration still had, at that point, several claims that were, so far as anyone knew, irrefutable. They certainly wern't making it abundently clear that many of their points had been debunked. They were doing their damndest to sway congress by limiting their info and limiting their perspective as much as possible. They did raise red flags, but the Administration still had enough up their sleeves to overshadow them. They're not known for playing fair.

About Saddam, like they say, one drop of water raises the level of the ocean. He may be one in a sea of evil dictators, but that dosn't mean his removal is any less of a good thing. There was a good reason to overthrow him. There were lots of good reasons. But they wern't good enough to justify a unilateral invasion, I think we can agree on that point, and that's exactly what John Kerry believed.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

150. Yeah, all there evidence was bad intel.

Bright red waving flags that Kerry ignored because he didn't want to look weak on national security.

Replacing a stable but evil dictator who posed no threat to the US or his neighbors with guerilla warfare from unknown terrorists for who knows how long or at what price in terms of lives and money, and swelling the ranks of Al Qaeda in the process. Forgive me if I'm not convinced by the brilliance of such a plan.

[MrPeepers]

155. You continue to spin things. I'm getting dizzy.

Prove to me that Kerry saw the warning signs and pussied out. He has never backed down before. Abortion. Gay Rights. Civil Rights. Kerry has fought the good fight time and time again, and has never backed out, even when an election was coming up. Spare me the bullshit. Kerry did what he thought was right.

The trick is, removing Hussein with the UN's support would allow us to get in and get out, establish a new Government faster and more efficiently, and prevent the US from becoming a target. You fail to see that things could have gone differently, had the Bush Administration followed a multilateral path.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

157. Read his speech before the Iraq vote.

Or anytime where he said the war must be a last resort.

Kerry knew what Bush was getting into.

We have no right to invade Iraq because it was not a threat to either the US or the region. That's the reason Bush couldn't get multilateral support for the invasion. Any help from the UN now wuold be because leaving Iraq as a shithole would be worse than helping us rebuild it.

[MrPeepers]

162. I agree with you completely.

So far as the Iraq war goes.

"We have no right to invade Iraq because it was not a threat to either the US or the region. That's the reason Bush couldn't get multilateral support for the invasion. Any help from the UN now wuold be because leaving Iraq as a shithole would be worse than helping us rebuild it." That's dead on.

But let's look at what Kerry said.

"We are seeing the peril in Iraq every day. I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace."

John Kerry, Sep 2, 2003

It was wrong to rush to war. In other words, the War war wrong. Kerry is against the war, period. Kerry had an expectation that the Bush Administration wouldn't rush into it. That Administration did, and he disagrees with that. It's as simple as that.

Peepers

[MrPeepers]

84. Care to back that up?

Hmmmmmmm?

[killbotfactory]

88. I don't think giving Bush the authority to invade whenever he wants

was the only way to get Saddam to comply with the UN, which he was doing at the time Bush decided to invade. a decision Kerry supported.

[MrPeepers]

91. Wrong.

For crying out loud, the resolution was NOT giving Bush the authority to invade whenever he wanted. It was to give Bush the authority to use force in the event that Iraq did not back down, and we garnered real international support. THAT was a decision Kerry supported.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

95. No, it gave Bush the authority to invade at his discretion.

It encouraged working diplomatically but didn't require it. And what do you know? Bush invaded even though Saddam was complying (reluctantly) with inspections. And there isn't shit we can do about it now.

What Kerry wanted to vote for was the Biden Lugar amendment which would have given Bush the authority to invade only in the case that Bush proves that Iraq is a threat to the US and working with the UN failed. Both requirements Bush did not meet before he invaded.

[MrPeepers]

99. Exactly.

So how is Kerry at fault?

[killbotfactory]

104. Uh, He voted to give Bush the authority to invade

And then supported the invasion even though it was totally unnecessary?

[MrPeepers]

110. He

voted to give Bush the leverage to disarm Hussein, and then supported the collapse of a dictatorial regime. Oh, how terrible of him!

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

116. Yes.

Lots of lives and resources wasted chasing a neocon pipedream which was executed poorly and made the world more dangerous for the US. Thanks a lot Kerry.

[MrPeepers]

121. Right...

Well you can keep on demonizing Kerry, so long as you know that you're wrong. The whole "lives and resources wasted" "neocon pipedream" and "poor execution" part were none of Kerry's doing. I say thanks a lot Bush Administration, Kerry has always been vehemently opposed to the Administrations handling of the situation.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

133. Kerry gave his support to a stupid and foolish war.

It doesn't reflect well on him.

[MrPeepers]

146. He has never supported the war.

At no point has Kerry EVER supported the war. He has expressed gratitude that Saddam is no longer able to commit atrocities; he has also expressed outrage at the way the Bush Administration handled the pre-war and post-war situation. That's just the fact of the matter. At no point did Kerry say it was OK for Bush to unilaterally go to war with Iraq. At NO point. That was his position before the war, it has been his position after. It's as simple as that.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

151. I must be on a different planet or something.

He said Bush was right to invade.
He said Saddam brought action on himself.
He had reservations about the way Bush went about it but supported the end result.

[MrPeepers]

156. You spin me right round.

You are intentionally misinterpreting a single quote. A single sentence. Are you saying that single sentence means those three things are what Kerry believes and what he acted in accordance with, despite the plethora of times he spoke out against multilateral invasion? If that's what you're saying, you're dead wrong. When did Kerry say Bush was right to invade? Find me a quote where Kerry says, "I support the unilateral invasion of Iraq," and I'll capitulate. In the meantime, don't try to spin Kerry's words into something they arn't.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

160. That's all there is.

That was Kerry's entire response to the question of whether Bush was right to invade. Maybe it's because they were in SC where there's a lot of veterans and support for the war that he didn't feel like elaborating and saying the invasion was wrong... but that wouldn't explain why he never said the invasion was wrong before or after that.

[MrPeepers]

163. Well...

"This is an extraordinary moment for America. Just as in Vietnam, arrogance and pride stand in the way of common sense and integrity. “If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.” Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of George W. Bush – running for President, three years ago next week. How far have we come since then? The administration has engaged in sleights of hand that masqueraded as policy but were really just rhetorical checkpoints on a pre-determined course. They went to the UN, but used it as nothing more than a drive-by on the road to war. This may be the most arrogant, deceptive moment in our foreign policy in many decades. And America’s relations with foreign governments and American esteem around the world are at an all time low."
Kerry, Sep. 30
That's a pretty strong statement, saying the Invasion was wrong.

"Despite all the evasions and explanations, we are now in danger of losing the peace in Iraq because of the arrogance of this President and this Administration both before and after the war. It was bad enough to go-it-alone in the war. It is inexcusable and incomprehensible to go-it-alone in the peace. In the last year, President Bush has had three decisive opportunities to build an international coalition on the issue of Iraq. And three times, he not only failed; he hardly even tried."
Kerry, Sep. 30
As is that.

"The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."
Kerry, March 14th
And that.

"To tell the truth that America should not go it alone—that international support to share the burden is as critical now as it should have been in the months leading up to the war. We now know that the State of the Union message, well after the vote on the Iraq resolution, contained information that was wrong—and at least some in the Administration knew it."
Kerry, July 10

I think it's fair to say Kerry is opposed to the invasion.

Peepers

[dajabr]

4. Go

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=529542

[Cha]

6. Yeah! killbot has the scoop on kerry making "false statements

about Dean" :kick:

[MrPeepers]

100. Let's talk about some "false statements"

Dean: "We wouldn't be there if it wern't for democrats like John Kerry."

riiiiiiiiight. How about We wouldn't be there if it wern't for the Bush Administration.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

119. It would have been nice if the democrats put some pressure on Bush

Instead of chickening out and going along with the whole stupid idea becuase they were trying to get the issue off the table as quickly as possible, since democrats don't poll well when it comes to national security.

[MrPeepers]

122. What would pressure have done?

How would it have helped? Do you honestly think it could have kept Bush from his war? There was not a damn thing we could do! He had (has) his thumb on the media, he has the congress and the courts, he had popular support. Even if every Democrat in Washington had voted no, we would still be in Washington. For the last time, Kerry, and many other democrats, voted for the resolution in the hope it would avert the War. I guess some people are just want to hate Kerry so very badly they refuse to believe it.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

123. There was nothing Kerry could do to stop the war, so he's justified

in going a long with it? Bullshit.

There is this thing called "public opinion".

For the last time, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to invade, and supported Bush when he did so. I guess some people like Kerry so much they refuse to believe it.

[MrPeepers]

147. Well, you're right on except...

for everything. Here's whats bullshit. You, for some reason, insist on stating that "prematurely invading and overthrowing Saddam was the only possible solution to the Iraq problem," when that is BLATANTLY UNTRUE. You're searching like hell to find something to attack Kerry on for I don't know what reason, and you refuse to accept that Kerry has been opposed to this unilateral action from day 1! It's as simple as that!

"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."

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament."

"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 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

I think that sums Kerry's views up quite well.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

152. My signature sums it up quite well.

Kerry's speech on the eve of war sums it up quite well.

Bush prematurely invaded Iraq. It was not a last resort. Not once did Kerry say we shouldn't be invading. Not once. He said he would have done it better, but agreed with Bush's decision to invade.

Now he's acting like IWR was the only way to keep america safe.

It's nonsense.

[MrPeepers]

158. Actually...

He did say it was a last resort.

"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."

We don't have to <i>until we have exhausted the remedies available<i>. That would be Kerry saying that we shouldn't invade unless we had exhausted all other options. Kerry, speaking of the war, has repeatedly said that we had not exhausted the other options. Thus, he did say we shouldn't be invading. He agreed with Bush that getting rid of Saddam would be a good thing. Now he has a cohesive plan on how to get us out of there, get the international community in, and clean up the god awful mess the Bushites have left there. That's not nonsense.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

161. Yes, I know Kerry backed down from that position

And waffled on the issue.

To bad he supported a war that was not a last resort.

[MrPeepers]

164. Backed down?

I must have missed that part. And waffled? I think not. There is a difference in having a complex opinion on a resolution and waffling. He did not, at any point, support the war. He supported the troops, he supported the removal of a dictator, but he did not support the Bush Administration's way of going about it.

Peepers

[Pez]

7. weeee! i'll play.

it's clear each side is trying to paint the other as a waffler-- and if that is the case, kerry's statements show that he is anything but. he voted consistant with his record-- fact is, hussein had signed a contract that said he would allow u.n. inspectors in... that's the only reason why he made it past desert storm. he had refused to allow inspectors in for years, and since the you.s. had been attacked (remember 09.11.01?) it seemed kind of important to maybe enforce the u.n. resolution. if it weren't for "democrats like kerry" negotiating for a more strict resolution bush would have waged war on seven nations... and not had to go to the u.n., not had to build a coalition, not had to wait for weapons inspections. after negotiating for all that and having bush agree to it, if he voted "no" then that would leave bush accountable to noone. bush jumped the gun, bush brought us to war, bush is the problem. kerry was critical of bush the second he abandoned the resolution.

and dean went back and forth, which i don't fault him for, but for him to say he is somehow the "anti-war" democrat is a farce.

kucinich is anti-war; dean is a political opportunist playing on the emotions of whoever he feels he needs to support him at the moment.

[dajabr]

10. Dean: The Anti-Bush...

--snip--

The election of 2002 has taught two lessons that should not be lost as the 2004 presidential contest begins: Bush is a relentless and effective campaigner; and the only way to beat him and his party will be for Democrats to distinguish themselves as a relentless and effective party of opposition. "This Republican-lite Democratic Leadership Council approach is a loser," says Senator Russ Feingold. Millions of Americans want a clear alternative to the Republican agenda, but in too many contests, Feingold says, Democrats aren't offering one. "If the results of these midterm elections tell us anything, it's that."

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=nichols

And More: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/46/we_192_01.html

[Pez]

12. so we should all vote for kucinich.....

...or economic bush-lite waffler will-be-eaten-alive-by-BUSH-INC.-in-the-general dean?

a "clear alternative" to bush is someone with experience and solid policy. i see that in kerry.

[dajabr]

15. If he's your man, go for it... n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

13. The Crucial Sentence

"Dean said his policy would have been based on containing Saddam without going to war."

His policy as a Senator or as a President? Because there was only one vote for the Senate. It would have been nice to get Biden-Lugar - Kerry fought for it - but people in positions of responsibility can't linger long in la-la land.

I still don't see anything resembling a policy from Dean. Kerry has laid out very specific plans and their rationale at every step of the road. Dean talks in vague terms about international coalitions, occasionally mentioned disarming Saddam, he's a bad guy, blah blah blah.

The closest thing to a plan I've seen from Dean was the 30-60 day deadline, which was outright stupid - which is why he didn't mention it again.

------

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled. Now, the question is did the president do that on purpose?

Was he misled by his own intelligence people? Was he misled by the people around us? Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different.

I've called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

[Pez]

17. kerry has been on top of this for a while

check out his book in '97:

The New War

"The terrorists of tomorrow will be beter armed and organized. It will take only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day. . . what most encourages and emboldens terrorists now are the unprecedented opportunities inherent in the new world of porous borders, instant communications, and access to weapons of mass destruction. Like everything else, global terrorism is mutating at a very rapid rate. Failure to prepare for the new strains verges on the suicidal." pps. 111-113

one of many speeches by kerry on the subject of not only iraq but foreign policy in general:

01.23.03 foreign policy speech

<snip>

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. 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.

<snap>



kerry has been all over this for years; dean makes up a plan in a couple of months, and would leave much of the details up to his advisors if president. kerry has a strong background and experience, and that is what we need right now. not someone who is going to delegate authority-- we see where that got us with BUSH INC.

[Egnever]

19. problem is the terorists werent in Iraq

So if kerry was on top of all this like you say he should have known this. AND HE SHOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST THE IWR!!!!

Geezus you guys spin the hell out of this stuff!

Add to that the fact that he knew the reports on wmd were false and his vote becomes pure betrayal and nothing more. He had the cia reports saying there was no credible evidence of any of it!

Dean didnt

(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

[sandnsea]

21. Terrorists are in the ME, like Iraq

The ME had been increasingly angry about the sanctions and harm caused to the Iraqi people. Continued containment was not an option, if we were to be able to make any progress in changing the dynamics of the ME and eliminating terrorism.

And there was a ten year pattern of intelligence on Iraq and Saddam's behavior in regards to WMD. I've said it before, even Scott Ritter said in 1998 that Saddam would very likely have WMD capabilities within 6 months of sanctions being lifted. The intelligence that this Administration hyped and manufactured is in regards to specific pieces of intelligence, not the entire ten years since GW1. It is perfectly sensible to understand the big big picture in the ME, but also understand that Bush's lies were inexcusable and that there must be an investigation and accountability if we're ever to have any faith in our intelligence ever again.

[DannyRed]

22. regardless of any

differences we may have with respect to nomination, I would like to disabuse you of the notion that "Saddam would very likely have WMD capabilities within 6 months of sanctions being lifted"...that notion is speculative, poorly sourced, and, quite frankly, bullshit.

Why?

Because the sanctions were the only thing allowing Hussein to remain in power.

The suppression of the rebellions by Shi'ia and Kurds in 1991 was allowed, for the same reason that Baghdad was not taken in 1991....by the first Bush administration.

Better a dictator and "stability" that we know than the uncertainty and possibility of Shi'ia rule...regardless of the harm of that policy.

That was their thinking.

Frankly, the sanctions were the only thing between Hussein and either a bloody coup or a revolution.

They allowed control to be maintained via the mechanism of central government control over food, medicine, tech, and everything else.

Six months after the lifting of sanctions, Iraq would have probably been in a state of extreme flux...and Hussein would have been spending all his time fending off coups, insurrections, and revolutions/rebellions...if he had not been deposed already. Much too busy maintaining basic power to engage in expensive, delicate, and difficult R&D and production...

Your analysis is sadly lacking.

If that analysis is any indication of the justifications being used by the Kerry camp, then the criticisms of Kerry are not only deserved, but are not strong enough.

Not that Dean is any where near perfect on these issues...but if I can reason through it, based on imperfect and incomplete information, then why can't a senator?

Especially a sentator who had 23 members of his own party, people like Leahy, Graham, Kennedy, Wellstone, and many more...voting NO.

Could it be that this senator was looking toward a run for President and wanted to innoculate himself from the charges of "being soft on defense"??

Hmmmm?

Nice calculations there, Mr. Kerry.

real nice.

[sandnsea]

23. No, it wasn't

Pretending problems in the ME didn't exist is fine for you, you don't have to worry about protecting the security of millions of people. Here AND there.

The intelligence on Saddam and WMD goes back over a decade. The Scott Ritter quote is accurate and I used it because he's the only one anybody will believe on this issue.

And there's no reason to think the country would have dissolved into chaos with the lifting of sanctions. None at all. But if it had, we'd be right where we are today anyway, correct? In the middle of a country with conflicting interests, insurrections and rebellions. Because there's no way we would have just let that happen in Iraq.

The vote was right. Going to the UN in order to resolve the situation in Iraq, in an honest manner, would have been correct. What Bush did was horrific and he is the one we ought to be holding accountable for it.

[DannyRed]

24. You are making no sense.

Apply logic.

1) Where did I pretend there were no problems in the ME?

In fact, if you were to take the time and reread what I actually said, I am pointing out much deeper, broader, and wider problems than any you present. Problems running all the way back to the Ottoman Empire, the British partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and the US inheritance of the British position in that region after WWII.

How is the security of millions of people here or there protected by the current situation?

It is NOT, distinctly not. Our military is occupied by an impossible occupation, our intel services (poorly performing and poorly served as they are) are in disarray and busy protecting themselves from being scapegoated. And the country is in total chaos.

2) The intelligence on Saddam and WMD is WRONG. The ONLY thing you need to read is Hussein Kamal's testimony, Scott Ritter's RECENT testimony, Hans Blix's testimony and much much more...THERE WERE NO WEAPONS, THERE WERE NO FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMS.

Unless you seriously are accepting the Kay Report as truthful, you have no leg to stand on.

3) "And there's no reason to think the country would have dissolved into chaos with the lifting of sanctions."

There is every reason to think that there would have been any number of things going on in Iraq with the lifting of sanctions...

The hatred of the Shi'ia and Kurds for Hussein has not lessened...and with the lifting of sanctions they would no longer be under Hussein's thumb economically.

4) "But if it had, we'd be right where we are today anyway, correct?"

Our military would not be in the middle of it, tied down. Our credibility and honesty would not be in the crapper, and our allies would not be slapping us in the face and watching from the sidelines hoping that we get our bubble popped sooner rather than later and hoping against hope that these assholes in power get ousted really soon.

5) "Because there's no way we would have just let that happen in Iraq."

Better to be on the outside wielding influence and marshalling our allies and friends to deal with the situations as they arose than on the inside, spending BILLIONS of dollars every week, losing our soldiers, losing our morale, losing our respect, losing our credibility, and now unable to deal with other military threats that may arise...

6) The vote was right.

the vote was dead wrong. trusting bush was dead wrong. if bush was going to go anyway, why not LET him go, without congressional authority AND without UN approval...and then impeach him for it. Kerry was one of the senators that GAVE bush credibility with the population (that was clearly ambiguous about the entire business), with some allies, and with some in the UN.

Robert Byrd was correct, and Kerry was wrong.

Kerry was trying to cover his bases for his presidential run, and that is ALL.

You cannot spin it. The vote was wrong. The IWR was poorly worded, poorly conceived, and completely stupid.

Kerry failed.

[sandnsea]

25. You're ignoring reality

David Kay report?? Did I refer to that???

When did Hanx Blix say there were no weapons or programs in Iraq? He never once said that he knew that to a certainty. And he sure didn't make any comment like that before the vote. Why would Scott Ritter's testimony change from October 1998 to now? What would have changed in Iraq? Nobody was on the ground to know anything. I heard him speak on numerous occasions and he was trying to put the intelligence in context. Which is NOT the same thing as saying there was no danger represented from Sadddam Hussein.

Most of the rest of your post is pure speculation, you have no way of knowing what would have happened in Iraq with sanctions lifted. And you haven't answered the question anyway. Why did people support containment and continue to promote it as a solution if Saddam was no threat?

And one last thing, with or without the resolution, Bush's actions are the same. That resolution in no way gives Bush any cover for starting a war on lies. It specifically said enforce UN resolultions OR protect U.S. security. The UN charter says IT approves military action to enforce UN resolutions. Countries can't run around doing this on their own. Obviously Bush didn't need to go to war to protect our security. And Bush certainly had no authorization to launch 'Iraqi Freedom', that isn't in the resolution anywhere. Impeachment would be just as reasonable today, with or without the authorization. It still isn't going to happen.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

29. You don't know the facts

And you never did. I referred to Scott Ritter saying Saddam would likely have his weapons programs in place within 6 months of sanctions being lifted. If you don't know he said that, and don't know that he supported a new inspections program, then you just don't know what you're talking about. You prove it when you post "He most surely alluded to several instances where "WMD sites" pointed out by the US turned out to be completely and totally bogus" in response to 'comments made before the vote'. This was Blix's position AFTER the war vote. How could he make these statements if he wasn't in the country yet?

You say that I don't listen and don't absorb or respond to a single argument. No, the truth is I know what happened because I spent an enormous amount of time going through ALL the material on Iraq. Further, I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to the government and conclude that everything every agency says is a lie. I can be objective and sort through information and come to conclusions on my own. And what I saw in those reports was concerning. Even though I also put together a thorough argument on the Administration's lies.

I know exactly what this Administration did on this war and if people actually combed through the reports, they'd know the Administration DID present a case of weapons programs. If they read those reports word by word, line by line, they'd see that it would be next to impossible to prove they'd said anything else. It's the way those sentences were put together that created the impression of imminent threat, that and a couple of highly charged phrases that the media repeated over and over again. Like Rice and her not wanting to wait for a mushroom cloud. Highly charged, but she's really not saying Saddam has a nuclear bomb or even a nuclear weapons program. That's how they did it. And THEY did it and they did it AFTER the vote.

They would have done it with or without that Authorization. Certainly Bryd, Leahy and other Democratic Senators have their opinion. 27 other Democrats disagreed, including Dodd, Torricelli, Reid, Rockefeller and even Hillary Clinton. So this throwing around senators names like they're the only ones who held the truth isn't a very plausible argument.

Finally, you further prove you don't know what you're talking about if you think we should have just walked away and let Saddam go on about his business. Al qaeda terrorists have little to do with it. You would have to totally ignore history to say he wasn't a threat to the region and would have to be in complete denial to say he wouldn't attack the U.S. if he could. He didn't need al qaeda to do that. Any terrorism group would suffice and there's plenty of them. Or he could simply create his own group.

You may think all would be well in the world if the U.S. just left everybody alone to live in peace and harmony. While we don't help matters around the world in alot of instances, doing nothing would be equally disastrous. Sometimes people really are up to absolute no good. We ought to be able to see that clearly with Bush in office. I think every one of us knows if he were to continue on his warring path, we would eventually be confronted directly about that behavior. In fact, we're glad France and Germany have done it on Iraq. Yet the same people can't see that Saddam, who was MUCH worse than George W. Bush, ought to be confronted as well. Very bizarre thinking, in my estimation.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[DrFunkenstein]

71. Republican In Disguise? Spoken Like A True Dean Fan!

Saddam agreed to unconditional inspections at least a hundred times. How often he has allowed unconditional inspections is significantly less.

Even to the bitter end, Saddam was talking bullcrap about interviewing scientists and proposing "off-limit" palaces. So don't even pretend that Saddam was about "unconditional" inpsections. However, most knowledgable people said that inspections were commencing well enough to continue negotiations.

I suggest you go back to Kerry's floor statement before you speak, because you are wrong on several points - especially the presence of an imminent threat.

Secondly, Ritter is providing an op-ed. His disputes with UNSCOM are well-documented, and I don't accept him as a journalistic source.

[DannyRed]

72. Talking Points

"Saddam agreed to unconditional inspections at least a hundred times."

Bullshit. Prove it.

" However, most knowledgable people said that inspections were commencing well enough to continue negotiations."

Indeed...BEFORE the IWR vote.

"especially the presence of an imminent threat."

There WAS NO imminent threat. Period. Full stop.

"Secondly, Ritter is providing an op-ed. His disputes with UNSCOM are well-documented, and I don't accept him as a journalistic source."

Translation: "LALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING"

Fact: Saddam was negotiating the return of inspections BEFORE the IWR vote.

Fact: WMD experts and former inspectors and intelligence agents and diplomats were saying that the potential threat posed by Hussein was minimal at best...BEFORE the IWR vote.

Fact: The statements made by those people have STOOD THE TEST OF TIME...

and have you read Wilson and Thielmann and Wilkie and many more in recent days?

The FACTS that they reveal show that the administration was LYING, and KNOWINGLY lying BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the entire Inspections, UN, IWR, War fiasco.

Now, if people like me, with NO ACCESS to classified information, NO ACCESS to congressional testimony, and NO ACCESS to hordes of paid analysts and information hounds to craft policy statments ... can come up with the CORRECT answers BEFORE the Vote, BEFORE the war, and BEFORE the entire fiasco began....

Then why couldn't Kerry?

Fact: He HAD the same information and more...and he STILL voted AYE...unlike Kennedy, Graham, Leahy, Byrd, and many others.

As for the "Republican in disguise" comment...

Rhetorical fluorish designed to alert my debate opponent that he/she is channeling RNC talking points and Bush LIES in an attempt to defend Kerry.

Read through the comments again...find the "Admin Spin"...

Kerry was WRONG, and trying to spin his way, your way, out of that is disgusting and cowardly.

The Administration LIED...anyone with patience, a computer and a brain could discover and debunk those lies, much less a powerful Senator with access to all kinds of information and assistance...therefore, Kerry AIDED the administration in the spreading and empowerment of those LIES and the policies that were based on those LIES.

[sandnsea]

73. You're cherry picking

Just like Bush cherry picked. If you want to quote something, go get the actual reports. NOT what somebody else said the reports say.

You really need to go back and read them anyway, DoD 'Denial and Deception' of Oct 2002, and Powell's report of 2003. They are clearly talking about reconstituted programs and Saddam's deceptive behavior in hiding them. You have to read the reports word by word, and if you do, you'll see that's what they said. They put it together in a way that made it sound like they were spouting imminent threat, but when you tear it apart, that's not what the words on the page actually say.

You also said "I never supported containment. I supported allowing the Iraqis to determine their own fate...as I do now....and that means NO sanctions and NO invasion." That means walking away from Iraq and letting Saddam go about his business and hope for the best for the people in the region. And hoping Saddam isn't really interested in attacking Americans or deciding to escalate his support of Islamic terrorist attacks againt Israel.

I agree with you that there was NO evidence that an actual weapon or factory existed in Iraq. There was a pattern of behavior, which Kerry and others have stated repeatedly. Even 'ol Ho Ho said as much, Saddam was a threat. The choice Kerry had was to support holding Saddam accountable to completely disarm according to the UN resolutions, or not. You can live in your fantasy world that nobody really wants to hurt Americans, but that doesn't make it true. And quoting other people who think like you do doesn't make it true either. Scott Ritter never said he thought Saddam didn't pose a potential threat. That doesn't mean we unilaterally invade and Kerry didn't support that. But he also didn't support doing nothing, which is what you already said you did support.

You had no plan for dealing with Saddam. Howard had no plan for dealing with Saddam. If that's your position, fine. But it's not the position of most Americans and they're never going to elect a President who thinks that way, especially after 9/11.

[DannyRed]

76. Please.

DoD 'Denial and Deception' of Oct 2002, and Powell's report of 2003. They are clearly talking about reconstituted programs and Saddam's deceptive behavior in hiding them.

And they just as clearly LIED. Demonstrably, at that time, LIED. And they also talked extensively about SPECIFIC toxins, weapons, chemicals, and bio-agents in SPECIFIC volumes, weights, and amounts. And they talked about SPECIFIC sites and SPECIFIC people...and they were ALL LIES.

I never supported containment. I supported allowing the Iraqis to determine their own fate...as I do now....and that means NO sanctions and NO invasion.

That means walking away from Iraq and letting Saddam go about his business and hope for the best for the people in the region. And hoping Saddam isn't really interested in attacking Americans or deciding to escalate his support of Islamic terrorist attacks againt Israel.

Pay close attention.

After 1991, after Iraq (apparently with some encouragement or statements of neutrality) invaded Kuwait (apparently thinking that the US would view that invasion in the same light that the US viewed Iraq's invasion of Iran in the early 80's)...the US ginned up a whole host of excuses (along with a number of valid arguments) for expelling Iraq from Kuwait (Massive buildup on the Saudi Border, Incubators, and etc.)...

After expelling Iraq and devastating the Iraqi military, the US (via the President's own words) called for the People of Iraq to overthrow the tyrant.

The people of Iraq, specifically the Shi'ia and the Kurds, rose up...only to be slaughtered en masse by the Dictator...while the US stood by and ALLOWED him to use (US supplied) helicopters and munitions to put down the rebellions.

Do you think the feelings of those people, who constitute a MASSIVE majority in Iraq, changed over the last decade? After their families and friends were slaughtered? After they bore the brunt of the sanctions via maniplations by the Hussein regime, that USED those sanctions to quell those people, to put them down and keep them down?

I don't.

I maintain that the ONLY thing keeping Hussein and the Baath in power were those sanctions, that OVERWHELMINGLY affected the poor and the Shi'ia and the Marsh Arabs.

I maintain that dropping the sanctions would have ENDED Hussein's rule.

I further maintain that keeping the sanctions in place was a deliberate ploy to PREVENT a popular uprising...just as the allowing of Hussein to crush the rebellions in 91 was a DELIBERATE ploy to keep Hussein in power - those responsible for that policy SAID as much at the time.

You pose a false choice between A) Sanctions, or B) Invasion....there are and were MANY other options to deal with Hussein, to eliminate him, and to empower (and thereby win the respect and /or alliance of significant and popular majorities in Iraq) the people of Iraq.

I maintain that WE did not NEED to "deal with Hussein...that with minimal effort, cost, and investment, we could have and should have dealt with REAL factions on the ground in Iraq (like the moderate Shi'ia who are opposed to the Khomeini-ites in Iran, or the Moderate Kurds, or the Marsh Arabs) as opposed the INC goons...and they would have and could have dealt with Hussein in short order, as they nearly did in 1991.

And enough with the RNC talking points:

"Pattern of behavior"???

"Potential threat"???

Fatuous garbage. Complete and total speculative CRAP used to justify and excuse war crimes, stupidity, lies, and policy that is so assinine as to be nauseating.

"That doesn't mean we unilaterally invade and Kerry didn't support that."

He DID. He voted for the Iraq War Resolution which specifically DID NOT require that the US obtain UN support.

Edite to close an italics tag

[sandnsea]

77. Okay.... it was a plot

An evil, evil 12 year plot, hatched by Bush and carried out by Clinton, to starve hundreds of thousands of people for no apparent reason. I'm so sorry, I didn't realize.

Bye now.

[DannyRed]

78. It was not a "plot"

because it was not secret.

Read the record, starting with Bush the elder...who specifically and explicitly (along with his advisors) claimed that it was BETTER to leave Hussein in power than to allow a revolution or a coup to overthrow the government.

And your petty sarcasm and dismissive tone are noted, and indicate that you have no argument...and that rather than deal with the ugly reality of US policy, you are willingly blinding yourself and trustingly allowing yourself to be led.

Is Dean any different?

Not much.

But he's certainly a lot more clued in, and was in 2002/early 2003 than Kerry was.

The same Kerry, by the way, who voted AGAINST the first Gulf War...

Funny how a regime that Kerry felt was NOT worth a war, and NOT a threat at the height of its power....suddenly morphed into a deadly threat after 12 years of sanctions, war, bombing, and decay....just in time for an election.

Hmmmm..

[sandnsea]

79. I misunderstood

I am sorry, I read so many wild plot posts on DU, I really thought that's what you were saying.

Yes, we did keep Saddam in power in an effort to get the arms out of his country and keep stability in the country. I would say after we poured the weapons in there in the first place, trying to move the country away from that was our responsibility. Doing it as peacefully as possible also was our responsibility. Yes, Kerry voted against GW1, I think for that very reason.

But as time went on, particularly after the nuclear weapons program was discovered, the opinion of many people changed. Including Senator Kerry's. And despite what you think, Scott Ritter did say in October 1998 that Saddam would likely have his bio and chem weapons back within 6 months of sanctions being lifted. There was nobody on the ground after that to verify what was happening one way or the other.

So you first say we left Saddam in power in order to keep stability in Iraq because without him there would have been instability. You then say the sanctions kept Saddam in power and he would have been overthrown without them. Well that makes no sense. If it's true that Saddam would have been overthrown, that would create the exact instability that nobody in the region would want. Why would you support that? And if you support Saddam being taken out of power, supposedly by lifting the sanctions, why wouldn't you support a UN coalition to do the same thing in a more peaceful fashion? A good UN coalition would not be having the problems Bush is having today, it would have been much more peaceful.

I don't think an overthrow would have happened, myself. I think Saddam would have retained power and went on to torture his people, financially aid Islamist terrorists, and rebuild his weapons programs. Then Amnesty International and other human rights organizations would be griping because the U.S. wasn't doing anything about the human atrocities.

I think there's way too many people on DU that really do prefer to beat up on the U.S. no matter what we do. There's certainly a whole lot of things we do that are awful, but it's sometimes a damned if you do, damned if you don't choice.

And Dean was not more clued in. That's the saddest thing of all. He is such a fucking piece of shit liar. He bounced around on this war and said so many different things that could be interpreted in very different ways. He simply moved the way the wind blew as it unfolded. If this war were a great success, he'd just pick out his unilateral war comments and pretend he was for confronting the Saddam threat all along.

Kerry was clear about holding Saddam accountable and has been since 1997. He was clear about the way to build a coalition, allow all diplomatic measures to work, and only use force as a last resort in conjunction with the UN. He had a plan to do this and repeated it on many occasions. When Bush veered from that plan, Kerry was one of the first to speak up. Dean just shot off at the mouth like he always does. I just don't know why people can't see what a phony he is. And he's harming our chances to win next year. He's turning the Democrats back into the anti-war party and Americans are not going to gamble their security with the anti-war party, no matter what anybody around here thinks.

[Pez]

28. the earth didn't start rotating when dean entered the race

and saddam has been a problem for a long long time.

bush said "iraq" and we had to deal with iraq. he also said syria, iran, libya, etc... kerry and other dems limited the resolution (bush wanted to carpet bomb the entire ME); saddam had not been allowing inspectors in for years, and had broken the resolution with the u.n... there was decades of intelligence on hussein. kerry et al negotiated an agreement to go to the u.n., build a coalition and give inspectors a chance to determine whether or not hussein had wmd and if he would destroy them or if we'd have to make him. without the threat of force hussein would not allow inspectors back in. war was not definitely the end result. powell said as much. did you read the resolution, and the speeches from the floor?

bush could have done whatever he wanted; would you rather he was accountable to no one, or accountable to congress? if no one had offered an alternative then howling at the president would mean nothing. the real problem here is bush.

i am of course not pleased with the war in any way, but i blame bush. you choose to take the blame off bush and focus it on kerry. whatever floats your boat, or puffs up your candidate.

[killbotfactory]

126. Iraq was not really a problem, though

Seems the policy of containment worked, and all the warnings of mushroom clouds and poison labs were a bunch of hype from the Bush administration who formed a special office to cook the intellegence.

Oops.

[MrPeepers]

61. And you spin the hell out of

his IWR vote. See post #60.

Also,
"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. "
The point was to force that compliance, not to go to war. That's what Kerry wanted, the Administration thought different.

Peepers

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[helleborient]

26. Kerry voted against liberal leadership in Congress on IWR...

This was wrong - why the sudden break from his liberal past?

He was wrong - the vote was wrong - and it's high time he tell us that. Then we can move on.

[sandnsea]

30. And with 27 Democratic Senators

There has been post after post about Kerry's concern about Iraq since at least 1997. This was not new or sudden.

And I can't see how anybody can say the vote was wrong unless they supported lifting sanctions on Iraq altogether. I'm not even sure Kucinich supported that. Because that was the two choices, lift sanctions or get inspectors in to complete the process. The situation could not go on as it was indefinitely.

[helleborient]

31. Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd, Carl Levin...

All said it was wrong - Kerry did not.

I go with the true long-term liberal heroes myself.

[sandnsea]

36. Clinton, Rockefeller, Reid, Torricelli

Their opinions are just as valid as anybody elses. And they certainly all weren't basing their vote on political expedience to run for the Presidency. The argument is just plain silly and an unfair condemnation of the integrity of half the Democratic Senate.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. Including Biden - Another Foreign Policy Expert

Biden on MTP was arguing Kerry's exact point.

[killbotfactory]

51. Foreign Policy Expert translation guide for dummies

Let inspectors in = Must authorize Bush to invade and take over country at any moment.

Disarm Saddam = Must authorize Bush to invade and take over country at any moment.

Threat of force = Must authorize Bush to invade and take over country at any moment.

Some conflicting evidence that Saddam might be up to no good = Must authorize Bush to invade and take over country at any moment.

Iraq = Get the issue off the table as quickly as possible because it makes the democrats look weak if they oppose Bush's stupidity.

[DrFunkenstein]

35. Dean, Clinton, and Kerry Quotes

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

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. - Clinton, 1998.

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

“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...

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.” -Sen. John Kerry, 11/9/97

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

Gee, I guess Clinton and Kerry were thinking about looking tough on defense for their re-elections back then.

And I love how Dean folkies pretend that Dean always said there were no WMDs in Iraq. Believe me, we've got plenty of knuckleheaded quotes from Dean to refute that.

[killbotfactory]

37. You don't invade countries unilaterally unless there is proof of a threat.

You can believe a country is up to no good, but invading countries on a hunch that they may be a threat, sorta, possibly, is irresponsible. That's what Bush did. Kerry supported it. Dean didn't.

Threat of force does not require giving Bush the descretion to invade at his whim. If Kerry truly believes that was the only option to get the inspectors in the country, he is a fool

[cindyw]

38. So if Kerry didn't believe in unilateral war, you would support him right

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-October 2002

[killbotfactory]

39. I wouldn't support him in the primary's

But he'd be much better off if he hadn't of backed down from that reasonable position and still supported the invasion after Bush cut short inspections, stopped working with the UN, and allegation after allegation made by Powell was being proven false day after day by the inspectors.

There was no imminent threat and there diplomacy could have worked. But that's what happens when you give Bush the discretion to wage war whenever he wants (after basicallly calling the UN irrelevent and being advised by neocon jackals who've been itching to invade Iraq for years, no less)

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Do You Like Dean's Foreign Policy Better?

I see alot of talk about the IWR, but I don't see much discussion of what an amazing platform Dean is running on.

I wouldn't have voted the same way as Kerry, but I recognize that his vision for the next 4 years is light years ahead of Dean's multilateral vagueries and pro-Sharon triangulations.

[killbotfactory]

46. Dean has a good bullshit detector

And has come to sensible positions. I trust him with foreign policy.

[DrFunkenstein]

56. I'll Take That As A Non-Answer

n/t

[killbotfactory]

59. So it's either take someone who has little foreign policy experience

But good enough analytical skills to realize when the US is about to make a huge mistake, or someone with a lot of foreign policy experience who realized the US was about to make a huge mistake but caved in for political expedience.

Hmm... tough decision.

[Pez]

66. so all the dems who voted "yes" did so because they are running for pres?

[killbotfactory]

69. No. But reading what Kerry said before the vote.

And all the reservations after the vote, I am convinced he knew it was wrong but went ahead with it anyway. Other dems wanted to "take the issue off the table" as quickly as possible because they poll badly when it comes to national security issues. Some other dems believed it was the right thing to do. Either way, they were wrong.

[DrFunkenstein]

74. No He Voted From A Position of Responsibility

Kerry railed against the GOP for rushing the vote AND the Dems that undercut Biden-Lugar.

But in the end, he knew that the only way Saddam would comply would be through a real threat of force.

PS - I wasn't just talking about experience. Dean's POLICY is lightweight, not just novice.

[killbotfactory]

83. The only way to threaten Saddam.

Is to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at his discretion? A president who has never shown any interest in diplomacy? A president surrounded by neocon's who have publicly declared we should invade Iraq since the mid 90's?

I don't think so.

If Kerry thinks so he is a moron.

[MrPeepers]

96. Right.

So maybe, if we tell Saddam that if he dosn't comply we'll say some mean things about him, he'll go away. It might be a little arrogant of you to call a man who's been working his ass off for the last few decades fighting to preserve the liberal institutions in our Government, working in the International Political arena on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, preserving the right to choose, and so many other things a moron. Has it ever occured to you that YOU might be wrong, and not the 19 year Senator, District Attorney, Lt. Governor, and Yale grad? I think I'll take Kerry's word over yours, thanks.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

105. No, it's a little arrogant for Kerry to say with a straight face

That prematurely invading and overthrowing Saddam was the only possible solution to the Iraq problem right, and everyone who was against the war was wrong.

I don't think Kerry is a moron. Just a liar.

[MrPeepers]

127. Since when

did Kerry say it was wrong to be against the Iraq war? HE is against the Iraq war! He is for the removal of Hussein, just like he is for the removal of Kim Jong Il, and every other dictatorial, oppressive ruler. He did NOT AT ANY POINT say that "prematurely invading and overthrowing Saddam was the only possible solution to the Iraq problem." He wanted International Support, he wanted inspections, he wanted to force Saddam to back down WITHOUT sending in the Army. The Bush Administration did that anyway, and all Kerry is saying is that it is good that Saddam is gone. He is saying that Bush mishandled the entire situation, but at least Saddam isn't there anymore, and that's one thing we can take some solice in. Where's the lie here? I just don't see it.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

132. He is not against the Iraq war.

He stated clearly that he supported Bush when Bush decided to "disarm" (read: invade) Iraq. I'm sorry Kerry's doublespeak has confused you, but he supported the invasion. Bush mishandled the situation, but he still supported him.

Kerry is saying that if you are against the IWR you have no coherent policy. He is trying to paint this like the only responsible choice is to support the IWR. It's bullshit.

What I would have liked Kerry to say, on the eve of war, is that Bush has cut short diplomacy, cut short inspections, has not presented concrete proof that Iraq is such a threat to the US or our Allies that we must invade, and that this war is not a last resort and therefore invasion is unjustified.

He didn't.

[MrPeepers]

92. Sensible positions

like "Oh, God do I hate president Bush," and "Wow, President Bush really sucks."

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

107. No, more like

"President Bush did not make the case for war." or "saying we can be in and out of Iraq in 2 years is a lie, we will be there for a long time if we go in and Bush should say that." or "There is nothing but innuendo, I want proof Iraq is a threat." or "Powell did not make the case for war."

[MrPeepers]

148. Those

would not be policy positions. You can't base foreign policy around saying "Let's do the opposite of what Bush does." Dean has made a name for himself by shouting about the evils of the Bush Administration, but I have yet to see enough proactive policy creation in the Dean camp to make me think he's anything more than a knee-jerk reactionary.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

168. Give diplmacy more chance

Get proof. Build a multilateral coalition. Disarm Saddam with inspectors, or by force if need be.

That was Dean's position all along.

[MrPeepers]

169. And that

was Kerry's position all along as well, you know.

Peepers

[cindyw]

44. John Kerry was trashed for not supporting Bush's war.

The only criticism possible of Kerry is that his Iraq war vote was inconsistent with everything he has said. The quote I posted was from the floor of the Senate right before the IWR.

Here are the things Kerry said leading up to the war:

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 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.

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.

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.-January 23, 2003

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[killbotfactory]

47. Read my signature

It's from the SC democratic debate. Kerry backed the invasion and against criticism of the way Bush was handling it when all those news stories about "possible" WMD finds and how smoothly the war was going were coming out.

[cindyw]

45. Also

All of us know that just days from now our country may be at war with Iraq.  If war comes then we must and will unite behind the brave young Americans who are risking their lives.  I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed.  But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone.  That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort.  He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room.  I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines.  And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to. -March 14, 2003

[killbotfactory]

48. And then he supports the invasion anyway.

That's what I don't get. How can you support Bush "disarming" Saddam after Bush cut short inspections in a rush to war and made a mockery of diplomacy without even proving that Iraq was a threat to the US?

[cindyw]

50. Give me link where he supported the invasion after the.

inspections ended.

[killbotfactory]

53. Here

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2004/candidates/debates/dem_sc.asp

FIRST IN THE NATION: THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
(12:30 AM ET) - ABC
May 4, 2003 Sunday
LENGTH: 15570 words

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY

George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Good enough?

[cindyw]

54. I don't like that he said that.

It goes against the spirit of everything else he has said. It made it seem as if he supported an invasion and he did not. During the war he expressed that it was time for "regime change" in America. he took a lot of heat for that in a time where others were also being attacked. It is also important to note that it was in a debate where there is little time to qualify what you are saying. Dean responded by saying basically the same thing and then said that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. Kerry had no opportunity to concur. I think he made a mistake not doing that in response to a separate question. He seems to have learned since then that he must come back in another question and respond to the way that Dean uses everything he says to mischaracterize it's meaning.

[killbotfactory]

55. Honestly, I don't know how I could take his response as anything...

Other than support for the invasion. George asked Kerry if he supported the invasion, and Kerry's response is that he supported Bush when he made the decision to disarm Saddam, and thinks it was right to do so. I don't see how you could say he supported Bush when he made the decision to "disarm" Saddam but not support the invasion.

And this is what he on the eve of war (which used to be available on his own site but isn't anymore for some reason, but still in the google cache):

Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly , I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

How can you honestly say he did not support the invasion?

[MrPeepers]

102. He supported the removal of Hussein

Not the way the Bush Administration handled it. He was trying to show support for the troops, and for the ultimate goal, which was to remove an oppressive, ruthless dictator from Iraq. Did he say we should have gone in unilaterally? No. Did he say he agreed with our supurning of the UN? No. He said that Saddam getting ousted would be good, not that the Invasion was good.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

108. He said he supported Bush disarming Saddam

In response to a question about whether it was right to invade.

Kerry's the king of doublespeak apparently.

[MrPeepers]

128. Disarming Saddam.

Not the way he disarmed Saddam, but the fact that Saddam was disarmed. I don't think that's doublespeak, I think it's agknowledging that Hussein was a bad guy and deserved what he got.

Peepers

[killbotfactory]

134. His quote is quite clear

He would have preferred more diplomacy but Saddam must be disarmed, and he supported Bush when he made that decision.

This was in response to a question about whether the invasion was justified.

He did not say "golly gee, it's great that Saddam is disarmed (of what, I don't know) but the invasion was unjustified."

[sandnsea]

141. Dean said Saddam MUST be disarmed

By unilateral military action if necessary. That's what the man said.

[killbotfactory]

153. No shit.

And he said unilateral action was not yet necessary. He was right.

[MrPeepers]

149. Yes, that's exactly what he said.

Hence the strong preferance that Bush hadn't done what he did.

Peepers

[sandnsea]

49. What was Dean's plan..

to get the inspectors in?

[killbotfactory]

52. I have no idea

The only possible way to do that would be to authorize Bush to invade and take over Iraq at any moment! Golly what a paradox...

Oh wait, no, that's stupid.

Maybe he could have supported a resolution which allowed Bush to attack, through, let's say airstrikes on all suspected sites (Which resident Clinton did with Operation Desert Fox, maybe?) if Saddam refused to comply with the UN and the UN would do nothing about it?

[DrFunkenstein]

57. I Have A Quote For You

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy," he said. "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."

[killbotfactory]

58. Kerry is either a liar or a fool

Giving the president authority to conquer Iraq was not the only way to get Saddam to comply with the UN (which he was reluctantly doing before Bush "disarmed" him.

Dean's position was the same as Kerry's before he caved in. Kerry would have even "preferred" the Biden-Lugar approach which Dean would have supported.

Dean: What Kerry prefers

[Pez]

67. dean's only claim to fame is that he didn't have to vote

[killbotfactory]

68. Kerry knew invading was wrong

He knew the consequences of bungling diplomacy and rushing to war.

Too bad he caved.

Dean spoke for me during Bush's insane rush to war. Kerry didn't.

[sandnsea]

75. Biden-Lugar

These are the words. Please explain to me how this would have created such a drastically different situation for Bush. I don't see it. Howard Dean supported this. Howard Dean supported war at the discretion of the President in order to enforce UN resolutions or protect the US or allied nations. I don't think the resolution passed even gives the right to protect allied nations. This says the US must attempt to seek a UN resolution. Not only did Bush seek one, he got one. What is in here that would have made a difference, considering Bush was hell bent for this war?

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

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

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

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

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

[killbotfactory]

81. It would force Bush to prove Iraq is a threat

And work through the UN.
Iraq was never proven a threat.
It also didn't authorize regime change.

[sandnsea]

93. How?

I don't see how that resolution would have forced Bush to prove anything more than he already 'did'. The actions he took would have been the same and he would have said the intelligence proved a 'grave threat' to the region and that he had made a good faith effort to work through the UN.

And the resolution that was passed didn't authorize regime change or 'Iraqi Freedom' either. But Bush went ahead with it, just the same.

And Howard Dean supported Biden-Lugar. Which means he supported war to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Saddam, unilaterally if necessary. He even said these words. He wasn't anymore anti-war than any of the other main candidates, besides Kucinich.

[killbotfactory]

101. Bush didn't prove shit.

All he did was have Powell present evidence (much of which was discredited BEFORE the war) that Saddam was not fully cooperating with inspectors and make a bunch of assertions he couldn't back up. There was no proof that Iraq was a threat to the US or our allies. Kerry was very impressed with Powell's evidence, though.

Dean isn't anti-war? No shit? This isn't about being anti-war, it's about being against unjustified and unnecessary wars. If Bush had proven that Iraq was a threat I would be for it, so would Dean. Bush didn't. He just blew smoke up everybody's ass and made tons of accusations without providing proof.

[sandnsea]

115. The same as he would have done with Biden-Lugar

That's the whole point. Bush launched this war and he would have done the same thing no matter which resolution was passed. He would have presented the same intelligence and said it presented the same 'grave threat' that Biden-Lugar called for. There would have been absolutely no difference in the results with Biden-Lugar. Dean supported Biden-Lugar which supported war in Iraq. He's a liar when he says different.

And please find me a quote where Kerry said he was very impressed with Powell's evidence. I've only seen him completely disgusted with the entire process.

[killbotfactory]

117. Well, great.

If Bush acted the same way under Biden-Lugar he would be in violation of the bill, and Dean, Kerry, anybody who voted for it could be against the invasion.

Kerry said he only gave Bush the threat of force to get Saddam to comply, said he would speak out if Bush bungled it, and that war MUST be a last resort. Bush bungled it and the invasion was not a last resort, and all Kerry could say is that he would have preferred to have more diplomacy but supported Bush.

In a typical reaction to Powell's speech, Sen. John Kerry -- a Democratic presidential contender for 2004 -- said Powell had effectively placed the onus on the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions.

"With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the U.N. to respect its own mandates," Kerry said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.us.reax/

Total disgust, indeed.

[sandnsea]

120. That's just wrong

Bush would not be in violation of the bill, he did everything the bill required him to do. He did it in a deceitful way, but he still did enough to fall within the requirements of Biden-Lugar.

Howard Dean said in response, on Feb 5:

“The Secretary of State made a compelling case for what the American people already know. Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed."

Once again, he throws this out there but doesn't say how Saddam is supposed to be disarmed.

Kerry puts the pressure on the UN. What else would someone expect a Senator, a Presidential candidate, to do? Any diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam through the UN, which Howard Dean said *must* happen, would require a cohesive U.S. voice.

Kerry was exactly right, Dean's policy on Iraq was just no. Nothing else. That is not enough for a Presidential candidate, not one that expects to beat Bush anyway.

[killbotfactory]

125. Nice selective quoting.

You missed the part where Dean said Powell's evidence did not justify invasion.

Bush did not meet the requirements. Powell's evidence, if you take it without question, didn't prove Iraq was a threat to the US or our allies. That's why the rest of the world was not on our side in this fight.

Dean's policy on Iraq is what Kerry's policy would be if he didn't cave in.

[sandnsea]

142. Dean said unilaterally disarm Saddam

That's what he said. Just because he hems and haws around about when and how to do that, doesn't mean he didn't say Saddam was a threat and MUST be disarmed. If you want to vote for an anti-war candidate, vote for Kucinich. Dean has never been that candidate. He has always supported a unilateral war to disarm Saddam Hussein. I don't care how many other things he's said on the topic, he has said that clearly. He's been wishy-washy and tried to have it both ways.

[killbotfactory]

154. That is not the same as supporting Bush's war.

Dean would support unilateral action as the very last resort. That does not mean invading and conquering the country. That does not mean he supported Bush's war.

[DrFunkenstein]

80. Put Another Way For Those Not In La-La Land

What Dean prefers: What Kerry prefers

The difference - Kerry spoke from a position of knowledge and responsibility. Dean spoke from hunches ("would be surprised") and unemployment.

[killbotfactory]

82. Kerry backed down.

He knew it was wrong, but went along with it anyway to look tough on national security.

Why didn't kerry speak up when the Niger documents were proven false by the inspectors BEFORE the war?

Why didn't Kerry speak up when the UAV turned out to be a balsa wood piece of crap RC plane BEFORE the war?

I guess he doesn't like to read the news.

[sandnsea]

98. The Niger documents??

Nobody knew these documents were false until just a few months ago. And the drone was just days before the war and not the point anyway. Saddam Hussein could have cooperated completely with the inspections. Even Hans Blix said he wasn't cooperating fully. That doesn't discount what Bush was doing, and Kerry did comment on it. He did call for Bush to give the inspectors more time, stop his unilateralist arrogance, and deal with Iraq correctly. He didn't back down from anything, not one time.

Actually, what Kerry really did is take a stand and stood by it. He took a clear stand to hold Saddam accountable; through war, as a last resort, if necessary. Howard Dean took the same stand, but pretends he didn't. That's the difference between the two and I've seen it for months now, over and over.

[killbotfactory]

106. They were discredited in the beggining of March

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/forged_niger_documents.html

Some inspector went on friggin' google and figured out they were false. For some goddamn reason, no one paid attention. I guess because Bush had all this "secret" evidence and we'd be finding piles of anthrax and VX gas everyone once we invaded and it would be forgotten. Whoops.

Kerry still supported the invasion, saying Saddam brought military action on himself. Bottom line, the war was not a last resort, it was not smart, and it was not necessary to defend the US from a threat. Kerry supported it anyway.

Dean wanted Saddam disarmed. Everyone did, except Saddam. He just didn't agree that giving Bush authority to invade whenever he wanted was the only way to accomplish that, or that the invasion as it took place was necessary, because Bush never proved that Iraq was a threat to the US.

[sandnsea]

114. You're right

El Baradei did state they looked forged, a short time before Bush started the war. Which isn't the same thing as knowing the extent of Bush's knowledge on them, which is what I was referring to.

And Saddam didn't cooperate fully, Hans Blix said that himself. It is true that had Saddam not behaved the way he had for 12 years, the war wouldn't have happened. But Kerry still did not support the invasion at that time. In fact, days before Bush launched the war is when Kerry called for 'regime change' because Bush had handled the Iraq situation so badly.

But since Howard Dean supported Biden-Lugar, he supported the exact same set of circumstances that led to this war. He's flat out lying when he says he didn't.

[killbotfactory]

118. It was weeks before the war.

There were huge red flags all over the place to anyone who was paying attention. Bush cutting short inspections, Bush not going back to the UN for a final vote, Bush bungling diplomacy, evidence Powell presented being discredited on a daily basis, etc...

Kerry did support the invasion. Hence, when asked if he thought the invasion was right, said he would have preferred more diplomacy, but thought Bush made the right decision when he decided to "disarm" Saddam.

[sandnsea]

130. Dean said Saddam MUST be disarmed

With ALL those red flags, 70% of Americans supported that war, believed the evidence and thought Bush had given the UN every opportunity. We had a Republican Congress who wouldn't have called attention to any of it which would have been necessary if it were to be 'stopped' based on Biden-Lugar. Dean blabbered on about the Saddam threat and the need to disarm him, with a unilateral war if necessary. All the while pandering to the anti-war people. He's a phony with no policies and no plans. He's doing the exact same thing with his Washington insider bullshit. Every health care program he has in Vermont is thanks to Washington, yet he calls them cockroaches for giving him his so-called health care platform to run on. He got the Conservation group to purchase 133,000 acres in Vermont, then caved to snowmobilers and logging so the land isn't as protected as it should have been. He's got no backbone, he's no straight-shooter, he represents everything that's wrong with politics and the Democratic Party in general.

[Egnever]

135. your argument here seems to be

Even though we know its bullshit we should just go along because it will happen anyway.

70% of americans were being fed propaganda on a 24/7 basis at the time and bought into the whole lie. 60% + now realize they were lied to in the build up to this war. Had Kerry stood up and told the truth he WAS aware of perhaps fox and friends wouldnt have been able to repeat the lies over and over duping the american public into suporting this war.

But he didnt.

He went along with it. Cause 70% of the american public was allowed to be duped and he didnt want them pissed off going into an election.

Sry this vote was timed in order to take the attention away from the economy in the 2000 elections kerry went along with other dems calling to get it off the table so they could focus on the economy instead. Strategic vote you bet. But dont play politics with human lives and expect me to vote for you later.

I will for vor him against bush but I pray it doesnt come to that.

[sandnsea]

138. That's not my point

My point is that Dean supported Biden-Lugar and Bush would have used the exact same 'intelligence' to circumvent that resolution as he did to circumvent the one that passed. Dean would then have been in the position of supporting a war vote. He supported going to war anyway, even though he tries to pretend he didn't.

And Kerry DID speak out against what Bush was doing. It occurs to me not as much was said by him that could have been said because he was having cancer surgery in February and I'm not exactly sure when he was in recovery mode.

[killbotfactory]

136. No shit! Everyone wanted Saddam disarmed!

Jesus christ. The problem is that there was no evidence justifying an invasion. No coherent plan put forth about what would happen after Saddam leaves.

Dean paid attention to what was going on and spoke out against the foolishness. He wasn't afraid to take an unpopular view. That's not pandering. Sorry. Everyone thought he would be a nobody because of his opposition to the war. Oops. Convential wisdom. What can you do?

[sandnsea]

139. No he didn't

You posted what he said yourself. He called Saddam a threat and said the US should disarm Saddam militarily if the UN refused. That's what he said. Now he says he didn't say it. He was either having it both ways then or he's lying now.

[killbotfactory]

140. The UN did not refuse

Bush invaded prematurely. Dean said all along that he thought Saddam had WMD but that Bush had not proven a case for unilateral war. Kerry even said Bush had not made the case to invade in his speech before he voted for the IWR.

Saying that the US should enforce the resolutions if the UN refuses is not the same as endorsing Bush's stupid and premature invasion of Iraq. This is not rocket science.

I would think Kerry of all people would appreciate nuanced positions.

[sandnsea]

167. I appreciate the truth

Dean just needs to tell the truth about his support for the war with Iraq in order to disarm Saddam, as a last resort. You've finally figured it out I guess, glad to see it. Go tell the other Deanie's, it's right that they know.

[Egnever]

131. This is just wrong

Evberyone in the know knew the niger documents were false the cia was saying so way back in october when they made bush take it out of a speach. Kerry read the CIA (at least I hope he read them since he refers to them) before casting his vote. He knew the niger reports were false then. Just because the media didnt pick up on the evidence till way later doesnt mean the evidence wasnt there all along. Kerry not only chose to ignore it just like Bush but he promoted the bullshit just l8ike bush in his speach before he cast his vote.

This issue is the main reason kerry will never get my enthusiastic support. he knew and he went along with the lie to cover his ass politically. It was an extreamly bad call and I will never respect him because of it.

[sandnsea]

137. That's completely false

The CIA knew the documents were false and reported it to Cheney's office, and then Bush's when he tried to put them in the Cincinnati speech. These weren't in any intelligence reports to Congress back in October, if ever, the Niger claims weren't made until the SOTU.

We've probably been over this. But did you read the reports from 90's from the IAEA, UNSCOM, CIA, DoD, State, and testimony to Congress from Scott Ritter and others? If you haven't, you really can't say what the intelligence said and what it didn't. The vote in October was based on reports from the 90's and a LACK of inspections since 1998. It was a vote to move forward in dealing with the WMD threat that even Howard Dean said existed.

You can't put what George Bush presented after the vote into the mix as evidence Kerry made a vote on bullshit intelligence.

[Egnever]

145. sory but I dissagree and so does kerry

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

It was in the NIE kerry knew and paroted the lie anyway

SEN. KERRY: 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.

[sandnsea]

159. That's not the Niger report

Different intelligence altogether.

[Egnever]

165. What difference does it make?

It all leads to the same thing. The inteligence presented by bush was false from the get go. This is the same inteligence report used to discredit the 16 words bush utered during the STOU speech and ultimately retract it . Kerry had read these reports I assume at the time and should have been aware of the truth. Instead he paroted the bush lies.

[sandnsea]

166. You assume

Nobody knew those 16 words were lies. This is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Nobody had seen the Niger reports except the CIA and I guess Cheney. They weren't part of any equation, except to the extent the British had them in their reports. It's not like the CIA just takes every piece of intelligence they have to Congress. Congress is very dependent on what the CIA brings to their attention.

Here's a declassified CIA report from the October 2002 NIE. You tell me you'd want a Senator who would completely ignore this. Take this report and multiply it by 100 over the course of 10 years. And Congress should just ignore it all. There was sufficient reason to move forward in holding Saddam accountable for disarming. Getting inspectors into Iraq was a reasonable requirement and the threat of military action was necessary to do that. What Bush did to force a war he did all by himself.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

[Egnever]

172. Yes silly of me to assume kerry would read the reports

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.

Of course the declasified version reads like a bush wish list. Thats the whole point. It was propaganda!

It remains propaganda has been propaganda from the start.

We have used Sadam husien from the end of the gulf wwar to control Iraqi oil. Using the excuse of of WMD in order to retain our control. There has been 0 concrete evidence of any new weapons programs. Since what 95?
Yet still the propaganda continues.

The thing you fail to realize is that sadam claimed they were all destroyed for a long time. 1000s of people crawling all over the country with a microscope are proving he was telling the truth.


I agree bush made the war hapen all on his own. But kerry did nothing to stand in his way and even suported his cause in some instances.

you can print right wing selling points for why this war was a great Idea all day long. The truth remains it is all crap.

There were no WMD, there were no ties to al-queda there was no nuclear programs and the NIE kerry had in his hands before the Vote said so. Sure it included all the bush talking points too. Did kerry and you really think it wouldnt?

Bush was bullshiting america with his special inteligence comitee. The niger documents were debuinked here on DU and other places within hours of the STOU.

The fact that kerry didnt see the turht means one of two things to me.

One he is niave and really thinks bush is realy a good guy and took him at his word. In witch case I question his judgement as bush had allready proven he couldnt be trusted.

Or two he ignored the facts on the ground same as you and went with the propaganda line in order to position himself politicaly for what he and everyone else watching at the time new was an inevitable rush to war by bush.

[sandnsea]

174. No

You're just a knee-jerk anti-anything America has to say. America is all evil and the ruination of the entire world. It's impossible to argue with people who have that point of view. You wouldn't believe anything that came out of our government, no matter when or where or about what. And you're entitled to your opinion.

But I have no clue why you'd support Dean, because that wasn't his view at all. His quotes supporting this war are posted all over DU. He supported war to disarm the threat posed by Saddam, unilaterally if necessary. He was not anti-Iraq-war. Support Kucinich, he was anti-war.

[Egnever]

175. Wow your starting to sound a lot like bush

Now I am anti american. non patriot cause I dont buy the whole Iraq story you and kerry are trying to spin?

I have heard that line of reasoning before.

One more time for the cheap seats.

Sadam was no threat to the US. In fact he was a US pupet for the most of his time in Iraq. The war was wrong we had no evidence ever to justify invasion only lack of evidence.

Ill stick with senator byrd on this one when he said this.

The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems. (NY Times 9/20/2002)

Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.

The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

[w4rma]

112. Kerry = Bushlite

This will be the same argument that Bush tries to use against Dean in the general election. This is good practice for Dean, IMHO.

[DrFunkenstein]

170. Anyone Else Notice Alot Of Selective Quoting

From the Dean people, only to followed by their outrage at Kerry supporters selective quoting?

Bottom line: we can find just as many quotes of Dean supporting disarmament, conditional unilateralism, etc.

Bottom line: I have yet to hear a Dean supporter talk about what Dean WOULD do, just what he WOULDN'T do. Which was Kerry's original point.

Feel free to start a thread on how great Dean's foreign policy is, and we will show you up and down why he is either A) lightweight, or B) dangerously wrong.

Beyond that, Dean people use the IWR as a crutch so they don't have to talk about the fact that Dean is a C+ candidate.

[MrPeepers]

171. That's exactly it.

I would really like to see a Dean Foreign Policy thread. Just like I'd like to see a Dean Foreign Policy.

Peepers

[Egnever]

173. When in Rome

Amazing that you have been through this discusion many many times and still you dont know what Dean was advocating.

Hint:

UN resolution with timetable for disarmament followed by a resolution if sadam was found to be refusing to be disarmed with credible evidence proving so to disarm him by force. with a caveat that the US reserves the right to act unilateraly if the UN refuses to in the face of credible evidence.

The dog and pony show wasnt credible evidence to Me Dean or most of the rest of the world. How bout you?