Dean said: "Only one candidate stood up against the war when it mattered"

[Renew Deal]

He just said this at the CMB event. He is technically right. It's Kucinich. He voted against it.

[Hep]

1. STILL wrong

LaRouche opposed it too. Why aren't you defending him?

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Don't think Larouche was in congress at the time....

[Hep]

4. What does that have to do with anything?

n/t

[JVS]

6. The word is "opposed", not "voted against"

[AP]

20. Operative phrase: "when it mattered"

Votes in congress matter because they're counted.

Opninions of politicians who aren't forced to make up or down votes recorded for posterity aren't counted and don't really matter.

[stickdog]

24. When Dean stood up against the war as Saddam's statue was coming

down, it REALLY, REALLY counted.

Sorry that your candidate still supports an indefensible war.

[Hep]

26. While I see your point,

Both supporters and opponents of non congressmen seem to see great importance in their stance on the war.

[AP]

27. However, with Dean's parsing, it's not hard for many to see that if he had

been in Congress, and had to vote, he probably would have voted for the IWR.

He did support Biden-Lugar.

[JVS]

31. I don't follow your logic here. Elaborate please

[AP]

42. Had Dean been in Congress and had he been forced to make an up or down

vote on the IWR, one can imagine that he might have made the up vote, escpecially since he was in favor of Biden-Lugar.

What I'm saying is that Dean's opposition to the IWR seemed to come only after he realized that it was the thing that he could use to contrast himself to the front-runners.

[bearfartinthewoods]

46. that has been my impression as well

when you think about it, how else was a conservative. little known governor of a tiny state, with no other elected experience going to distinguish himself in such a distinguished group of people?

his previous statements don't really jive with his sudden burst of opposition either.

[Hep]

33. Not everyone applies Kerry's decision making strategy

If Dean was for Biden Lugar, what makes you think he would have voted for anything but Biden Lugar?

[blm]

35. His 11 year record of compromising centrism

where he aligned with the Republicans more often than with Democrats.

[AP]

43. couldn't have said it better myself.

This is exactly right.

[mandyky]

3. Didn't the other thread like this get locked?

Old AA saying - Don't sweat the small stuff. We all know what Dean means by this.

[Hep]

5. What's this "we" stuff?

You and I do, so I guess that makes a "we"!

[Dhalgren]

7. Yes, we know what he means - it's what he says.

For Dean to contiually site himself as the "only candidate" to come out early against the war or the "first candidate" to do so, is a dismissal of Kucinich and a slap to all Kucinich supporters - I think that that "is what he means".

[sfecap]

9. Gov. Dean has specifically noted Rep. Kucinich's vote

in various speeches. In fact, I was standing about 4 feet from him a few months ago when he did so. I don't think he means to dismiss Rep. Kucinich's vote. He's just making the "stump speech".

[Dhalgren]

14. But candidates should not be misleading

or "loose with the truth" in stump speeches. If a candidate in his stump speech is going to make assertions that are only half truths at best it would make me worry about that candidates over-all honesty.

[edzontar]

19. Right. Dean respects Kucinich on this point.

I guess the quote speaks to Dennis' poor numbers so far.

[plurality]

34. yeah. he's respects him when he's there

but when it's just dean and voters who rely on dean to tell the truth so they can decide who to vote for, it's falsehood after falsehood.

[edzontar]

47. Hate to say this..but when it gets down to final three or four...

Dean will in fact be the only one who stood up against the war.

[blm]

49. No. Dean is on record supporting use of force

resolution not much different than IWR.

His deceptive rhetoric notwithstanding.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. Why should it get locked?

n/t

[GainesT1958]

8. Actually, I think it was...

Al Gore!:eyes:

B-)

[Renew Deal]

Gore's not running.

Unless I am not getting you.

[blm]

10. Dean's not being honest about his Biden-Lugar support again.

I found this breakdown comparing the B-L and IWR and Dean's rhetorical hole-digging on a Clark blog. Don't think Rove doesn't have all this on file, in fact EVERY word Dean has said on this is on file at the RNC. Count on it.
>>>>>>>

There are two parts required of the President.

The second part first:
Biden Lugar restricted the authorization of force to UN WMD resolutions against Iraq and the broader concept of self-defense or mutual-defense.

The actually passed resolution (Public Law 107-243) restricted the authorization to use force to - relevant UN resolutions (including repatriation of war detainees and Kuwaiti treasures, the resolution of the fate of our MIA pilot, and the repression of the population), self-defense or mutual-defense, and the nebulously defined war on terror.

Now the first part - the President had to merely inform Congress that there was no other way but to use force against Iraq regarding the above mentioned restrictions.  The only difference between the reporting requirement Biden-Lugar and 107-243 was a time constraint;  Biden-Lugar required notification prior to the use of force, 107-243 allowed up to 48 hours after initiating force to inform Congress.

The actual text in both resolution can be parsed almost exactly like this:

"The President shall make available his determination that...."

Here's the actual 'trigger' for the President to use force:
---------------
Biden-Lugar:   "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 Sept. 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)." 
-----------------
Public Law 107-243: In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
---------------

Now, Gov. Dean has an opinion piece in CommonDreams.org from April of this year which hints at the problem he has.

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

...snip...

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

...end snip...

This one paragraph shows is Gov. Dean's conflation of the White House resolution, which was not passed and the final resolution which, as I pointed out above is practically and functionally identical to the the Biden-Lugar resolution which he did support.  What this means is that Gov. Dean has based his entire criticism of his opponents and other Democrats on his incorrect understanding of what happened in the negotiation phase in Congress.  It's quite possible he didn't even read the intermediate or final resolutions involved in the debate, otherwise, he would have known that the 'certification' process for the Administration he claimed he supported in the Biden-Lugar resolution was also an explicit requirement in Public Law 107-243.

Even worse for Gov. Dean, what he claimed was a 'certification' process in Biden-Lugar was nothing of the sort.  Gov. Dean claimed that the President had to prove his WMD assertions were false; entirely untrue.  As pointed out above, the President merely had to show to Congress that he didn't believe Iraq would comply with UN resolutions or that he was acting under self-defense and that the invasion of Iraq was truly a part of the war on terror.

The only difference between Gov. Dean's position and what actually happened is that the report issued by the Administration would have simply deleted the references to the war on terror.  Even that's up for debate, since the war on terror would have been a claim used by the Administration regarding the 'self-defense' angle.  Otherwise, the net result would have been the same if Gov. Dean had been involved in the actual debate about the matter.  Ironically, he even has a quote saying that he 'got it right' while he was up in Vermont while the Washington insiders didn't know what they were doing.
 

[oasis]

11. Dean also said "Don't just send them a message, send them a president."

Seems the DOCTOR IS IN his borrowing mode.

[sandnsea]

13. He really said that??

Tell me more.

[AP]

23. Funny. Carter said, "don't send them a message, send them a president."

And it's the day after Dean acted like Carter was endorsing him.

[oasis]

37. When he took the podium after CMB's speech, Dean blurted it out

after his own address. He often speaks out without thinking about the consequences and this was just another example.

[plurality]

12. the problem with this is

that while WE all know that Dean is wrong and that DK, Al Sharpton, and CMB also opposed the war, not every person that hears Dean's speech knows this. And it's especially important when 2/3 of the electorate (re recent Iowa poll) is looking for an anti-war candidate. For Dean to say he is the ONLY candidate is not true and may cause some voters that aren't as informed as us to prematurely decide to vote for Dean based on the fact that he's the 'only candidate who stood up against the war.'

The fact of the matter is that some people who support Dean because of this might actually choose Kucinich or Sharpton if they knew there were other candidates who opposed the war. But instead they rely on Dean's (false) word that he's the only person against the war.

Dean's words are untrue and he should stick to the TRUTH in his speeches. Sorry that it doesn't make a better sound bite to say, "I'm the only candidate that has $40 million dollars, weekly magazine covers, and every other word on TV news spoken is my name, candidate to oppose the war.", but that's the truth, and for some reason I thought that that's what was important.

[sandnsea]

16. He didn't oppose the war

And that's the worst part of it all. I don't know why people insist on giving Dean a pass on all of his comments about invasion in 30-60 days and support of Biden-Lugar which authorized war. But he said all of it. He didn't oppose the war from the start. Kucinich certainly did, he never once gave a moment's support to the idea of war in connection with Iraq. THAT is the only way to claim you were aganst the war from the start.

[corporatewhore]

17. Kucinichhastood up since 2002 and when it mattered the most!! Before dean

dwas pretending to be apart of the democratic wing of democratic party
check it out http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[Hep]

18. Why does no one defend Larouche?

It doesn't seem fair.

[AP]

21. Because he doesn't matter.

[stickdog]

28. He raises more money than Kucinich.

And if he gets more votes, too?

[plurality]

36. sorry not true

larouche has raised about 4.5 mil to date in the course of a 30 year campaign while kucinich has raised close to 6 mil in about 9 months.

[Hep]

29. This is the part where Kucinich fans should stand up and say WAIT

LaRouche doesn't matter? As far as I can tell, he is still running, he's on the ballot in more states than Edwards is, and meets all other constitutional requirements for eligibility. Why exactly does he not matter?

[plurality]

39. he does matter to an extent

and i'll leave his supporters the chance to speak up for him, but regardless of whether it's DK, supporters, Sharpton supporters, or LaRouche supports making note of it, Dean is lying when he says he's the "only candidate who spoke out against the war". Spin all you want it's still a lie. Funny, I thought Dean the 'outsider' was beyond all that beltway spin bullshit.

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. personally speaking, it's because i'd vote bush before larouche

and i mean that.

[plurality]

22. because larouche is a nutcase

and isn't even on the ballot in most case, and hasn't even been in the debates.

the point is, why can't Dean stick to the truth in his speechs?

He can still sell himself as anti-war without pretending he's the only person who is can't. or would people then actually realize they have a choice in an anti-war candidate?

[Hep]

30. In which states is LaRouche not on the ballot?

n/t

[diamondsoul]

25. Ok, Hep. Post a criticism,

and I'll defend LaRouche. Will that make you happy or are you merely determined to malign my candidate by accusing him of being a "lunatic" as LaRouche has often been seen?

[Hep]

38. My point is that

LaRouche is no less eligible than any D candidate. Yet for some reason no one includes him in the claims about being against the war. Even Kucincih supporters who feel slighted by Dean's ommission of Kucinich leave him out.

So now he's just a nutcase and easily dismissed based on that? Bertrand, where are you?

"In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards. "

[AP]

45. Last I checked, there are something like 30 people with reg'd campaign

committees, as democrats, running for president.

Let me get this straight: When Dean stands on stage next to Kucinich and ignores his record, and is asked by Kucinich to stop, and Dean continues to ignore K's record, it's OK because there might be 23 or more other people with reg'd committees who were against the war, and Dean's only required to have his statements be truthful when he's talking about the people who are polling somewher in the top 6?

[dolstein]

32. Actually, Dean stood up when it didn't matter

He never had to vote on the darn thing. It's easy for him to criticize others from the sidelines. Odds our, Dean would have voted for the Biden Lugar resolution. And since both Biden and Lugar ended up voting for the resolution that ultimately passed, who's to say Dean wouldn't have done so too?

[Duder]

40. Didn't Moore in his Clark endorsement say:

"...Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained)." ?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml

[Paulie]

41. Here's the text that Dennis gave in that VOTE

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the brave young men and women who are following orders that have placed them in harm's way. I hope and pray for their safe return. My thoughts and prayers are with them, their families and loved ones in this difficult time.

While I will always support the troops, I cannot support this mission. Last night, the President ordered an unprovoked aggressive attack against Iraq in violation of American traditions of defensive war.

This war is wrong. As a nation we must come together to support the troops, but continue to challenge the policy that has put them at grave risk.

[maddezmom]

44. Replay now on CSPAN 4:45pm EST CMB, Tom H and Dean

just incase anyone is interested. :)