Bush Takes a Potshot at Kerry at his dinner tonight---why Kerry is doomed

[slinkerwink]

Kerry's Achille's Heel has already been exposed by Bush

From today's NY Times (linked):http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/politics/26LETT.html

That may be why Mr. Bush chose to swipe at Mr. Kerry in some off-the-record jokes in a speech on Saturday night at the Alfalfa Club dinner, an annual banquet for Washington's political upper class.

<b>"I think Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is politically brilliant,"</b> Mr. Bush told the Alfalfa Club guests at the Capitol Hilton, according to a guest who heard the remarks. <b>"In New Hampshire yesterday, he stated he had voted for the war, adding that he was strongly opposed to it."</b>

Kerry's constant flip-flopping on Iraq takes one of Bush's biggest Achille's Heels off the table for November, should Kerry be the nominee.

Thus, Kerry's ever flip-flopping war position means he is most likely unelectable, or, at the very least, less electable than either Dean or Clark.

Don't forget that Kerry:

Voted for the war

Voted not to fund Bush's $80 billion request (FLIP-FLOP 1)

Ripped Bush for repeatedly linking Iraq, Saddam and al Qaeda though there was no evidence for such a link (FLIP-FLOP 2)

Crowed about Saddam's capture and mocked Dean's assertion that we're "no safer" because of Saddam's capture while suggesting that this justified his position on the war (FLIP-FLOP 3)

And in statements on television celebrating the Saddam capture, mentioned Saddam, Iraq and al Qaeda in the same breath (FLIP-FLOP 4 -- see FLIP-FLOP 2, above)

Now says he is opposed to the war (FLIP-FLOP 5)

Kerry is dead meat on this issue (as is Edwards).

Dean and Clark should be all over him on this.

So much for Kerry's pompous insistence on his electability...

That is why I cannot support Kerry because he is doomed to lose the general election to Bush.

[ACPS65]

1. Bush would just need to play Dean's Iowa concession speech ad nauseum.

Nuff said.

[Forkboy]

3. Which is why we shouldn't vote for either of them

[Nederland]

131. Absolutely right

...and the perfect argument for Edwards.

[Egnever]

5. Whats wrong with deans speech?

other than the fact the tv told you to think it was bad?

[Blue_Roses]

85. the tv didn't

tell me it was bad..Dean did. Sorry but that speech made me stop in my tracks and wonder if he was auditioning to be a hockey coach.

[Turkw]

87. Pep Rallies-When Senator Kennedy announced Kerry, Ted was just as red

faced, just as loud, and not smiling as much as Dean. Talk about making something out of nothing. This is worse than "Gore is a Lier" that the press created.

The more I see the speech, the more I like it, though I wish this yell had been a little deeper. I have seen the angry Dean, but this ain't it. This was motivated Dean, I still find nothing wrong with it.

[progressivebydesign]

106. Don't waste the keystrokes..

We cannot convince some people that Dean's speech was overhyped and unfairly used against him. I think it should be obvious to reasonable people that 1) Dean lost his voice halfway through the speech and became hoarse (because he had a cold). 2) The 3,000+ crowd roaring was impossible to be heard over.. unless the sound was taken off one mic, as the media did. The ambient sound was so loud that you can't even hear the legendary "yearrgghh". The reason he's bounded back from that attack is that people can see that now.

I'm trying to ignore the roving attacks here on each Dean thread. I'm trying to stay positive, as the Dean campaign is.. and which is why he's surging in the polls. Take heart.. lots and lots of us know the truth about Dean's speech. :hi:

[janx]

7. The media did that already, and Dean is already bouncing

back.

I think American voters are fairly numb to it at this point.

[slinkerwink]

27. it already was played ad nauseum, and Dean is bouncing back in NH polls

[ClintonTyree]

31. Correction.............

a SELECT PORTION of the speech was played ad nauseum, had the media played the entire speech, including Harkin's, there wouldn't be that much thought of it. They keep playing the same 15 seconds that makes Dean look like a maniac. Typical "librul" media.

[zoeyfong]

41. The more i hear the scream speech, the more i like it!!

[rmdude]

124. Selective Play

Around the water cooler the day after Iowa, I stopped several folks in their tracks by playing them the whole speech so they could get context. Every one of them agreed that the picture being portrayed by the media was not the full story.

Go Dr Dean!!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

54. Dem candidate plays the BBC live feed of Bush announcing war start

which was shown a couple of minutes early 'by accident.'

Bush pumped his fist like a frat boy at a football game and
yelled "FEELS GOOD!"

That is the footage that moveon.org should be running ad nauseum.

The fracas over Dean yelling in a room full of screaming supporters is such a non-issue. I can't believe that intelligent du-ers think this is a liability.

[JNelson6563]

60. We don't

I can't believe that intelligent du-ers think this is a liability.

It is those who let TV tell them what to think that buy this package, and those who already have a negative view of Dean.

Julie

[JNelson6563]

58. already been done for him

"nuff said" <gag>

[drfemoe]

67. This camera view from the audience

might make you cry tender tears > http://www.idiomstudio.com/

[RetroLounge]

65. I hope they do. Everytime they play it

someone else goes: "What's so bad about that?"

[Skip Intro]

95. And Dean would just need to play bush's SOTU03, powells' UN speech,

cheney's MTP ("saddam has NUKES"), rums' "I know where they (wmd) are" speech, etc, etc.

I'll put Dean's scream up against this regime's lies any day. Let the American people decide which is worse.

nuff said

[janx]

97. Powell's UN presentation was what really did it for me.

I literally could not believe it, and Powell himself didn't do a very good job of looking as if he believed it either.

It was the very definition of farce.

[edzontar]

98. The speech turned out to be a GOOD thing for Dean, IMHO

Since it estabslihed him not only as a HUMAN BEING but as a legendary and immortal figure in American politics.


Love him or hate him, Dean is the REAL THING--like Clinton, actually, in that sense at least.

Compare that to the bland politics-as-usual types he is running against, and you may see what I mean.

[IndianaGreen]

2. You forgot to post the link.

Thanks.

[Maddy McCall]

10. 15 minutes later...

I noticed that, too.

[slinkerwink]

61. 15 minutes later....the link was posted

;-)

[janx]

4. Things like this are the things that actually DO determine

"electability."

All the candidates are going to have something for the Chimp to criticize, but I'm afraid this is an awfully big one.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[janx]

8. "Dean snapped" ? LOL!

That's pretty funny.

Have a look at this:



http://homepage.mac.com/brianflemming/howard_dean/bush_vs_dean.html

[Forkboy]

11. I thought it was a good speech Dick

[Egnever]

13. The preacher scream?

You mean yelling to be heard over 3500 screaming suporters?

Thats bad in your eyes?

:roll:

Methinks the tv told you it was bad and you bought into it hook line and sinker.

http://www.webmastersforamerica.com/Idiom_Studio/video.htm

There it is from the crowds perspective but I dont expect you to actually look at it. Its soooo much easier to buy into the BS isnt it?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[slinkerwink]

30. Edwards would lose like Kerry would lose in the general election

[Egnever]

37. I see....

im speaking to the gutteral(sp) state listing

So it was bad because you didnt like the tone of hus voice when trying to speak over 3500 people.

Gotcha!

:eyes:

[bearfartinthewoods]

69. shame on the dean team then

for sending him in their without a working mic..</sarcasm>

[calimary]

96. My gut reaction was that Dean probably needed throat lozenges.

I wasn't put off by it. What I was put off by was an attempt to be practical. I myself wasn't phased by it. Seemed reasonable considering the CONTEXT of the speech, a screaming room of screaming people and the guy onstage was trying to scream along with AS WELL AS over them. EVERYBODY was in a fever pitch in that room, and frankly, you DID NOT NEED to see the entire speech in context from the audience's eye-view, to discern this. I was judging from the 15-second piece that the media has run with, ad nauseam.

What worried me about it was the way I knew other people were going to react to it. I knew that Dean opponents and republi-CONS were going to seize on this and make trash of it, and of him. And having done that, it seemed to me that this would open up a wound that might eventually bleed the candidate to death.

I am realistic enough to know that, if sharks smell blood, they're gonna go in for the kill. If there's a PERCEPTION of damaged goods, that PERCEPTION can find its way into becoming a fact. That's just how it is. And media manipulators know it, too.

If enough people bought into it, it would then be a serious problem for real, whether it had merit, for real, or not.

HOWEVER, the way Dean has played it since, mellowing just a little, showing his human side (and his wife's doing likewise) on Primetime Live, and his poking fun at himself on David Letterman with the Top Ten list, all that starts to quiet things back down again. If, indeed, his polls are going back up (and they may be, Zogby I think shows Dean and Kerry in a statistical dead heat, although I don't think other polls reflect that as well), the proof will be in the pudding on New Hampshire Night.

New Hampshire will explain whether Dean is on the critical list or not.

Besides, other posters here have brought up an interesting point: there may indeed be some backlash to this, in sympathy for Dean. Look at how many people, just in this little DU universe, have posted that, while they're not Dean people, they feel sorry for him and the way he's been dumped on because of this, and some of them are actually pulling for him a little bit. Others voice out-n-out pride at the "Rebel Yell" and some have even made bumper stickers and stuff out of it, turning an adversity on its head and making it into an advantage. Who knows?

WAY too early to write Dean's political obit. Just WAY, WAY too early.

That said, I will support whomever, or whoever, is the last man standing. Even Lieberman. And even Kerry - although with both, I will likely do so half-heartedly.

[progressivebydesign]

110. Have you ever heard of laryngitis?

Ummm... before you dismiss Dean's speech as "hockey coach" bad, consider the truth. He lost his voice during that speech. He had a terrible cold and was spending the week giving speeches. During the speech you're mentioning, his voice went suddenly hoarse trying to be heard above the screaming, chanting, foot-stomping, and megaphoned crowd of 3,500+. Frankly, I'm all for a candidate with some passion.. I'm tired of stuffed shirts...

Bush got close enough to take the election because he wasn't a wimpy stuffed shirt.. he was marketed as an outsider, a rebel, a cowboy who is straight talking. That's what did it for Clinton, too.. that human-ish quality.. Bush's outsider, guy you want at your barbeque, was manufactured mostly.. but it worked. I can't believe some mellow guy in a 3k suit is going to excite the masses in November.

[slinkerwink]

9. exactly!

[ronzo]

16. Do we have a link to this story?

That'd be great.

[slinkerwink]

18. here you go---edited my post

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/politics/26LETT.html

[ronzo]

22. Thanks. n/t

[janx]

19. I don't know how Kerry is going to get past that.

I don't think he can.

[slinkerwink]

25. this is why I prefer Dean to beat Bush

[Abigail147]

129. To an extent, this is true, however,

Dean took a licking and kept on ticking. He keeps going. He does not give up.He does not roll over. People can see how the media distorted this, and folks, we know they will continue in this vein so it was a good thing. Now we know how low the media stoops and how people respond. The cable networks in particular revealed their prejudices and over reached.

[jsw_81]

12. Kerry is doomed? I don't think so

Newsflash: Bush and the Republicans are going to ridicule, insult, and make fun of whoever we nominate no matter what. We'd face a blizzard of negative ads and smears even if we nominated Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. That's just the way presidential politics works. Bush likes his job and he's going to fight like hell to keep it.

The only major candidate who is doomed at this point is Howard Dean. Incredibly, he managed to destroy himself with his Iowa screaming fit that you seem to think was a stroke of genius. Just try and imagine what Bush and Rove would have to say about that little episode! Unless Dean manages to win New Hampshire tomorrow, he is finished.

John Kerry, however, is far from doomed. In fact, he'll probably be a strong candidate this fall. I wouldn't be surprised to see him elected in November, especially if he should choose Bob Graham, John Edwards or Evan Bayh for VP. Those tickets would be extremely formidable.

[slinkerwink]

23. Dean isn't finished if he places second in NH

[jsw_81]

38. Well it depends

If Dean loses New Hampshire by a hair, he'll probably continue for a while (only to be trounced in South Carolina a few days later), but if Kerry wins by nine or ten points as most polls suggest, then Dean is through. Deny it all you want, but that's just the way it is.

[Gore1FL]

14. Not a flip flop

He voted for the military resolution, not what Bush did witht he military resolution.

His failure, and yes I agree there was one, was trusting Bush not to abuse the power given to him.

I'd rather not see Dean and clark (or any candidate for that matter) "be all over him on this." because it is disingenuous.

Dean and Clark have enough strengths on their own to spin the often explained Kerry vote into something it was not.

The MO caucus is coming soon and I am still undecided. I defended each candidate here so many times, it is hard to make a decision -- based on worthiness -- not the lack thereof.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Don't let George scare you......

I doubt John Kerry is losing too much sleep over what Dimson has to say.

[AnnitaR]

17. One of main reasons why Kerry is the wrong choice!

We will lose the ability to hold Chimpy accountable for this unjust war. Kerry can't stand up to Bush on this huge issue the way that Clark can.

We need to have every weapon in our arsenal available to us in the General. We nominate someone who voted for the war... we lose our ammo against Bush's illegal war.

I've yet to hear one credible thing about Clark that they are going to be able to use against him! How can so many voters ignore that?

The ignore/destroy media machine against Clark is proof that he is the one they fear most!

[slinkerwink]

20. exactly! they both fear clark and dean!

[bigtree]

105. Gen. Clark's position was closer to John Kerry's at the start of the race

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43


Talk about shifting views on this. The man did say these things. He did say: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question,"

He did say that he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean.

[sandnsea]

21. He voted for Bush to act like a President

and was strongly opposed when he didn't.


Terrorists are soldiers. Iraqis are worse off with Saddam gone. Palestinians might be better off with terrorists in charge. We need UN permission to go to war. We may not always have the strongest military.

Yeeeeaaagghhhh!!!

No fucking way.

[slinkerwink]

24. all those dean quotes you mentioned are true and absolutely correct!

[janx]

26. If anyone should have known that Bush would not act like

a reasonable president, Kerry should have known.

I knew he wouldn't, and so did hundreds of thousands of others. Kerry is paid with taxpayer money to know those things.

And he didn't know...

It's a BIG problem, sandnsea.

[slinkerwink]

28. Kerry did what was politically popular, and that is what will kill him

in the general election.

[janx]

32. That's what I'm afraid of. If the Chimp is already mentioning

this, just think what would happen come GE time.

[slinkerwink]

33. *shudder* it won't be pretty at all for Kerry

[fujiyama]

36. It won't be pretty...

for whomever the candidate is.

[kstewart33]

66. Bush hasn't said one negative word about Dean

I wonder why that is?

[bigtree]

101. How you define the pro-IWR vote as political expediency

while at the same time advocating that a 'no' vote was superior and guiless?

What are you really arguing here? That more Americans were likely to agree with Sen. Kerry's vote, therefore he would get the political benefit of that? Was it clear at the time of the vote that Americans supported the IWR? If not, then where is the political benefit? How could anyone know what the politics would be a year from the vote?

If most Americans do indeed believe that his vote was correct then they will be more aligned with the argument of the senator and others that Bush pushed past the clear mandate of Congress which advocated in its resolution that the threat be imminent, and that Bush go back to the U.N. and exhaust the potential for international support. None of which the president did. He pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless, predisposed agenda to invade and occupy Iraq.

The power to commit forces was invested in loopholes in the WPA. The War Powers Act. The same authority that presidents have used for decades to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

Bush wanted the cover of Congress. Save the provisions that Sen. Kerry and others had included in the resolution about proceeding to war only as a last resort, Democrat's imput on that bill - which sought to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. - was reduced to a no vote. The bill doesn't mandate an immediate rush to invade Iraq. It actually mandates against that. Bush disregarded the intent of Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to invasion and occupation.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war.

Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.

[sandnsea]

34. No, you're wrong

Kneejerk anti-Republicanism is not what he's paid for. He's paid to look at the facts and make decisions as best he can for the security of the country and the world. Long term and short term. And no Senator should ever make those decisions because the President is from the opposing party. It's childish and irresponsible. And people can sit around and pretend they knew this and that and ignore everything Dean said on the subject and spew their hatred all they want. It doesn't mean a fucking thing. It's as big a load of shit as George Bush's lies.

[Egnever]

40. Ignore?

I think Dean was spot on in every one of those quotes. Sometimes the truth isnt pretty.

Deal

[janx]

78. I'm not talking about knee-jerk anything.

Let's not get into oversimpification.

[calimary]

109. Janx, you're correct. It IS a BIG problem.

It's a HUGE problem for me, sandnsea.

Look, if Kerry winds up being our guy, I'm there. I'll vote for him. I'll even support him. I'll even act like I love it. But my heart will be way back over there sitting on the fence.

It's a HUGE problem for me. When janx says "I knew he wouldn't, and so did hundreds of thousands of others. Kerry is paid with taxpayer money to know these things. And he didn't know..." I mean, SHIT! That IS PROBLEM NUMBER ONE! That is EXACTLY how I feel. I happen to have been one of those hundreds of thousands - no, make that MILLIONS of people, all over the country AND all over the world, on EVERY continent, INCLUDING ANTARCTICA, who protested the rush to war last February. I protested more than on just that day. I think I must have gone to maybe half-a-dozen anti-war events, here in Los angeles, before AND after that day. Leading up to those protests, I was trying to read and research all that I could about it. I found plenty. I like to do that because if I'm gonna stick my neck out and take a stand about something, especially something THIS important, I should have at least a little bit of a notion of what I'm talking about. I was a reporter for 25 years. We had to research stuff, and be able to back what we reported with sources and attribution. I'm not a reporter anymore, but that ethic didn't retire just because I myself did.

What I learned and dug up and read about and researched, from many credible quarters and varied opinion sources told me the war was bogus, the intel was cherry-picked, the intel-gatherers were strong-armed and intimidated, and Congress was intimidated - by a combined machine of right-wing politicos and their many media apologists. We were all steamrolled. There were those who saw the info and decided to go ahead and buy into what they hoped and wished it'd be. There were those who saw it and decided to give the bushies the benefit of the doubt, regardless what their eyes and ears were telling them. There were those who were scared and arm-twisted into it for fear they'd be labeled unpatriotic and unAmerican if they didn't. And there were those, like me, who saw all of that hardball and strong-arm crap and Easter Bunny crap and said BULLSHIT! Krugman was saying it. John Dean was starting to say it. Robert Byrd and Henry Waxman were saying it. Hans Blix was saying it. Scott Ritter was saying it. A whole buncha people were saying it. A whole buncha people were NOT swayed.

John Kerry had access to all that. And he allowed himself to be swayed. So did Edwards, for that matter.

And that's a fact. Just like AWOL is a fact. Just like NO WMDs are a fact. It's a fact. Facts are AWFULLY hard to get around. They're not even good pigs to put lipstick on. If I could see it, why couldn't Kerry?

And that, sandnsea and everybody else who ardently supports Kerry, IS A PROBLEM. IT IS A BIG PROBLEM. ON BEHALF OF EVERYBODY I MARCHED WITH AND HAD CARS HONKING AT US AND MIDDLE FINGERS STICKING OUT AT US AND THUMBS-UP AND HIGH-FIVES WAVED AT US, TOO, IT'S A BIG PROBLEM. HUGE.

I'll vote for Kerry if I have to. I'll give him money and write my columns and my posts here in support of him, and lobby my friends on his behalf, if I have to. But I prefer the rebel yell people, and how they apparently saw what I saw, and concluded what I concluded, and stuck with it. Instead of going the other way in the face of the facts, and then having to apologize and dance all around it and over it, after - THE FACT.

They're screaming now? Hell, I've been screaming since December 2000! Even before that. All during the lies of the whole fucking campaign.

[AnnitaR]

35. So Kerry TRUSTED Bush to act like a President???

Was Kerry sleeping during Bush's presidency up til that vote???

How in God's name could he trust Bush???

How could he not see that everything Bush and his boys had been doing up until that point was destroying this country?

Yet, on one of the most important issues this country has ever faced; starting an ELECTIVE war, Kerry TRUSTS Bush to make the right decisions???

I'm sorry, Kerry may be a great man but I have SERIOUS doubts about his ability to assess a situation and make the right choice.

I am not a life long politician, I don't have a college degree... yet I KNEW and had no doubts that Bush was lying to get us into that war. I never had ANY doubt that he would do the WRONG thing.

You want me to support someone to be my President who couldn't come to the same conclusion? I think not!

[sandnsea]

46. Bla bla bla you knew

Bullshit.

[AnnitaR]

49. So, you are calling me a LIAR???

Nice post!!

Bullshit to you as well!

I promise you that I did in fact KNOW that Bush was LYING to get us into this war!

Don't blame me and accuse me of lying just because your candidate was not able to do the same!

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[AnnitaR]

53. You CANNOT be serious??

If you are I feel really bad for you.

"Absolutely unfathomable"... gee isn't that what Condaleeza Rice said about terrorists using planes as weapon? Turns out that wasn't "unfathomable" either. They too knew waay before that such a thing was possible.

I am ending this "discussion" with you because some things are just a lost cause. My response didn't warrant the way in which you attacked my intelligence and honesty. I'm sorry you felt the need to respond the way you did.

[sandnsea]

55. Lost cause

That's a fact. It's beyond belief how people mix up what was known when and leap to conclusions with no basis in fact. It's nauseating. I'm sorry I got upset with you personally. But all this "I knew" stuff just gets on my nerves. Wes Clark didn't even know. You're saying you're smarter than your candidate for chrissake. It's just unreal.

[slinkerwink]

57. I knew also, and that's why I protested against the Iraq War

[Auntie Bush]

93. I KNEW...why didn't Kerry

Everyone who was paying attention KNEW.
Anyone who thought otherwize...easn't thinking. All he was doing was covering his ass so no one would accuse him of being soft on terrorism. Come on...he KNEW!

[edzontar]

100. If Kerry and or Clark did not know that vote was going to lead to war

They are the only two people in the universe who can make that claim.

To this argument I say: DUH?????

[calimary]

121. I knew, too. I APPRECIATE your convictions, sandnsea.

Heaven knows, we all need 'em.

And I WILL support Kerry if I have to.

But, really, to say we were among those leaping to conclusions with no basis in fact - yeah, that IS nauseating because it's just so bogus! There was PLENTY of basis in fact. PLENTY!!!

If you go back over the track record of george w. bush, you will see a long-established, rock-solid, fact-supported track record of lies, misrepresentations, fudging of the facts, manipulating facts, people, circumstances, and details, to fit a picture he decided arbitrarily was the reality. It goes back ALL THROUGH the 2000 campaign. It goes back through his record as governor of Texas. It goes back to his record with three oil companies he drove into a ditch. It goes back to his Texas Rangers stint, and how he and his cronies strongarmed Texas taxpayers to pick up the tab for the owners to build a stadium, and steamroll everybody who owned property where they wanted to build it. It goes back to what he said about Ann Richards taking money from Kenny-boy when he himself supposedly did not (just another lie). It goes back to the Enron scandal and his feigned distancing himself from said Kenny-Boy. It goes back to his track record at Yale and Harvard, his drunk driving arrests and the cover-ups of his record. It goes back to his drug usage and cocaine jones. It goes back, back, back, back, back, back.

There was an unrefutable track record of deception and bullshit and smoke-n-mirrors and bait-n-switch back to just after the schmuck was potty-trained, for heaven's sakes! It's a life-long, firmly established record of dismal, deceitful schmuckery and croneyism and corner-cutting and string-pulling, and duck-n-cover, and hiding out and running away from the truth and problems and difficulties and dangers, and avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability. It goes that far back, and that deep.

This is an individual whom I hesitate even to refer to as a "man." Calling bush a man is insulting to real men, everywhere. He abdicated his right to claim the benefit of the doubt from ANYONE, LONG AGO. Probably in the schoolyard somewhere. And hell, if I can see that, why couldn't Kerry?

[Guaranteed]

86. ............

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1054331


Psssh. Some people'll say anything.

[bigtree]

112. You know BullGoose

If he was predisposed to invade - which everyone including John Kerry pointed out before the IWR vote - then nothing, save the restrictions wary Democrats managed to get inserted into the bill, would have stopped him. A 'no' vote wouldn't have stopped him; not even if every one of the Democrats had camped out on the capitol grounds.


Bush's position at the time was that 1441 was sufficient authority to do what he wanted. Also, loopholes in the War Powers Act referenced in the resolution, provided more than enough authority to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. In the unlikely event that the resolution would have failed, the president would have almost certainly moved foward with his pre-disposed agenda to invade and occupy. Congress would then be loath to remove those forces and retreat.

The resolution was seen by some Democrats, like John Kerry, as a vehicle to steer Bush back to the U.N. and hopefully forestall war. Indeed Sen. Kerry and others were able to get language to that effect inserted into the bill. That's where, in the public debate we effectively get to 'Bush lied'. Bush lied to Congress, the American people, and the international community in his reckless rush to war. Foisting the blame on a congressional resolution, which in part, sought to reign Bush in, takes the heat off of Bush. Bush pushed ahead. He had planned to all along. He had the power. The resolution was a minor detour.

He sought to use Congress as cover but was forced back to the U.N. He got a chilly reception there but he stuck his chin out and pushed past that international body as well.

[Cheswick2.0]

83. are you saying you didn't know?

I certainly did and so did Kerry.

[w4rma]

103. I'm not convinced Kerry understands how our system of checks and balances

is supposed to work. If he didn't want Shrub to do what he did, then he should have put some checks on Smirk in the bill.

When Kerry came out and said that there wasn't any difference between this bill and Biden-Lugar, this only helps to confirm my fear about Kerry.

[bigtree]

115. You can't see behind the scenes, but . . .

Here is the language that was included for Sen. Kerry and others who would support the resolution:


"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Doesn't this mean imminent threat? Didn't Bush exceed this authority?

____________________________________________________________________

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Isn't this stating that the authority is inherent in the old War Powers Resolution which presidents have gone around for decades. The authority is not inherent in the new resolution, the president already has that authority through the loopholes of the War Powers Act to commit forces. That is what this specific statutory authorization is stating, I believe. Hence:

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

___________________________________________________________________

Authority to proceed is granted by Congress under this legislation. (Bush could proceed anyway under the WPA for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event it would be unlikely that Congress would withdraw forces) Authority is granted, effective with a:

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

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

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



The president clearly disregarded the intent of this legislation which was to provide the threat of force to force Saddam to let inspectors in, and steer Bush back to the U.N. He wasn't inclined to go, sure. But the resolution sought to steer him back there. That is the rational for the support some Democrats gave the legislation.

Indeed some were able to insert language to that effect into the bill. John Kerry among them:

In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.

"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.

"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10IRAQ.html?ex=1074920400&en=d3b91dfa96cba16c&ei=5070


All efforts to stifle Bush's manufactured mandate to conquer were rejected by the president and his Bush league. Bush pushed past the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community and invaded.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

39. It's a problem

Kerry can fight his way out of that one. He could say something like "I supported the war on Iraq, yes. But in my defense, how was I to know that Bush was lying to Congress and the American people and in fact knew all along that there were no weapons of mass destruction? No one could expect that from an American president, which is why Bush needs to go."

The problem is, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that Bush was lying about the weapons of mass destruction. Kerry should have known it too.

[slinkerwink]

42. then how come people like Dean, Clark, and Kucinich already knew the war

was wrong before Kerry voted for it?

[IndianaGreen]

44. Either Kerry lied to us, or Kerry is a fool for believing Bush

Either way, Kerry struck out!

[bornskeptic]

56. Apparently Clark didn't know.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark said yesterday that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to wage war in Iraq, taking a position on a key campaign issue closer to that of Senator John F. Kerry than Howard Dean's strong antiwar stance.

(snip)

Senators Kerry of Massachusetts, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri voted for it, with reservations about how Bush conducted foreign policy in the days that preceded the war. Clark himself said yesterday that he believed his position was closer to Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt than to Dean, a former governor of Vermont.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/

[Cheswick2.0]

84. Kerry can't fight his way out of this one with me

I am not worried about whether he can convince the average voter and thus be electable. I don't think he can and and I don't think he is electable. But that is not the main reason I will not vote for him. The main reason I will not vote for him is he has no personal character. He is all politics all the time and I think he knew exactly what he was voting for by voting for the IRW. He will never get my vote.
He will also never get my vote because he is an arrogant out of touch elitist skull and bones rich boy with a gigantic sense of entitlement.

[bigtree]

99. You have a narrow view of the lifetime efforts of John Kerry

Some background and references:

On January 22, 2002 Kerry became one of the first Democrats to present an alternative to the Bush administration's energy plan. Delivering a major policy addresss, "Energy Security is American Security," he stated, "If we enact the entire Bush energy plan we will find ourselves twenty years from now more dependent on foreign oil than we are today." Kerry called for a "national Strategic Energy Initiative," including increasing the amount of electricity from alternative and renewable sources to 20% by 2020, improving Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, reinvesting in public transportation, and tax incentives for efficiency improvements.

Kerry was a leading opponent of efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "It will never pass the Senate," he said in an August 1, 2001 statement. "You don't have to destroy a wildlife refuge to meet the energy needs of America," he told attendees of the California Democratic Party convention in February 2002. When the energy bill came up in early March, Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) produced a bipartisan proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards. The amendment would have required automakers to achieve an average of 36 mpg for their combined passenger car and light truck fleets by model year 2015, however, on March 13 the Senate voted in favor of a weaker amendment sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Kit Bond (R-MO). Debate on the energy bill continued, and on April 18 Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, and other opponents of drilling in ANWR succeeded in putting a halt to the Administration's proposal as a cloture motion fell 14 votes short of the 60 required (S.Amdt.3132--46 to 54 vote).

...And Small Business Relief
From his position as chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry sought to provide emergency economic relief for small businesses in the wake of the September 11 attacks. By mid-December, the Kerry-Bond American Small Business Relief and Recovery Act, S.1499, had gained the backing of 63 Senators. However, the Administration opposed the bill and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blocked its consideration. For a time Kerry even resorted to placing a hold on all non-judicial executive nominations, but he was unable to advance the bill. Kerry and Bond managed to include some provisions in a defense bill. Finally, they achieved a compromise with the White House, and on March 22, 2002 S.1499 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The estimated cost of the bill according to the CBO is $300 million.

Kerry has also been concerned about the shortage of professional nurses. In 2001, he introduced several versions of a Nurse Reinvestment Act (S.706 and S.1597), and a bill (S.1864) eventually did pass the Senate and was signed into law in August 2002.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry.html


Kerry said he has been responsible for laws to pay for 100,000 police officers and support fishery and environmental laws and small-business aid programs. He also pointed to his advocacy of democracy in the Philippines and the end of the Marcos regime there.

And he spoke of the investigations from earlier in his career - his probe of the Nicaraguan Contra armies, international money laundering and American prisoners of war in Vietnam. He also led the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam, where he was wounded in combat as a Navy officer.

Aides point out that while many of Kerry's initiatives have not passed Congress intact, they have been included as amendments to bills that made it into law.

But if recent political history is any indication, other academics said, legislative accomplishments don't mean much in a presidential race. "Most voters only have a vague idea of what senators do," said John Pitney, government professor at California's Claremont McKenna College. "If you look at the senators who've run for president, most don't have a legislative record."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2627.shtml




Massive amount of bills sponsored and many more co-sponsored by John Kerry (scroll down the page to John Kerry when it opens):

107th Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdbrwsr/d107/sponlst.html?/d107/splst.html#sK

108th Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdbrwsr/d108/sponlst.html?/d108/splst.html#sK


Readers will be able to find out more about Sen. Kerry and his vision in a couple of books. He has penned A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America (Viking Press, October 9, 2003), and helped historian Douglas Brinkley with material for Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War (Viking Press, January 6, 2004) which is scheduled to be published less than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

Readings and Resources
Todd S. Purdum. "Storied Past, Golden Resume, but Mixed Reviews for Kerry." November 30, 2003. .

Calvin Woodward. "An ambition to lead powers Kerry through maelstrom of war and jarring career turns." Associated Press. October 9, 2003. (1,850 words)

Boston Globe's seven-part "John Kerry: Candidate in the Making" series:
John Aloysius Farrell. "At the center of power, seeking the summit." June 21, 2003.
John Aloysius Farrell. "With probes, making his mark." June 20, 2003.
Brian C. Mooney. "Taking one prize, then a bigger one." June 19, 2003.
Brian C. Mooney. "First campaign ends in defeat." June 18, 2003.
Michael Kranish. "With antiwar role, high visibility." June 17, 2003.
Michael Kranish. "Heroism, and growing concern about war." June 16, 2003.
Michael Kranish. "A privileged youth, a taste for risk." June 15, 2003.

Mark Z. Barabak. "John F. Kerry: The Massachusetts Senator, A Decorated Veteran, Mixes Strong Liberal Credentials With Pro-War Stands on Iraq." Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2003. .

Laura Blumenfeld. "Hunter, Dreamer, Realist: Complexity Infuses Senator's Ambition." Washington Post, June 1, 2003. .

David Nather. "Kerry's Complex Record and His Pursuit of the Presidency." CQ Weekly, April 26, 2003. <"The Road Up Pennsylvania Avenue" series>

Julia Reed. "A Man in Full." Vogue, March 2003.

Adam Nagourney. "Antiwar Veteran Eager for Battle." New York Times, December 9, 2002, page A22. . (1,936 words)

Joe Klein. "The Long War of John Kerry." The New Yorker, December 2, 2002.

Jonathan Miles. "A Lighter Side of John Kerry." Men's Journal, August 2002.

Sally Jacobs. "The importance of being not so earnest." Boston Globe, May 1, 2002, page D1.

Paul Alexander. "John Kerry: Ready for His Close Up." Rolling Stone, April 11, 2002.

C-SPAN's "American Politics" ran a profile (about 56 minutes long, taped in Nov. 2001) of Sen. Kerry on Feb. 17, 2002.

[Maddy McCall]

43. More from the NYTimes article which shows that any frontrunner will

be exposed to the same dirt-digging from the Bush camp:

A week ago, the sleek headquarters of Bush-Cheney '04 in Arlington, Va., was humming with preparations for a race against Howard Dean. Today, Mr. Bush's advisers are scavenging for damaging nuggets in the long legislative record of Senator John Kerry, who was 3 points ahead of Mr. Bush, 49 percent to 46 percent, in a hypothetical election matchup in a Newsweek poll of registered voters on Friday and Saturday.

That may be why Mr. Bush chose to swipe at Mr. Kerry in some off-the-record jokes in a speech on Saturday night at the Alfalfa Club dinner, an annual banquet for Washington's political upper class. The official position of Mr. Bush's advisers is that he is too busy running the country to pay attention to the campaign, but someone must have forgotten to tell the president.


snip/ For copyright purposes, I deleted the paragraph that was in the original post, the one in which Bush swipes at Kerry.


The line got a big laugh, the guest said, as did this one about Howard Dean's "I Have a Scream" postcaucus speech in Iowa: "Boy, that speech in Iowa was something else," the guest reported Mr. Bush as saying. "Talk about shock and awe. Saddam Hussein felt so bad for Governor Dean that he offered him his hole."

No doubt Mr. Bush, the original political animal, would be in New Hampshire punching back at Mr. Kerry and Mr. Dean if it weren't considered so unpresidential. There is no word on his frustration level, but at this point, the plan is that the president won't jump in until spring, when the Democrats could have a nominee and his campaign may have close to $200 million, a record, in contributions.


***********************
According to your criteria, Slinkerwink, is there ANY candidate who can stand up to Bush? Is there a single candidate against which Bush won't find some fleeting statement to hold against him? I think not, and I also think we shouldn't allow Bush to determine who OUR nominee will be.

[AnnitaR]

47. We're not letting him determine our nominee.

However, I do think that it is the smartest thing to nominate someone who can make the strongest argument against Bush while have the least amount of ammo that can be used against them.

There's one person who can fill that criteria: Wes Clark.

Just for the record if Clark weren't in this thing I'd have to go with Dean. I just can't get past the fact that Kerry didn't know not to trust Bush to do the right thing regarding Iraq. His trust in Bush on this issue is something I can't ignore!

[IndianaGreen]

48. Wes Clark would be a far stronger nominee than Kerry

and he wouldn't bring the flip-flop baggage that Kerry would bring to the campaign.

[emulatorloo]

71. Annita, Wes said he believed Saddam had WMDs too

on meet the press yesterday. He said that Rumsfield told him and a bunch of retired generals that Rumsfield knew exactly where 30% of the WMDs were and he trusted him. Why wouldn't he?. . .if you go to NBC.com you can find the transcript.

You and I did not see the "Top Secret" briefings that were given to the Senate etc. They were shown evidence that we never saw. Trumped up evidence, yes, but from what they believed were reliable sources. This is something that Bush did, not John Kerry.

And furthermore, Colin Powell gave him personal assurances that war would be a last resort, and only if there was a broad coalition of our allies.

They lied and they broke their promises. Wes Clark agrees with that and his position is very close to that of Kerry.

John Kerry has always been against weapons proliferation, as are a great many people. He was trying to be responsible, and they lied to him. How can you honestly blame him for the horrible thing that Bush did?


clarify

[Ramsey]

118. This will backfire

A good campaign will dig up footage of Bush sounding like a fool (not exactly hard to do) and changing his tune about everything left and right, and lying to the American people about any number of things.

The Bushies will dig up crap about all our candidates and if they can't find enough useful garbage, they'll just make stuff up. They did it to Al Gore. We need a candidate who will fight back.

[LiberalBushFan]

45. The typical attention span is not very long

Few are going to choose "I voted for the war but it was because blah blah blah but the war is being waged badly because blah blah blah" over "The war is good." However, Kerry's not the one we should be worrying about because if you think about the big picture Edward's has the real shot at the nomination, and he'll have the exact same problems against Bush.
And don't forget the Patriot Act, even many conservatives are against that and either of the people who voted for it will have little to say.
Clark always sounds great when he goes off about the Patriot Act.

[isbister]

51. Kerry never voted for war

What bush and other misleaders base their argument upon is incorrect.

1) The IWR was a resolution where Congress granted the President the authority to use force if specific conditions were met. Dean and bush are misleading America when they say this is anything but bush's war.

2) bush (or should I say his minders) understands he violated the resolution. It is a dangerous can of worms for him to open.

3) Since Kerry didn't vote for war, there's no flip flop on the $80 billion vote or ripping bush for his lies. In fact, Kerry spoke about what his position would be if bush mishandled the Iraq situation five months before the war in the IWR Senate floor speech.

4) Flip flop three. Did Kerry make any sugggestion to justify "his position on the war" or is this just made up? Kerry's said the same things about this war all along so an attempt to "justify" his position on the war just does not make sense.

Now, did he say the stuff about Saddam's capture and Dean's "no safer", yes, but crowed seems like a carefully chosen word. Kerry's held the position that Saddam should be removed for a long time. (Basically the idea is that dictators are not trustworthy people and are often not stable.) Technically America is safer with Saddam captured because he one less dictator in the middle east, at the least.

5) The first three flip flops are not based on facts and are assumptions at best, so four really doen't work either. Are there any clips of Kerry actually celebrating Saddam's capture? I'd like to see that before I comment. Link?

6) Flip flop five. Kerry's held the same position all along, as I explained above. The closest I have ever seen him come to supporting the war were statements on or about the day of the invasion where he supported the troops, the President and America... something a sitting Senator and former Veteran of the Viet Nam War might be expected to do.

I wonder, if you base pretty much your whole attack upon Kerry by claiming he voted for war, shouldn't you provide a link to a reputable source to back up? I do not believe bush is a reputable source. Where and when did Kerry "vote for war"?

[LoneStarLiberal]

52. They'll Have The Tar Nice And Hot Come Election Time...For Whomever

Bush and his minions will hammer whomever we nominate, regardless of whether or not it is factual.

Kerry and Edwards definitely will have vulnerable issues with IWR and the PATRIOT Act, but I bet both of them can work around these to make them an asset to moderates who believed in Bush but are shopping for another candidate because of all the deceit in his administration.

Doesn't matter if the smears will be factual or not come general election time; they'll tar us as sure as the sun will rise in a few hours. Facts are easier but fiction will do just as nicely.

[cthrumatrix]

59. better elect somebody who hasn't waffled on IWR -- Dean

[edzontar]

102. Right!!!! Now that we know the whole thing was a hoax

Kerry looks like a waffling, opportunistic fool.

Go Dean!!!

[bigtree]

117. The only one who was running for president at the time was Gov. Dean

It's easier to label his anti-war position as craven, considering his stated support for an alternative bill which would have give similar guidance to Bush on Iraq.

Bush disregarded all of the restraint counseled in the legislation. He would have likely disregarded the restraint intended in the alternative supported by Gov. Dean. If that legislation had passed, Bush could still have committed our forces and proceeded to war.

If the alternative had passed, and Bush had proceeded to war, would Dean be culpable? That's the question. What would have been different if the alternative that Gov. Dean supported had become law and then been disregarded by Bush?

The governor would be no more complicit in the Bush's abuse of authority than Congress. The 'Blame The Democrats First' strategy will backfire. Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed foward with unilateral, preemptive war.

Does anyone really believe that Bush wouldn't have pushed past Biden-Lugar with a wink and a letter to Congress?

Or for that matter, how would a 'no' vote retrain the president when he was crowing that he already had the authority to invade under 1441. He didn't go around the country waving the IWR as his justification. He doesn't even mention it in his boasting. What purpose does it serve to claim that Congress authorized him to unilateraly and preemtively invade and occupy.

Nowhere in the resolution does it give him authority to do that. Nowhere in the speeches or rhetoric of any Democrat in the Senate, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, is support given for his reckless invasion. Nowhere.

But some, in the pursuit of "political expediency" will attempt to hold Democrats who voted for the IWR as responsible for his arbitrary invasion. Bush would love to hide behind the vote, but he knows the IWR didn't give him the authority so he doesn't mention it at all in his justification. Only in the Democratic campaign do we foist the blame on Democrats for the sins of Bush.

[shivaji]

62. Clark has also flip-flopped on Iraq war

since as a CNN analyst he was all for attacking Iraq.
He is on record and videotape praising Bush/Rummy for
the stand on Iraq.

[saltpoint]

63. Kerry was considered "doomed" before --

-- the Iowa caucuses, too. It ain't over til it's over, as Yogi Berra said.

Our Democratic candidates struggled over their positions because of the complexities between voting their conscience and remaining politically viable. Combined, our Democratic candidates offer voters a wide, and well-articulated number of responses to a thorny issue. Disagreements are often sharp, but it's OUR side that induces dialogue on the subject.

As for Bush and his administration of corporate lobbyists and clandestine thugs, their position was to lie to the voters, lie to the United Nations, lie to the media, lie to our allies, and lie to the parents and friends of the men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dialogue is discouraged at best and punished at worse, as Joe Wilson can confirm.

In November, I like our side's chances a lot better, no matter who we nonimate.

[dusty64]

64. I guess this

does sum up a great deal of my anxiety regarding a Kerry candidacy. Although I'm not really sure what to think as I believe nothing that falls out of the chimp's mouth.

[shoopnyc123]

68. I agree...

The IWR thing, combined with ZERO personal magnetism, Kerry ain't the one.

[zulchzulu]

70. Kerry just has to tell him he's a liar...checkmate

To think that Kerry would not face down Bush about his lies about the war and even his questionable military record....some people have a lot to learn.

Bring it on, chimpy.

[janx]

79. Oh, sure.

That'll do it. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

72. George W Bush is an Idiot, and he is Doomed

Kerry will eat him alive.

Most people in America are in the same position as this. They expected the President to be Presidential, and they expected him to tell the TRUTH when he said Saddam had NUKES. What Kerry is saying will resonate with them, because it is their story too.

Most people in America agree that Bad People having Bad Weapons is a Bad Thing. And they are not going to like that they were lied to, or that congress was lied to and manipulated so GWB could have his Halliburton war.

Smirky can oversimplify as much as he wants, but it is not going to work for him. SOTU shows he's slipping and can't rally his troops.


edit;clarify

[ModerateMiddle]

74. I agree with this

Kerry's position mirrors the opinion of most Americans. They don't like war, but after 9/11, the idea of WMD in the hands of a madman was intolerable. Congressional authority for the use of force was what got the inspectors back into Iraq. That COULD have been GW's big win. But he was a war monger, along with his neo-con pals.

All of the folks who "KNEW" that Saddam wasn't a threat, including Howard Dean, were GUESSING, and they happened to guess right. And if they had been wrong?

Hindsight is 20/20.

IMO, Kerry is MORE electable because of his nuanced position on the war, because that's the same feeling most of this country has.

[bigtree]

119. Spot on!

[blm]

73. Big deal! Bring it on. Bush will need Depends to debate Kerry.

If you're THIS feint of heart..........sheesh.

[HFishbine]

75. So Bush admits

a vote for the IWR was a vote for war. I guess all that talk from him about war being a last resort was so much BS.

[emulatorloo]

90. I think Bush got that idea from DU n/t

[bigtree]

120. He also claims that U.N resolution 1441 gives him the authority

to do whatever he wants. He wasn't inclined to go before Congress until it looked like the U. N. would oppose immediate invasion.

[calimary]

128. NO. He claims that just being alive, and the son-of-a-bush, gives him

the authority to do whatever he wants. I mean, look at the Pickering business. He got a pretty clear and hard-fought "NO!" on that one and went ahead and did it anyway, behind everyone's back.

[Cocoa]

76. the voters in Iowa didn't fall for that

Iowa democrats are significantly more pro-war than the population as a whole, and the first and second place finishers voted for the IWR.

This in the face of both of them being repeatedly and falsely labeled as flip-floppers.

Kudos to both of them having faith in the voters to see through the spin.

If it didn't work in the Iowa democratic primary, it's definitely not going to work in the general election.

[mb7588a]

77. For every one achilles heal,

of one of our guys... Bush has 18.

No reason to worry. :)

[Snivi Yllom]

80. Dean has been consistent

Kerry has not. I think being accountable for your votes and acts goes a long way.

[bigtree]

123. Gov. Dean: catbird seat

Cherry-picking legislation and throwing stones in opposition.

Echoing all of the popular proposals and positions, cherry-picking, and throwing stones, Knowing all the while that he would not have to vote on any of these issues.

[bigtree]

81. Kerry flip? Bush flop.

[SOS]

82. IWR - October 2002

Authorized military force if:

(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.

Bush did NOT persue diplomatic or peaceful means.

Bush/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld LIED about having proof of WMD and the "threat" posed by Iraq.

The UN refused to go along 4 months LATER.

The text of IWR leaves plenty of room for Kerry to slam Bush, rather than the other way around.

[sistersofmercy]

88. Nice! I imagine Rush Limbaugh is thoroughly enjoying this thread!

Good work! Wow you should spread this around on other message boards, blogs etc, save our real opponents some time, good work for the Democratic party.

[name not needed]

89. Kerry voted for the IWR

under the pretense that all diplomatic solutions would be exhausted before we even considered military action, that we would go to the UN, and that there would be extensive inspections, not just 3 weeks of driving around Baghdad. Bush did not seek diplomatic solutions, nor did we get UN approval. Plus the inspectors had to be pulled out prematurely because Bush* wanted to blow something up.

[janx]

91. Pretense is right. n/t

[Poseidon]

92. Well

If you think Kerry is doomed, then you have not seen John Forbes Kerry in action. Kerry relishes a fight against Bush, and he will relish kicking his ass back to Texas if he is the party nominee.

[John_H]

94. You're right, Kerry may not be as unelectable as Dean, but he's

not nearly as electable as Wes "beat bush by ten" Clark.

[cindyw]

104. The sky is falling...the sky is falling

n/t

[LBJBestEver]

107. The Dean people are blind. Dean would lose horribly.

You think THIS is bad? Bush's whole SOTU address was directed at Dean. "We don't need a permission slip", "raise taxes on everyone" etc.

[progressivebydesign]

114. I see perfectly well.. and without corrective lenses.. even at 44!

But thank you for your concern about my eyesight. I see Dean clearly. I like what I see, and have since I began supporting him last summer. I also see that Bush is going to attack any candidate. He attacked Kerry yesterday in some very direct, snide, off the cuff jokes about him. Trying to pick a candidate based on who you think Bush will attack less is ridiculous... it doesn't matter if Karl Rove ran against Bush.. the attacks will come. Vote with your heart. And, if you want people to consider supporting your candidate, whomever that is, attacking the one they choose only makes them hold on tighter... better to talk about what is good about your choice on another thread about that candidate. (it's like telling your teenager to stay away from a boy you don't approve of.. backfires every time).

[eissa]

108. I think the dems

should play the video of * and pickles picking their nose at a baseball game. That's MUCH more humiliating than rallying 3,500 supporters after your rivals in both parties spent a fortune in attack ads.

[Basurero]

111. It's BUSH's WAR!!!!!!

Rove is so funny. His "boss" started the war, not Kerry.

Truth be told, Kerry actually fought in a war. He, better than anyone who hasn't been to a war, knows that no good comes from war.

You people who think you're Democrats better wake up fast. Otherwise, you'll get what you deserve: Four more years of Bush.

If you don't like what Kerry has done for our country, I've got news for you. My family, friends, and all the real Democrats I know don't deserve your fate.

[Seldona]

113. Dean has flopped more than a pancake on the war.

He will be subject to the same argument.

[progressivebydesign]

116. Umm.. Dean's always been against this war.

I think you're confusing him with someone else. Dean is one of the few candidates that has staunchly spoken out against the war.. consistently. You might want to check your facts.

[Monte Carlo]

122. He supported certain versions; everyone hedged their bets.

Dean said he supported the Biden-Lugar version, just like Kerry said he did, but unlike Dean, Kerry did not have the luxury of time.

[cthrumatrix]

125. Dean has been proven right..in hind sight...can't people accept that

[Monte Carlo]

126. We know now, sure, I accept that, but...

... it worries me when someone is _coincidentally_ proven right; for the wrong reasons.

[bigtree]

127. But he's not the only one

Everyone knew Bush was predisposed to invade. He was claiming that 1441 gave him all of the authority he needed. He wasn't inclined to go to Congress until the U. N. looked like it would reject his rush to war.

The republican controlled Congress effectively made any guidance in the resolution toothless, but it was worth including and the senators who asked for the language were right to vote for it. They made their objections clear before, during and after the vote.

In the end some Democrats opted to take the chance that the restrictions in the resolution would reign him in. Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the bill, and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to invade and occupy.

[Nicholas_J]

130. Dean flip flops are enormous

And he not only flip flopped on the war, but is the only cnadidate who supported what Bush ended up doing, even beofre the Iraq Resolution was signed:

Face the Nation, Septemeber 29, 2002 (one week before Iraq Resolutions Signed)

DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

Dean also supports sending more trrops to Iraq, but also apposesd the vote on the additional 87 billion dollars.

Not only that, but Dean first stated he was against it, but then said he was for it:

Dean TV Ad: Rewriting His Own History
His ad says he's against $87 billion for Iraq - but in September he said "we have no choice" but to approve it


In a TV ad that began airing in Iowa on November 17, Howard Dean looks straight at the camera and says "I’m against spending another $87 billion" in Iraq. But in fact, Dean has previously expressed conditional support for the $87 billion, not opposition. In a September debate – when pressed for a yes-or-no answer on the $87 billion package for military operations and reconstruction – he said he supported it but that it should be financed by repeal of President Bush’s tax cuts. Dean’s "support" in September turned to "against" in the TV ad. Dean’s ad misleads by oversimplifying his record on this issue.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=93

Denas statement this weekend that Iraqis are not better off with Saddam Husseing gone will allow the Bush administration to tear him to pieces.


Howard Dean Says Iraqis Worse Off Now
Democratic Presidential Hopeful Howard Dean Says Iraqis Have a Worse Living Standard Without Saddam

MANCHESTER, N.H. Jan. 25 — Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Sunday that the standard of living for Iraqis is a "whole lot worse" since Saddam Hussein's removal from power in last year's American-led invasion.
"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040125_786.html

Dean has just proven he is too stupid to be the president:


And then on February 20th Interview with Salon.com

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

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

One might say it was Howard Dean who gave George Bush his plan for going to war with Iraq:

Plus he has gtended to insult the citizens of the states, particularly of Iowa, in inslting their chosen method of voting. Not only that jhe has insulted all citizend by making the statement that the government should control the speech of voters.

"I mean, I like the Iowa caucuses a lot and I think they should be first, but they've got to have a process that's good for democracy," he said. "And the kind of stuff that's gone on -- you know on the phone calls and all that stuff under the table -- is not particularly good for democracy."

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/012404_nw_dean_critical.html

Pretty much infringement of freedom of speech during a process chosen by the First Amendment.


Most of all , the one reason Howard Dean is the absolutely worse candidate to run for president is something he has shown during the entire campaign. His willingness to lie, as he has with John Edwards Record on the Iraq Waq at debates in Sam Francisco:

From Glen Johnson at the Boston Globe:

In animated conversation on the floor of the US Senate on Wednesday, Kerry placed a hand on Edwards's shoulder and nodded in agreement as the North Carolinian spoke to him with visible passion. Then, pointing at the podium where the Senate's presiding officer sits, Edwards said to Kerry in a voice loud enough for a reporter in the overhead press gallery to hear, ''He got up there and lied.''

Edwards was referring to the speech Dean delivered to California Democrats last weekend, in which he stood at the podium at the party's annual convention in Sacramento and lambasted Edwards and Kerry by name for supporting the war. Dean, who has won a following with his antiwar pronouncements, sought to distinguish himself further by telling the delegates that both of his rivals had refused to stand by their position during their speeches to the crowd. The remark triggered cheers for Dean - even though he would later acknowledge it was wasn't true.

His campaign people trying to infiltrate other candidates campaign offices:

Dean fires 2 campaign aides
By Ed Tibbetts

.
Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Iowa fired two workers Thursday who were accused earlier in the day of trying to infiltrate rival John Kerry’s campaign.
.
In a letter to the Kerry camp, Jeani Murray, Dean’s Iowa campaign manager, said the two were terminated after an investigation prompted by complaints by John Norris, who is running Kerry’s Iowa effort.
.
Norris complained in a letter to Murray earlier in the day that the two men claimed to work for Dean and approached the Massachusetts senator’s Creston, Iowa, office, earlier in the week asking about the operation. Norris said one of the men, Mitch Lawson, admitted Thursday to being employed by Dean and said they were trying to get their hands on “calling scripts.”
.

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1022713&t=Nation%20%2F%20World&c=26,1022713

Now lets look at other things Bush is going to kill Dean on.

Passage of Civil Unions is going to be a top issue, particularly in the South where most democrats are opposed to Civil Unions, as Most Democrats in the South Are Fiscal Liberal's and Social Conservatives.

Conservative Religious valuse are strong in the South where I live, and even Democrats do not widely support civil unions in any way.

Dean actually is viewed as the weakest candidate to go up against Bush in virtually every poll.

If you listened to ABC News last night New Hampsire independents were being interviewed and Deans Iowa Scream was noted as one reason that all but one of the interwiewees had turned against Dean.

If you do not think that scene will not be repeated dozens of time a day if Bush has to go against Dean, you are mistaken.

Plus Deans own worse enemy. His own mouth, He cannot control himself. Ever. His every mispoken work during the campaign for the nomination will be used, and so will everytime he puts his foot in his mouth during the general election campaign.

The results of Iowa make one thing certain, that those votes you talk about make far less an issue than a candidates behavior while running.

Of course they can bring up the fact that whil Dean claims fiscal conservatism, the Vermont Budget went up from 890 million dollars while he was Governor to over Two Billion dollars. I approve of such increases, but by and large, they can point to the fact that Dean didnt accomplish much with it, and that there are dozens of unfinished, uncompleted projects that Dean continually raised money for, recieved , moey for from the federal government, but never got done, such as the reapirs to the Arrowhead Dam, which he was given ten years to finsih. Plus the complete catastophe Dean made of Health Care in Vermont. WHich was reported in a study done by a bi-partisan commission Dean himself apponted. The end of the study noted that there was absolutely not plan or structure to what was going on with health care in Vermont under Dean, and that this lack of planning threatened to completely shut down the government:

The statement of that problem:

Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds) (See note 4-2).



We do not have a health care system in Vermont (See note 4-3). That means:


No one is in control.

No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full. (See note 4-4)

There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

And although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

Most of our commissioners reject the Single Payer option, even though we have been told by The Lewin Group that it could cover all Vermonters, including more than 51,000 currently uninsured, for 5 percent less than what we are collectively paying now. (See note 4-5) Some of the commission's opposition is on philosophical grounds, but in practical terms, we reject that option for a variety of reasons, including:

http://www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/report4.htm

This alone will destroy Dean, as it undoes every statement he makes about Fiscal Conservatism.Particularly his statements about unfunded mandates.


Voting is far less importance than evidence of total adminstrative incompetence.


There are far, far, far, far ,far, many more reasons, factual, that would allow Bush to not only defeat Dean, but defeat Dean with a crushing blow.

[Beaker]

132. The Issue is the economy, NOT the IWR or the "war on terror"-

no matter how much Bush and the Repukes might want national security to be the foremost issue in voters minds, it will be the economy that rules the day in November. the vast majority of voters won't give a hoot about who voted how on the Iraqi War Resolution, and rightly so.
right or wrong, in the minds of the public the war is past, and will be even moreso in another 9 months.
A LOT more americans are a lot more worried about their jobs and their healthcare, than about whether they or their children or grandchildren might be sent to Iraq.

[Nicholas_J]

133. Correct

Much of what lost Dean to voters in Iowa was his focus on Iraq. and he has held inconsistant stances on Iraq, and it is Dean inconsistancy that will be used against him, and held as evidnece of a person whithout the ability to hold to a chosen course.
Deans flip flops will be used as evidence of his lack of backbone.