Kerry on CBS. Saying Dean is someone who thinks Saddam needs a trial to

[KoKo]

find him guilty is not responsible. WHAT? I hope someone gets the transcript on this one! I almost fell off my stool when I heard that so it may not be the total word by word quote, but it's what I heard.

Now, he's going on about Saddam and says "Saddam tried to assassinate a President of the US." (that's not accurate. Poppy was an EX-President.

[liberalnurse]

1. It is the least we can do for Cripe- sakes....

We invaded his country....he may be a rotten shit but he did not draw first blood...we did.

[JI7]

2. first gulf war was without trial

same for osama in afghanistan. why support those wars if you don't think they are to blame ?

[NWHarkness]

10. Perhaps Sen. Kerry can provide a list

of all those people he would feel free to punish without trial if he were given the powers of the Presidency.

[JI7]

11. "punish" ?

punish in terms of punishing them by going to war with them ?

[KoKo]

3. Kerry saying he was "prepared to use for on Saddam" but the "intelligent

way to do it was to exhaust other possibilities..." But, Scheiffer read him his exact quote. But, now he's saying he's consistent.

Now, talking about his not voting for the 87 Billion for Aid. He said that when "something is going wrong we need to fix it and he wanted to minimize cost to American People...as long as we're asking folks to make a sacrifice and he and Biden tried to get the wealthy to pay for it." (paraphrase). That's a good comment by him about the Amendement.

[sfecap]

4. Interesting concept coming from an ex Prosecutor.

Gee....I guess Kerry isn't much different from Ashcroft. Throw out our Constitution. Of course, it's just another example of Kerrypandering....

[janx]

5. Kerry has lost it and is desperate. Good grief.

His campaign has been a mess.

[KoKo]

6. Kerry's good now. Talking about cutting VA Budget and ill equipped troops

with no body armour and lack of other equipment.

[hlthe2b]

7. Kerry strikes me as continually desperate to

justify his IWR stance. This seems just a continuation in that vein. I see Kerry and think what a tragedy, since he clearly could have been the contender. Almost like a Greek tragedy though. He could simply state that he regretted his vote, he believed strongly in people who lied, and move on. But, no. Has to continually defend the indefensible IMO. Sadly, it IS his achilles heel.

[TankLV]

64. Kerry licks thumb, sticks it in air, to see which way the wind is blowing.

Bunkerboy has positive press - Kerry is proud of "supporting the pResident".

Clark/Dean is gaining momentum criticizing bunkerboy's lies and pointing out failure of this "war" - Kerry says he's always been against this war from the beginning because....."

Bunkerboy captures SH - Kerry is back to supporting bunkerboy.

Wonder which way the wind will blow tomorrow?

[CWebster]

99. Skull and Bones

Damn, if it sure don't seem that way sometimes.

[worldgonekrazy]

95. No he can't simply state that

He has done that. He has said that he voted for the IWR because he trusted the Bush admin to do the right thing.

This prompted myself and other Kerry critics to ask: "do we really want to support a guy who is so fucking stupid as to be duped by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION?!" Not one single DUer thought that Bush would do the right thing. How come we know things Kerry does not?

[KoKo]

8. He's now attacking Dean. This is not good. He looks bad doing this.

Again attacking Dean about having a trial for Saddam. He said "Saddam said he was guilty why does he need a trial?"

(Kerry sounds a little weak on the Consitution and Rule of Law here.)

Now he's saying "Dean tried to make Vermont a Tax Haven for Cheaters!..a new Burmuda!" (Give me a Break! did he eat "nasties" for breakfast!):eyes:

[dfong63]

45. what a sad spectacle

[Scott Lee]

58. John Kerry - the death throes of a once great politician

How sad.

Like Poppy Bush, he's going down swinging in the most ignanimous and unceremonious way. It reminds of how Poppy, in his last losing days, lost it and started making fun of Clinton's nose.

No one at that point could possibly criticize the comment more than the comment criticized itself.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. I wish Kerry would stop making an ass of himself

I am humiliated for him and for the democratic party. Kerry is pandering to the worst possible section of people in this country.

[TLM]

71. LOL! Kerry's platform...

"I hate osama and saddam more than (insert canddate here)."

[JVS]

12. Shit! How can you not need a trial?

[JI7]

13. we go to war without a trial

if you want to say they are not guilty what is the justification for war in iraq (first and secord), afghanistan and other nations without a trial ?

[JVS]

14. I don't know I didn't support the second war

Unlike Kerry

[janx]

15. I agree with you that Congress should have to go back to

actually declaring war per the Constitution, but that is not a trial.

And that has little to do with whether or not Hussein should be tried for his crimes.

[rucky]

19. Good point! Maybe we shouldn't be able to go to war without a trial.

Unless, of course, there's an imminent threat.

Maybe we're not being critical enough of Afghanistan?

If we really want to lead the world as a civilized society, dontcha think we should follow - and help strengthen - international law?

[dd123]

24. So the purpose of the Iraq war was to punish Saddam Hussein

for what? Participating in the 9/11 attacks? Killing his own people while he was an ally of ours?

Fascinating.

[blm]

38. That's not what he said. You just don't need a trial to say Saddam

or Bin Laden is guilty since their guilt is documented and has been for years.

We say Bush is guilty all the time. That's where Dean screws up. He has implied Bush is guilty of knowing about 9-11, then, instead of providing evidence he backtracks and says he doesn't believe that theory. But, then the public hears him show fair play for Saddam and Usama.

That's going to be played against him. He's a worse tap dancer than many of his supporters want to admit, imo.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Kerry is a disgusting warmonger

and he has associated himself with the war crimes of the Bush regime.

I want Kerry to get a fair trail, as I do Bush!

[blm]

69. You know that noone has helped END more wars than Kerry

and yet you perpetuate a picture of him that is amazingly inaccurate.

[Forkboy]

93. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

"You know that noone has helped END more wars than Kerry"

[worldgonekrazy]

96. Cuz of the 'Nam thing? Spare me, it was Kerry being a spotlight whore

How can this guy get up in front of Congress as a young man and rail about the Vietnam war and how awful it was only to come full circle decades later and vote for the authorization of ANOTHER Vietnam war? Maybe the guy once had some integrity and lost it, but my guess is that it was never there. At the time it was popular to be against the Vietnam war so Kerry was and seized the spotlight. He is simply an opportunist who will sell out his last principle for a bit of political gain. How ironic (and fitting) that it is exactly such an act (voting for the IWR) that SCREWED his chances.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Does the man never learn?

[KoKo]

21. I don't know what to think of his campaign managers at this point.

Kerry could have had the nomination. It was his to lose. Every time I try to listen to him he does this kind of thing. He also sounds angry all the time. Dean follows his anger with a huge bright smile. I really don't ever see Kerry smile in these interviews. (granted I haven't seen every Kerry interview, but many).

I'm Dean/Kucinich, but keep trying to take another look at Kerry. I think it's too late for him at this point. I found his comment on "Guilty before proven Innocent," too much. He's off my list.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. It is just silly

to argue about what someone said without a transcript.

[zulchzulu]

46. True... a transcript would be good to check out

Face The Nation is usually really slow at getting one online...

[sandnsea]

18. Yep, he made a mistake

Enjoy it. Relish in it. Run it for everything it's worth. The opportunity doesn't come around very often. And it's not bashing when Kerry's mistakes are pointed out, I understand.

[KoKo]

22. sandnsea. It really wasn't a mistake. He said it twice. Forcefully....

Hey, I wanted him to be my candidate. I'm disappointed he keeps saying these things and so forcefully. Plus, he isn't coming across postively, he's stiff, cold, and seems to "lecture."

He has had very bad campaign managers of he's maybe not that well from his surgery? I don't know but he's just not coming across in a positive way. And, it's getting late in the game for him to reform himself.

[sandnsea]

28. He made a mistake

I have no idea how he got Saddam in his head instead of Osama, in regards to the trial thing, but he did. He made a mistake. No excuses. It happens. And somebody has to tell the truth about Dean. If it means Kerry loses in order for Clark to win, so be it. It's got to be done. That's the way it goes.

[KoKo]

86. I don't think Kerry will lost to Clark though. Maybe I'm Naive in this

But, I think it's moved from Kerry and Clark. Unless you are saying Clark was the Kerry replacement?

[sandnsea]

98. Clark will probably win

That's what I'm saying. The only way he won't win is if people decide they'd rather trust Kerry's long liberal record than Clark's lack of a record. But they're the only two who can realistically beat George Bush. Edwards was much better yesterday, he might have a chance if he keeps that kind of campaigning up. Dean has gotten just about all he can out of the Democratic Party. Now we'll start to see the shake-out of the rest and who their supporters decide to gather behind. Then it'll be 100% electability and Dean won't stand up to that test in the long run. IMHO.

[babzilla]

20. did he explain what the alternative to a trial would be?

What would the process to find him guilty be if not a trial?

Even those that plead guilty to something do it in a courtroom.

[KoKo]

23. He wasn't asked what he would do instead of a trial. I hope someone else

heard this interview, so I don't sound like a Kerry basher here. Maybe one of his supporters will get the CBS transcript. I've tried to report it as accurately as I heard it.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Perhaps Kerry prefers summary executions

And if we can summarily execute Saddam, or Osama, then we can also do it to those in Guantanamo. If we can do it to those in Guantanamo, then we can also do it to those detained on American soil for opposing the government.

Kerry has endorsed an American Holocaust, for that is where this road leads to!

[stickdog]

25. Even the fucking Nazis got a trial.

Does Kerry really agree with Bush that the 20th century was far too civilized for his tastes?

[blm]

26. Got a trial, yes, but that doesn't mean you couldn't say you KNEW they

were guilty based on documented evidence you already had.

Why would ANYONE have trouble grasping that?

[stickdog]

30. OK, I know you're guilty, blm.

Firing squad or hanging?

[blm]

32. get real...you have no problem saying Bush is guilty of things and neither

do I. I have no problem saying Saddam is guilty of things that I know have been documented crimes. and wholesale murder.

Why would you compare ME to Saddam and the Nazis? And how many times have you declared Bush guilty of crimes (true, me too) and yet you aren't PREPARED to accuse Saddam?

Saddam and Bush are nearly the same in my view. They are both BFEE from what I have seen, and I have no trouble saying so. Why don't you?

[JI7]

34. blm, you got it

i say bush and saddam are both guilty of crimes also.

[stickdog]

I'm fully prepared to INDICT Saddam. He still deserves a trial before he's

sentenced.

Just like the Nazis.

Just like Bush.

Just like Bin Laden.

It's call the Rule of Law. Perhaps you've heard of the concept?

[worldgonekrazy]

97. Yes, but even Bush and the BFEE deserves a fair trial

That was hard to type, but its true.

[JI7]

33. blm is guilty of what ?

we went to war in afghanistan(still at it) without a trial to consider guilt. doesn't mean osama wont have a trial if caught alive.

[stickdog]

84. I can't tell you that because it would compromise national security.

She'll be held in an undisclosed extra-legal location for an indeterminant number of years.

Or perhaps executed at whim.

OK?

[Brian_Expat]

27. It's sad how far we've fallen. . .

. . . conviction and execution without trial? When does the hammer and sickle go on the flag?

And a "liberal Democrat" arguing for it too? :puke:

[ozone_man]

29. Kerry gives liberals a bad name.

I consider myself to be a liberal and I take offense that he would say this. He sounds more like Bush every day.

[zulchzulu]

31. I watched it too and thought he mixed up OBL with Saddam, but...

..then I thought maybe I missed the news that a Saddam trial was being talked about and how damaging it would be in an international court vs. trying him in Iraq.

Did I miss something?

As for Saddam trying to assassinate a President comment, Saddam tried to kill Poppy Bush while he was still in power in 1992.

[sandnsea]

35. That's what happened

He made a mistake. Nobody is suggesting Saddam or Osama shouldn't have trials. It's Howard's flippant responses that are in question, same as always.

[JI7]

36. yeah, kerry has said he wants a trial for saddam

if osama is caught alive the same would go for him. but doesn't mean he wont say osama isn't guilty without trial. why else would you support war in afghanistan ? how do you explain that ? many times international trials are put on to show others,e specially the people of the nation the person came from that they are guilty. such as milosevich.

[sandnsea]

37. I know

But I guess some won't get it until the Democratic Party is flushed down the toilet completely. Sometimes things have to get really, really bad before they can get better. It's sad to think that's where we're at.

[KaraokeKarlton]

43. It doesn't matter who he said it against!

it's totally irresponsible for him to say it. What a loser he is.

[IndianaGreen]

39. I am glad many of you are seen Kerry converging with Lieberman

and Gephardt. The IWR gang!

I don't know what Edwards would say. He is being shunned by the media like Kucinich is.

Why don't they interview Kucinich? He would blow a new asshole in Kerry and Lieberman for their support for this war.

Kerry voted for IWR because he was for this war as much as Bush was!

[zulchzulu]

44. Thanks

Dean was for the IWR originally and at the time the vote was cast, but we've been down this road before...

[blm]

49. Horse manure.

You aren't dealing with ANY of the facts, just baseless charges against Kerry as usual.

DK likes Kerry more than you realize and if YOU knew DK you'd understand that and not make such a remark using his name.

[JohnKleeb]

50. We had a DUer from Ohio meet Dennis and she supports Kerry btw

She shook his hand and they talked, and Kucinich considered Kerry a friend. I want to see this transcript.

[JI7]

53. John Kerry "i respect you , dennis "

not sure if those were the exact words but that's what kerry once said to him on tv. i also saw kucinich say to a kerry supporter on cspan that kerry is lucky to have their support and kerry appreciates their support . i thought that was nice because he was complimenting both kerry and the supporter.

[KaraokeKarlton]

40. Well now we know Kerry signed the Patriot Act because he liked it

What an idiot.

[Hep]

47. WOW! Kerry doesn't believe in trials?

Ack! What the hell is Kerry thinking?

[bowens43]

48. So Kerry is saying that Saddam DOESN'T need a trial?

Talk about irresponsible. That puts his belief in the American system of justice right up there with the bushs. It amazes me to see these candidates toss aside the very heart and soul of our Constitution likes it's a piece of putrid garbage.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Kerry voted for PATRIOT which undid the Bill of Rights

I'll say that this sob is par for the course!

[blm]

52. Dean SUGGESTED a Patriot Act on Sept. 14, 2001.

And even on TIPS he said he "tended to agree with the president..."

Yet you have no problem supporting him even though you KNEW this about him. How odd.

[Scott Lee]

59. Link please.

[blm]

68. Can't believe you didn't know this about your candidate.

Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm

September 14, 2001

By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press
http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/33681


MONTPELIER — Gov. Howard Dean's call for a “re-evaluation” of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor.

“Good God,” Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. “It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.”

Benson Scotch, the head of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was simply too soon after the attacks to engage in the sort of debates Dean called for.

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”
>>>>>>>

On MTP in July, 2002, BEFORE he changed strategy:



MR. RUSSERT: You heard Mr. Armey’s objection to the president’s TIPS Program, where cable
       installers, utility workers would observe what’s going on and report anything suspicious to the police.
       Do you support the president?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I tend to support the president, although I have some reservations about this one as well.
       All I’ve seen is what’s been on television, and I have something in me that is bothered by the notion that
       Americans are going to be spying on each other. So if the president is simply asking people to be alert,
       I think that’s fine. If the president really is encouraging Americans to spy on each other, I have a
       problem with that.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: You did say after the 11th that the United States may be prepared to have to sacrifice
       some personal liberties and civil liberties in order to fight the war on terrorism.
       
       GOV. DEAN: We already are. I think when I got on the airplane to come down here, it took me about
       25 minutes longer than it would have a year ago. And those are the kinds of liberties that we are going
       to be sacrificing and there may be some other ones.

"Tends to support president" on TIPS??????????????? WTF???

Never really answers the question straight does he?
       

[blm]

77. Here's more of Dean's disdain for judicial "technicalities" in Vermont.

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=129

Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997
GOVERNOR’S COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS
By Diane Derby
Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
>>>>>>>
“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”

Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.

Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”.
>>>>>>
“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do.” Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it.”
>>>>>>

And from Thom Hartmann who has recently moved this article off his site:
OUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD CITIZENS
By Thom Hartmann

>>>>>>>
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider “common sense more important than legal technicalities” and “quickly convict guilty criminals.”

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him ( although the Montpelier letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the “technicalities” of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house their soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all of the power, and that it’s only “legal technicalities” which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those “technicalities” into place. When politicians like Dean call for “swift and certain conviction of the guilty” (which actually means “swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted … at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state “regardless of technicalities,” I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
>>>>>> 
 

[mzmolly]

87. Well...

looking at the quote(s) in context *as painful as that is* doesn't really say much BLM.

“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”

The rest of the story is that of people bitching about HD's positions. But, dare I say as a Kerry supporter I would tread carefully on this, given recent events.

[mzmolly]

82. How is this contrary?

"require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."

He said we would be re-evaluating and debating our civil liberties after 911. He did not suggest that we give up any of our rights as citizens. Please highlite the "specific contradiction" you wish to note.

BLM, being a your Kerry supporter and all, what do you think of his recent "Saddam doesn't deserve a trial" stand? :shrug:

[poskonig]

54. And people criticize Dean for gaffes.....

:wtf:

[quaker bill]

55. Amazing.

We all know Saddam is guilty, and there are WMDs under every rock, he reconstituted nuclear weapons, he was meeting frequently with Al-Queda, he was buying uranium from Niger, he gassed his own people (after which we sold him more weapons). He slaughtered the Shia, (after we set them up).

Perhaps a trial would be in order here. So far, little evidence of his guilt has actually panned out.

Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. However, most of the people he killed were participating in a violent uprisings to overthrow the government, some with our encouragement and limited assistance.

Generally, governments get to kill people who are engaged in violent uprisings to overthrow that government. "Civil wars" I think is what they call them.

I have no love of Saddam and am just as happy with him behind bars. That being as it may, I think our evidence is more than a bit shaky.

[IndianaGreen]

56. A trial of Saddam must also include Rumsfeld and Reagan

as defendants. They gave WMD to Saddam for use against Iran. BTW, Iran was the first to use poison gas.

How about the British? They used poison gas to put down Iraqi rebellion in 1923.

[adadem]

67. I agree ..poppy bush, too n/t

[quaker bill]

75. I agree in general

But I think putting Reagan on the stand at this point would be meaningless torture. Rummy on the other hand, would be entirely appropriate.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Iraq: No Political Show Trial for Saddam Hussein (Human Rights Watch)

Perhaps Kerry in his blind ambition to be President at all cost, has decided to ignore international law as he did when he voted for IWR.

Iraq: No Political Show Trial for Saddam Hussein
International Expert Participation Key to Trial

(New York, December 14, 2003) – The Iraqi Governing Council must not mount a political show trial of Saddam Hussein, Human Rights Watch warned today.

<snip>

Human Rights Watch said any court conducting the trial must be independent of political influence, and free of bias and partiality. The trial must give the benefit of every protection for the rights of the accused under international law. Saddam Hussein must be allowed to conduct a vigorous defense that includes the right to legal counsel at an early stage.

The tribunal law does not prohibit the death penalty and does not ensure that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the law does not sufficiently address protection of witnesses and victims or security for the tribunal and its staff.

“Any tribunal trying Saddam Hussein should apply international standards of justice,” said Roth. “To do otherwise would blur the distinction between the Ba´ath Party period and the Iraq of the future.”

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/iraq121403.htm

[sleipnir]

60. Just wait for YOUR trial Mr. Kerry....

Voting for an illegal invasion will get you a nice trial at the Hague. Perhaps we don't even need to try Kerry, his vote already made him a criminal, perhaps we should skip that phase....

More ridiculous banter from Kerry, this is why I refuse to ever support the man, ever.

[zulchzulu]

65. Tin foil hats are on special

Thanks for your ridiculous banter.

[polpilot]

61. Here's the transcript: 'Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean..

Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean...Dean........

Dean '04...

[TankLV]

62. Yep - give him a fair trial and THEN hang 'em".

Kerry's lost any support I might have had for him.

He constantsly spouts spew like this.

"Uh, Sen. Kerry, ever hear of the concept of a "fair trial" and "innocent intil PROVEN guilty"?

"Sen. Kerry, how long have you been an admirer of Soviet or Nazi style justice?

Still would vote for him over bunkerboy if he's the nominee - but I doubt he will be. But that's all I would do. Would never lift a finger to help his effort.

Can't call him any names here, but I've got a few at the top of my mind right now.

Sigh.

[AntiCoup2K4]

63. Kerry showing his loyalties as usual....

To Skull & Bones, that is. :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. I'd love to see a transcript given the "unbiased" opinions on this thread

If Kerry did say this, I have lost a great deal of respect but I'm certainly not going to take the word of people who call him a war criminal for a vote. Some Du'ers are really over the top in their assessments and have yet to prove that a different vote would have led toa a different result.

[Terwilliger]

70. link to transcript

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=983450&mesg_id=983673&page=

[TLM]

72. So Kerry is against Due Process....

More pandering to the worst bigoted repuke encouraged hate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Moreso than confederate flags?

:eyes:

[quaker bill]

74. Yup.

No doubt about it.

[Terwilliger]

76. did you read the transcript?

I hope you're not trying to defend what Kerry said

[onecitizen]

78. My Gawd they are spinning out of control!!

Honestly, they look so terrified and angry about Dean. They are so jealous!!

[mouse7]

79. Kerry: We'll mark you as "pro lynching"

It's completely irresponsible for any American leader to start talking about anyone not having a trial...


...especially when they have the dirt Saddam would dump on the Republicans he has in a trial.

Kerry is dumber than a bag of hair on this.

[blm]

81. Boy do you have it wrong. Kerry's not saying that Saddam shouldn't HAVE

a trial. He's saying you can say he's guilty based on the decades of DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Dean doesn't give a SHIT about "due process" for poor defendants in Vermont. Why on earth would he feel that he couldn't SAY Saddam is guilty?

http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=129
Rutland Herald, Wednesday, July 30, 1997
GOVERNOR’S COURT PICKS STIR CRITICS
By Diane Derby
Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – As Gov. Howard B. Dean was mulling his second appointment to the Vermont Supreme Court earlier this month, he made little effort to mask his distaste for some of the court’s recent decisions.
>>>>>>>
“I’m looking to steer the court back towards consideration of the rights of the victims”, Dean said three weeks ago in a radio interview with Bob Kinzel of the Vermont News Service. “I’m looking to make it easier to convict guilty people and not have as many technicalities interfere with justice, and I’ll appoint someone to fit that bill”.

Asked if that reflected a “get-tough-on-crime” approach, Dean responded: “I’m looking for someone who is for justice. My beef about the judicial system is that it does not emphasize truth and justice over lawyering. It emphasizes legal technicalities and rights of the defendants and all that.”
Such comments may play well with the general public, but they have sent a chill through the collective spine of lawyers – particularly defense lawyers – around the state.

Throughout his six-year tenure, Dean’s public chiding of the judiciary has led many lawyers to question the doctor-governor’s grasp of constitutional law. In their eyes, Dean views the protections contained in the Bill of Rights as mere “technicalities”.
>>>>>>
“Dean is just ignorant. I don’t think he understands what judges ought to do.” Says Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who teaches advanced courses in constitutional law. “He perceives the Supreme Court as being broken in some way and sees himself on a mission to fix it.”
>>>>>>


And from Thom Hartmann who has recently moved this article off his site:
OUR GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD CITIZENS
By Thom Hartmann

>>>>>>>
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider “common sense more important than legal technicalities” and “quickly convict guilty criminals.”

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him ( although the Montpelier letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the “technicalities” of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house their soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all of the power, and that it’s only “legal technicalities” which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those “technicalities” into place. When politicians like Dean call for “swift and certain conviction of the guilty” (which actually means “swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted … at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state “regardless of technicalities,” I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
>>>>>> 
 Alert

[Terwilliger]

83. Guilty of what?

Guilty of the same things we've forgiven him for over the years?

John Kerry should get out of politics. He is not any American that I can be proud of.

[stickdog]

85. So who ever said Saddam was innocent as a newborn? (nt)

[mzmolly]

80. Kerry can't make up his own mind about where he stands.

He is pandering to Bush voters, and uhm, that's the wrong crowd. Gawd, he's got such potential too.

[Fleshdancer]

88. wha???

Kerry doesn't think Saddam should get a trial? Are you sure he was talking about Saddam and not OBL???

I thought it was already pretty well established that Saddam would get some sort of trial...either in Iraq or in America for his crimes.

[KoKo]

89. Kerry's Campaign will go down in history as the "Man Who Shoulda' Won"

but Couldn't Win for Trying!

There will be analysts crawling all over this. He HAD IT ALL! War Veteran/Peace Protestor/Environmentalist/Senate Legislator....and he "blew it."

I don't know myself except that with me it was his IWR Vote. But, there were many Dems who supported Bush's Iraq Invasion/Occupation so I don't see how we could "turn" anything.

Still....no matter how hard I tried and try to "warm up" to Kerry he still leaves me "cold." WHY......WHY....WHY

It's up to his campaign managers to decide. I'm Dean/Kucinich/Moseley-Braun...... What can I say? :shrug:

[stickdog]

90. His constant pattern of playing it safe & trying to finesse everything

was simply not an appropriate response to the horrors of BushCo.

In addition, the 2002 election results proved that strategy to be a big loser on all counts.

[KoKo]

91. Agree, but Stick Dog.....he had it ALL! Money, JFK Connections and Viet

-Nam....plus his own money and the Heinz Fortune. He was Golden! Perfect....a new JFK! But, instead he comes off as "stern, lecturing, grey faced and dull."

I think he must not be well. His prostate surgery....what. How could this man who "had it all" implode so fast? And, as I said I was and Anti Iraq Invasion person....but we were a "minority."

He should have had it. I still don't see any explanation I can live with to explain his bad showing.....except that my gut doesn't like him...but I've moved to "Left Fringe Dems" and I know that "We" aren't the Majority of Dems? :shrug: shaking head....:eyes:

I don't get it, still.......

[mouse7]

94. I do. He campaigned not to lose, instead of trying to win

Kerry's campaign is the perfect example of why the "Prevent" defense doesn't work in the NFL.

[CWebster]

100. that is all on the surface

Kerry lacks the ability to access himself with any accuracy. He blames Dean for his own failures. He only plays one tune--he never reflects or extends or humbles his ego. He lacks a common humanity ---the human touch. He comes across stuffy and snobby while he carps on like a...Republican...like a Republican pandering to the Republican base.

Somewhere he lost his way.

[Monte Carlo]

92. Saddam is getting a trial, and Kerry knows that he belongs there...

... that's not what he's talking about. Trials are not about knowledge; we have known the crimes of Saddam for years. Hell, we've had our hand with them, too. We are going to give Saddam a trial, but we do not need a trial before we know he is guilty. Dean should maybe recognize how these things can be misunderstood among the American public.