Why does Kerry continue to lie about Dean?

[killbotfactory]

Kerry continues to say that Dean would not go to war without the UN.

Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations,

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/facekerry.pdf

He repeated this claim at the last debates, and mid-way through december.

This is totally false, and started way back in February when they parroted an attack from Tom "Chickenhawk" Delay.

Kerry’s campaign manager, Jim Jordan, fired back, “Governor Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That’s an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency.”

Oh is that what Dean is suggesting? Let's look at the quote.

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

Seems pretty clear to me, that Dean was saying the UN had to send troops BECAUSE Iraq was not an imminent threat (as he said many times before and after).

Why does Kerry continue to lie about this?

[molly]

1. Kerry is not the liar - Dean is - do your research

[killbotfactory]

3. I did

It's in my opening post.

Care to respond to it?

[mzmolly]

30. See the OP Molly....

Do "YOUR" research.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

53. Pattern: Kerry lies about Dean

Kerry supporters ignore it

[Monte Carlo]

2. POOP

Why does Kerry continue to beat Dean's wife?

[killbotfactory]

4. Are you denying that he's lying?

He said this in the debates as well, and it's completely false.

[SadEagle]

17. Well, there are other explanations...

Perhaps a staffer read an attack piece and didn't bother to check it for correctness. Or perhaps some staffers have difficulty with applying standard reading comprehension rules (i.e. look at context, try to understand the statement as meaning something that's consistent with the speakers overall background, style, etc.), as opposed to the pundit rules (always discard context, look for the most outrageous meaning; if neccessary, alter words). Or he could have just made a mistake, you know, a gaffe, mispeaking, meaning to say that it wasn't appropriate in the Iraqui case either, but forgetting due to pressure and stuff. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Scott Lee]

5. Well Kerry's been beating SOMETHING and it aint Dean's wife

an activity he'll be left with as a sole consolation after having to pull out of the race.

[sallyseven]

8. I don't think that Kerry is lying about Dean

I just think you don't want to know. Dean has some problems and he is hiding them.

[killbotfactory]

11. He is lying

Dean would not let the UN have a veto on national security. That's just a fantasy made up by Delay and Kerry.

[Scott Lee]

19. Here is Kerry's number one problem....ready?

He's losing.

[zulchzulu]

36. No votes have been cast, but I guess he's losing...

Is that a real crystal ball or a Sears crystal ball?

[Scott Lee]

42. Circle it in your calendar. Kerry as a former candidate in two months

or less. Wanna bet some net bucks?

[hellhathnofury]

50. Votes have been cast. In Michigan and DC.

That standard line should now be no votes have been counted.

[Andromeda]

91. Is that a fact?

Please tell us what Dean is hiding. It must be pretty good because it's brought up so many times.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

9. That's neat how you took a quote out of context...

After I posted it in full in the opening post.

Of course, you're the third person who's replied without bothering to read my post, apparently.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Hilarious

Again, you use Dean's statement that he wouldn't go to war without the UN and somehow ascribe the opposite meaning to it. Incredible.

[killbotfactory]

37. BECAUSE HE SAID IRAQ WAS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT

Can you put 2 and 2 together here?

Iraq not an imminent threat, so UN must authorize action.

Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

What is so hard to understand?

[Scott Lee]

43. Please don't confuse them with facts. It's mean.

[dansolo]

95. Not to mention international law

Kerry seems to forget that unless Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. (which it wasn't), our invasion was a blatant violation of international law and the U.N. Charter. Maybe Kerry should refresh his reading of the Constitution, i.e. the document he would have to swear to uphold as president.

Article VI

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

[Scott Lee]

97. This makes Bush* and all war appeasers treasonous

A subject that dare not be broached on this forum, I'll bet.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. What he said was: "They have to send troops,"

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm

lol

[killbotfactory]

59. After he said Iraq was not an imminent threat...

Understand yet?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. So what? He said he would need UN approval.

Whatever the reason, that's what he said. That's what Kerry is calling him on. Of course, at other times, Dean said the exact opposite thing. What else is new?

[killbotfactory]

66. You can't give a national security veto to the UN

When there is no national security issue at stake.

Hence the "Iraq is not an imminent threat" part.

[windansea]

14. LOL n/t

[polpilot]

35. Dean's position is #1. It's been his position for quite a while.

Dean '04...

[oasis]

52. Thanks for that revelation. I'm glad someone's doin' some fact checking

before posting accusations.

[killbotfactory]

61. I did fact checking... and Kerry lied.

[oasis]

70. A matter of interpretation.U.N. "approval" is dangerously close to

U.N."permission" when we are talking about taking action to protect American citizens.

Dean has problems with his clarity on issues. I guess it makes it easier for him to maintain a "fallback" political strategy.

[killbotfactory]

76. Kerry has a problem with lying

"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the U.N. Security Council gave us authorization," Mr. Kerry added, calling that a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how a president should protect the nation.

"Perhaps it reflects inexperience," he said, "but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act becomes only a little more than a pretext for doing nothing. It cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else, and that is a profound danger for both our national security and global stability."

http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/869.html

Of course, Dean did none of the above. Saying we should not engage in unilateral warfare against a country which poses no real threat to us, unless backed by the UN, in no way gives them a veto over our national security.

[oasis]

88. Key terminology "fundamental misunderstanding". Dean is not being clear

about taking measures that would protect Americans. There is a danger in his ambiguity of taking action. That is what Kerry is talking about.

If a president is indecisive on matters of life and death it sends the wrong signal to our enemies.

[killbotfactory]

90. No, Dean has been very clear.

The paraphrase of Dean's position wasn't, but could be determined with little to no effort in thinking about it.

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. Dean can't figure out his own position, how is anyone else supposed to?

"I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred." --2/17/02
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said. --2/22/03 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm

But what's most amazing is that you use a story in which Dean flat-out says he wouldn't go to war without UN backing (contradicting himself from 5 days earlier) to argue that Dean would go to war without UN backing.

[JVS]

7. Because he can't justify his own actions

[lcordero]

10. Dean said that he wouldn't go to war without the UN

In the first(The Carolinas) debate of the Primaries.

[killbotfactory]

15. Really? Show me.

Here's a link to the transcript.

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

Where did Dean say he'd never go to war without the UN?

(fixed link)

[lcordero]

21. that's what I got from that link

404 File Not Found

[killbotfactory]

23. The page is broken..

Here's where I got the link.

http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_and_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Debates/Campaign_2004_Presidential_Debate.htm

[Democrats unite]

28. That link is broken also...

Could this be a cover-up?

[killbotfactory]

41. I don't know what's wrong...

I'd still like to see proof that Dean said he would never go to war without the UN's permission.

[zulchzulu]

38. Here's another link...

Dean: "...had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force, I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq, but that was not the case."

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3742768/

[killbotfactory]

40. Because Iraq was not an imminent threat...

If Iraq is not an imminent threat, then following the UN does not give the UN a veto power on national security.

[Demobrat]

12. Why wouldn't he?

What else has he got?

[blm]

13. Really? I thought it was in respones to Dean's Feb. DNC speech.

During that same time frame.

[killbotfactory]

18. Where did Dean say he would never go to war without the UN?

In the feb speech.

Please show me.

[Lobo_13]

16. because it's all he's got left

And then he cries when Dean hits him back.

"It all started when Howard Dean hit me back." - Kerry campaign slogan.

[molly]

20. Dean hit him back ?

Dean quivers in his shadow - please-please don't misquote Kerry. It looks a lot like Joe Trippi.

[Lobo_13]

24. He's doing a whole lot of that quivering.

Must be Kerry's tanking numbers that got him shaking in his boots.

Desperate bravado, anyone?

[molly]

27. Numbers are not reality - theory is not reality

wait and see.

[Lobo_13]

32. You just continue to think that

far be it from me to relieve you of the only shred of hope you have.

[cindyw]

22. Did you just quote the guy Kerry fired to prove that Kerry said something?

You will also have to provide an actual quote from FTN for a reply to your opinion.

But I think you may have proven that Dean said we needed permission of the UN.

"He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own."

What I want to know is why Dean thinks this war would have been justified if the UN backed it. I think Kerry is right when he says that we had not come to a point where invasion was necessary. UN support or not.

Why does Dean think sending troops was OK if we had support? I think we should have had the backing of the world in order to disarm Saddam, but why does Dean think invasion was the only way to disarm him?

[killbotfactory]

34. Well, I assumed you'd follow the links

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/facekerry.pdf

"Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't
know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations,"

He said essentially the same thing during the last debate.

And why ignore the context of that statement? Dean said Iraq was not an imminent threat so the he would only go in if the UN agreed. How can Dean scede a national security veto to the UN when there is no national security issue at stake?

If the UN backed the war, it would mean Saddam was in gross violation of UN resolutions.

[zulchzulu]

25. Plenty of evidence that Dean IS lying

We can bat this around unil you finally see that Dean is not to be trusted for his word. Personally, I think Dean has his heart in the right place. It's his big mouth and propensity to flip-flop and gaffe that makes him completely un-presidential to me.

But anyway, back to Dean and Saddam. Here are some quotes.

Dean saying Saddam IS a threat:

Howard Dean on Face The Nation in September of 2002:
"There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies."

Howard Dean said the following in a news conference on December 10, 2004:
"I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever."

Ever? Hmmm...

Dean said this about the UN's role and the US needing to get permission from the UN:

Dean: "...had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force, I would not have hesitated to go into Iraq, but that was not the case."

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3742768/

Kerry calls Dean rightly on this.

[mzmolly]

49. Gosh you forgot one essential part of the quote above...

You obviously failed to include the later sentence to bolster your false case.

"There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies. The question is IS HE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT, I don't think he is."~Howard Dean on Face The Nation in September of 2002:

My how the sentence you excluded sheds a bit of clarity on the situation.

Danger = immediate threat

Saddam Hussein was a menace and/or threat, he was not a danger.

Do tell me what issue you have with Howard Dean's respect for the International Community? Wasn't JK critical of Bush for "fucking it up" regarding not getting international cooperation?

[genius]

26. That's like the pot calling the Kettle black

Dean's the one lying. I'm not a Kerry supporter but I can't stand Dean's lies.

[Democrats unite]

31. Also I have lost count of the lies...

anyone keeping a talley?

[mb7588a]

33. I don't see how Kerry is lying. Sorry.

You didn't quote anything said by John Kerry. Might also be important to note Jordan is no longer with the campaign?

From the first link you provided to the Face the Natiov interiew, Kerry responds to his perceived dangers of a Howard Dean presidency, which is the ONLY place the united Nations is mentioned:

"SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think it would be dangerous to have Howard Dean as president? Sen. KERRY: Well, How--listen, Bob, it's up to a lot of other voters to make decisions about this race. What I'm trying to do is point out that for us to beat George Bush, we need a candidate who has the ability to go face to face with him on the issue of national security. George Bush himself has said national security will be the central issue of this campaign. And it's very clear that--that Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations, that we have to prepare for the day when America is not the strongest military in the world, that we're not safer with Saddam Hussein captured, I think those will raise serious doubts in the minds of Americans about whether or not this is the Democratic Party of retreat and confusion or whether it is the Democratic Party in the tradition of Roosevelt and Truman that knows how to make America safe. I know how to make America safe and fight a war on terror that does not overextend our troops, that does not put America at greater risk. And we need a nominee about whom there are no questions on the subject of national security."



From the first link you provided to the Face the Nation interview, Kerry defends his attacks on Dean (pretty good defense, in my opinion):

"Ms. WALTER: I'm sorry. That if indeed he is the nominee that you've really opened up a great line of attack for Republicans and the piling-on effect here could really impact him as the nominee negatively.

Sen. KERRY: Please, this race against George Bush is going to be a tough race. If you don't think Karl Rove and George Bush aren't sitting there waiting for these statements to be held accountable when they run, if he's the nominee, you're kidding yourselves. I mean, the fact is that we didn't open any of this up. Howard Dean made these statements. Howard Dean is the one who said he doesn't think we're safer with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Howard Dean is the one who said he didn't know whether or not he could have a jury trial--or he might have a jury trial before he calls him guilty even though Saddam Hussein himself announced he's guilty. Howard Dean is the one who said we need the permission of the UN to do these things. This is a campaign about the presidency of the United States of America.

Ms. WALTER: D--do you...

Sen. KERRY: And we Democrats need to choose the strongest nominee possible to go up against him. If he can't answer those questions adequately now he's not going to be able to answer them when George Bush and Karl Rove go at him."


Now you show us where Dean said other than "statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations." "They have to send troops," is not sufficient explanation of Dean foreign policy for me to convince me otherwise, and prove that Kerry is lying. Sorry.

[killbotfactory]

39. Follow the damn links

He said this on face the nation

Howard Dean has been all over the place. I mean, if you don't
know that Saddam Hussein is guilty and you think he has to have a jury trial, if you make statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations,

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/facekerry.pdf

And also at the last debate.

[mb7588a]

44. I just posted the full context of that quote,

did you even read my post? You still haven't made your case.

[killbotfactory]

45. Dean never suggested that the UN should have veto power, either

If Iraq is not a significant threat to the US, abiding by the UN would not effect our national security.

[killbotfactory]

48. Here's another example

http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/869.html

"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the U.N. Security Council gave us authorization," Mr. Kerry added, calling that a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how a president should protect the nation.

Does that count as a lie, yet?

[cindyw]

62. You know I have a problem with Dean suggesting it would have been

appropriate for us to go to war if the UN approved. The war would not have been justified with or without it. Kerry is right, permission of the UN is irrelevant in cases of protecting the country. There is is not a single case where we need permission. Dean is wrong. It is as if he was suggesting that the war would have bben okay with permission. It was wrong with or without it. What we do need the Un for is legidemacy when a war is already justifiable and we needed them make sure that Saddam was disarmed. Bush failed to do both.

Kerry is right. This may be an irrelevant argument because Dean claims he was speaking in hypotheticals. But Dean was wrong either way he choses to spin it. Either he was saying that the Iraq war would have been okay if the UN approved or he is saying that we need their permission in order to defend ourselves in cases of imminent danger. Both are wrong.

[lcordero]

46. Hello

Now that I think about it. How is it bad to not go to war without the UN?

Dean said that he wouldn't go to war without the UN. For as little respect that I have for Dean, I have even less respect for anybody that keeps on parroting that Iraq was a "threat to national security".

[Cheswick2.0]

47. He has to do something

He is grasping at straws.

[lcordero]

55. BTW

It is better to ask for permission no matter how powerful the person or group might be.
A population of 300 million's odds are a lot worse at surviving a nuclear attack than a population of 5 billion that is spread all over the world.

[arewethereyet]

56. Kerry doesn't need to lie but you may want to open your eyes

Dr Dean says these things all the time and you expect a true polititian to pass them up ? Time to get a grip.

Just because you sometimes see military guys in blue helmets does not mean that the UN has armed forces.

[killbotfactory]

58. What are you talking about?

Dean said that since Iraq was not an immient threat he wouldn't go into Iraq unless it was sanctioned by the UN. What's wrong with that?

[arewethereyet]

68. Dr Dean did not know if there was imminent threat or not

he had little or no access to any information on the subject. Any posturing he did was based on conjecture and intended to appeal to a core of doveish dems to try and build a base on.

The UN had authorized force on the basis of "material breech" which Blix said had taken place.

And NOONE needs to approve what we do as it regards our national security.

Besides the UN does not really have forces. Those are NATO guys under those helmets. He might want to brush up on what the UN actually does.

[killbotfactory]

71. Nothing put forth to the public indicated Iraq was an imminent threat

Since that's all Dean had access to, he made the correct analysis that Iraq was not an imminent threat.

There never was any secret evidence, that was all bullshit made up by neocon propagandists.

And I'm pretty sure he knows the UN doesn't have troops. That's just nitpicking.

[arewethereyet]

81. let me see if I've got this straight...

Dr Dean can make up anything he wants as a basis for action as serious as this and it's OK.

Democrats have iven indication of the sorts of things that were included in the dossier presented to the INtellegence Committee. So we trust noone ? While that may be a sensible position to take regarding polititians, Dr Dean is also a polititian and would also not be deserving of trust.

I'm pretty sure he ought to know as well but he said it none the less.

The point is that there is a decidedly clear pattern of poor and half baked analysis on his part which the Dean faithful have a keen ability to gloss over which amazes me and a great many others as well.

I know you guys have given this man a lot of your money but if he's become the wrong guy, you have to be able to walk away from it. This is the future of the country at stake as well as the Democratic party.

When you walk into that voting booth just make sure you are not fooling yourself with your choice. To thine own self be true.

[killbotfactory]

87. I'll see if I can find the quote...

But Kerry said that the public knew everything congress knew.

And the dossier were reported to have tons of footnotes disclaiming how uncertain they were about Saddam's capabilities.

It might also have been a clue that Bush was full of shit, when the inspectors found nothing, despite being helped by the US, and having many claims made by Bushco proven false before the war started.

[arewethereyet]

93. and there was a quote from a non-candidate more recently

Kerry was trying to do his job which is to keep his mouth shut about confidential matters. He's ex-lilitary, he knows that its important to do so. Others are not and typically get people killed as a result.

But screw all of it... I'll toss all that aside if you'll just agree to take an honest and objective look at all the issues that Dr Dean has created by his own hand before you make your ultimate choice.

All I'm about is making people pull off the blinders and rose colored glasses and see this whole set of facts brutally honestly. If folks do that then however they choose is fine by me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Your citation proves you wrong.

lol

Dean says one thing, and you are trying to convince us it means the opposite. Weak.

[killbotfactory]

60. No it doesn't.

reading comprehension is cool.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Alas for you, we can all comprehend it without your 'explanation' lol

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm

Whatever you give as the 'reason' for what he said, that is what he said.

[killbotfactory]

64. Watch what happens when I move the bold quotes!

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm

It's like magic!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Interesting, it doesn't change the meaning at all, does it?

Yeah, Dean remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States and said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

lol

[killbotfactory]

69. Yeah...

So how does that translate into Dean never going to war unless the UN approves it?

[JVS]

72. Only if one were to generalize it would that be the case

Dean: That tree on my lawn has become dangerous, I think I'll cut it down.

DU peanut gallery: Dean is going to destroy all trees

This is all because, as we know, Dean is worse than Hitler :eyes:

[oasis]

78. Many Democrats who have Dean as their #2 or #3 don't view him as Hitler.

[JVS]

79. Good, I'm one of those Democrats who have him as my #2

But I won't see my number 2 choice bashed to oblivion while waiting for my #1 choice, who is a long shot.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Nice attempt to put words into Kerry's mouth.

What Kerry did say, however, is that Dean made "statements suggesting that we can't protect ourselves without the permission of the United Nations"


Which you have proven true with your citation.

[killbotfactory]

74. He also said this:

"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the U.N. Security Council gave us authorization," Mr. Kerry added, calling that a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how a president should protect the nation.

"Perhaps it reflects inexperience," he said, "but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act becomes only a little more than a pretext for doing nothing. It cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else, and that is a profound danger for both our national security and global stability."

http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/869.html

Dean never suggested the idea, either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. You really believe you are making a valid argument don't you?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

[killbotfactory]

77. Because I am

You're just repeating quotes and saying "lol" as if it proves anything.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. I'm repeating the quotes because they definitively prove you wrong.

No explanation is needed, neither from me, nor you. Dean said what he said and Kerry criticized him for it.

Your turn to repeat yourself. :hi:

[killbotfactory]

85. Dean stated common sense...

Don't attack countries without UN backing, unless they pose a threat to the US.

Kerry, apparently agreeing with Tom Delay, found this position unacceptable.

[dansolo]

96. Protect ourselves from what exactly?

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. Please enlighten all of us as to how our invasion of Iraq has protected us from anything. (Other than weather balloons and model airplanes)

[oasis]

80. Appearing to seek U.N. "approval", "authorization" or "permission"

isn't going to play to well in the Bible Belt during a general election. They're going to see Dean as a "weenie" on national security. Rove will have no problem "interpreting" Dean's statements and there is no amount of spin that will woo the sheeple away from voting for GWB.

[killbotfactory]

83. So that makes it okay for Kerry to lie?

Does Kerry think we should just attack any country we want whether they pose a threat to the US or not, and give the bird to the UN like Bush? I would hope not.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. Pathetic.

[oasis]

92. Kerry could vanish in thin air. Poof. Now your task is to sell America

that Dr. Dean can protect their families better than GWB. If Trippi can't shake off the perception that Dean is "wimpy on defense" then kiss the election goodbye.

[FubarFly]

94. Maybe we should just nuke China.

Think that will do it?

Perhaps Dean should drive around in a blood red limo, adorned with the skulls of dead terrorists, as a warning to all those who would dare defy the Holy Empire.

Or how about if we arrange a steel cage match between Dean and Osama. Don't let the dialysis fool you...


---

Level-headed common sense is pertinent to national security.

b*sh is a deranged warmonger. His record on national defense is abysmal. We are as vulnerable to serious attack as we have been in over a century. b*sh destroyed our natural alliances, overextended our military, corrupted our intelligence services, and actually created terrorists in Iraq. He promised money to increase homeland security, but has delivered little but more bureaucracy and empty rhetoric. Does 'code orange' actually make you any safer?

--

The first step to regaining our national security will be to restore the backing and the faith of our most trusted allies. Respecting the UN and international law will go a long way towards achieving this necessary goal. Thank God Dean understands that strong national security begins with strong diplomacy.

[Hoppin_Mad]

86. He lied in last night's debate - He can't help it - He's desperate

and it shows

[Moderator]

98. I am locking this thread....

It has become a flame war.

Thanks,
DU Moderator