Kerry on MTP just now: "Dean Couldn't Vote So He Isn't Accountable"

[matcom]

uh.....John?

you DID have the vote which means YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE!

John?

you listening John?

[LuminousX]

1. LOL

Good point.

[slinkerwink]

3. sadly he's had a lot of twisted logic these days....

like when he attacked Dean for his Saddam comment, and then went after Bush, saying that we weren't safer since Saddam was captured.

[ShimokitaJer]

5. His strategy seems to be

Dean's ideas are wrong when he says them but right when I say them

[Eloriel]

44. Except of course when he wants to steal them for himself n/t

:evilgrin:

[Bombtrack]

7. Kerry didn't say we weren't safer since Saddam was captured

you should correct yourself

[mouse7]

19. I just saw him on CSPAN last night saying Dean was wrong again

Kerry was saying Dean was wrong to suggest we weren't safer with Saddam captured when Saddam had tried to assassinate a President, and Saddam could lead the Baathists in a return to power yaddda yadda yadda

[Bombtrack]

21. yadda yadda?

So people are too hard on Saddam?

Saddam's capture was a needed and necessary step in multiple aspects of our countries progress, once we were initiated in Iraq

[mouse7]

36. Compared to the threat of North Korea and Al-Queda, he was

North Korea has REAl nukes. Al Queda REALLY took down the WTC. We have taken assets we should be using to deal with the real threats and used them in a situation where there was no imminent threat against the US, and have now made the actual risk to Americans fom terrorism worse because of the manner in which we have operated in Iraq once we got there.

[Forkboy]

2. He's right

Out of the two only he is accountable....as he's finding out.

[ShimokitaJer]

4. Oops

Cue a flurry of Kerry supporters comparing this to Dean's "gaffes"

[adadem]

6. It's the truth

I have said over and over...I give no credibility to any candidate who isn't in congress and therefore didn't actually register a vote. Those candidates can say whaever they want when they want...all we have are press reports on their comments. I was thrilled Senator Kerry spoke the truth...and stated the facts. It's clear John Kerry has the breadth of knowledge in domestic and world affairs that this country needs.

[Forkboy]

8. It is the truth

Out of the two only Kerry can be held accountable for over 500 American deaths and over 20,000 Iraqi deaths.

[paulk]

31. It's not the truth

that Kerry can be held responsible for Bush's mishandling of Iraq.

Blaming Kerry for the deaths of 500 Americans and 20,000 Iraqis is so goddamn low I cannot express the contempt I feel in a way that would allow me to remain on this board.

[Larkspur]

38. Considering that 231 House Democrats opposed the IWR and Kerry

Edwards, and Lieberman voted for it, what they hell was Kerry thinking voting FOR IWR?

Why didn't Kerry pay attention to what the majority of House Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, were saying about IWR?

[PatrickS]

9. And people wonder why Kerry is trailing

With stupid "shooting myself in the foot" comments like this one, well, Kerry just doesn't cut it.

[blm]

10. The press never held Dean accountable for his support of a war resolution.

One that had the same guidelines to war in IWR with the added obstacle of a letter to the speaker and the pres pro tem of the Senate.

That slight difference earns an antiwar label while support for IWR earns a prowar label?

That's deceptive labeling. Real war opponents weighed in against any resolution for use of force.

[Forkboy]

11. Bummer for Kerry ain't it?

Regardless of what you say here blm Kerry's vote was wrong,end of story for me.

This isn't so much about what Dean might or might not have voted for.The simple fact is that Kerry DID vote for this (after speaking so eloquently against it even).He has no one to blame but himself if that vote is haunting him now...it should damn well haunt all that voted for it.

[ShimokitaJer]

12. It was a choice of political expedience

over what Kerry should have known was right. Sorry, blm, but Kerry doesn't get credit for the bill he wanted to vote for... he is accountable for the bill he DID vote for.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. so if it "isn't so much about what Dean might or might not have voted for"

then Dean is not accountable. Where's the controversy here?

[mouse7]

22. You said on a thread last night Dean was anti war 10/02 on

Dean evidentally supported Biden-Luger. That means Dean wasn't willing to allow the US to invade without the predominance of world opinion suggesting an invasion of Iraq was necessary, as would have been shown by new UN security council action supporting an invasion of Iraq. Dean had also said he had never seen it proven to him Iraq was an imminant threat. Dean WAS CONSISTANTLY against a unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

Kerry clearly was willing to allow Dumbya to invade Iraq with no support from anyone. That's what Kerry voted for. A unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

[blm]

66. B-L had the same guidelines. Go read it.

The onlty added obstacle to declaring use of force was a NOTE from Bush to the speaker and pres pro tem of the Senate.

That was IT. Bush WENT to the UN in Nov. Did you happen to miss that?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1044696/posts
>>>>>
Mr. Dean has also implied that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, Mr. Dean has not explained that, at the time, he supported an alternate congressional resolution that would also have granted the president authority to take unilateral action if he made additional certifications to Congress before doing so. Mr. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented Mr. Bush from taking action, but this subtle distinction is often lost in his rhetoric.

The congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq passed in October 2002 with the support of Dean rivals Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards. As CNN reported at the time, it "requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Mr. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days." (Mr. Bush has taken these steps as required.)

>>>>>>>>

Bush would have been required to send Congress a letter--not seek a vote of approval--before waging war, Kerry said. He argued there was no significant difference between the Lugar-Biden resolution and the one passed by Congress.

Dean acknowledged that the alternative resolution was not binding against the president, but argued that Bush would have somehow been more likely to use restraint.
>>>>>>>>
Mr. Dean may believe that requiring additional certifications to Congress would have prevented war due to political considerations (Mr. Bush "would have been forced to certify with his word . . . all the claims he made that were not true"), but this is an assertion about a hypothetical. It is undisputed, however, that Biden-Lugar would have granted the president authority to take unilateral action against Iraq if the U.N. failed to act and Mr. Bush satisfied the requirements of the legislation. Mr. Dean has implicitly acknowledged this distinction at times, such as a statement on the Feb. 25, 2003, edition of PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" in which he said, "What they voted for was to allow the president of the United States to attack Iraq unilaterally without going back to Congress" .
>>>>>>

[ShimokitaJer]

32. In Kerry's own words

Kerry defended his IWR vote by saying, "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America." Back in 2002? No, that quote was from October, 2003.

I guess Iraq deserves to be held accountable (for what, I don't know) but Kerry himself doesn't. Tell me again how Kerry isn't getting enough credit for being antiwar.

[retyred]

13. What Kerry said is true

It's easy to say you wouldn't have done something when not given the chance to actually prove you wouldn't have. deans gotten a lot of mileage by not having to be accountable for not doing what only he claims he wouldn't have.

IMO given deans support of every war since Viet Nam, I believe dean would've signed the IWR if given the chance, but for now, we'll never know.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[Forkboy]

14. I believe Dean would have signed it too

but what Dean might or might not have done isn't a defense for what Kerry DID do.

[billbuckhead]

15. What I've never understood is why Kucinich isn't the winner out of this

Dennis had to put his ass on the line like Kerry, Gep, Liebermann and Edwards did and actually voted against it. Dean and to lesser extents Clark, Sharpton and Braun, are being rewarded for what they would have done. The IWR vote is a poor litmus test to begin with and then for Kucinich not to be rewarded for his courageous vote doesn't ring right.

[Forkboy]

16. I'm rewarding him with my vote

:)

[stopbush]

17. Being rewarded for what they would have done?

You said "Dean and to lesser extents Clark, Sharpton and Braun, are being rewarded for what they would have done."

Not really. They're being rewarded for what they DIDN'T do, ie: give absolute power to a well-known lying, two-faced maniac to wage an illegal war.

Here's an analogy for you: a swimmer is floundering in the middle of a lake. You can 1) throw him a life preserver, 2) throw him a cinder block, or 3) stand by there and do nothing - he may save himself, and he may not. Some could be accused of following option 3...while Kerry, Gep, Lieberman and Edwards, unfortunately, followed option 2.

There's a fourth option, of course. And that would be to warn the swimmer ahead of time that he was heading into unsafe waters. That's where Kucinch, Dean, Robert Byrd and others stood before the war. If you don't believe me, check the record.

[Dolphyn]

18. Yep ...

I see it more like this:

Several candidates throw the swimmer a cinder block, while Dennis Kucinich throws him a life preserver. Unfortunately the cinder blocks are more powerful, and Howard isn't anywhere near the lake to do anything.

A couple years later, Howard runs for office, incorrectly proclaiming "I'm the only candidate who didn't throw a cinder block!" The media doesn't bother to question this assertion. The anti-war public doesn't know about the life preserver thrown by Dennis, so they rally behind Dean.

[mbali]

20. Nicely said. n/t

[windansea]

29. Dean is a poser

I like your analogy

I wish DK would blast Dean for this more..LOUDLY

[ShimokitaJer]

33. Kucinich certainly has reason to be proud of his early antiwar stance

As did Bob Graham. But Kerry? I don't think so.

[Eloriel]

49. Reward him how?

Vote for him just because he voted no?

Voting no was good. I give him props for that. But I don't support the rest of his defense posture. He's basically a pacifist; I'm not. Dean's foreign policy positions far better reflect my own.

Eloriel

[Monte Carlo]

23. Well whoever said he wasn't accountable for it?

Hmmm?

If I'm not mistaken, he's been held accountable for it, disproportionately so, for the past year or so.

[JVS]

24. If I were Kerry I'd find something else to talk about.

The IWR has already done enough damage to his candidacy, let it go find some other issue to discuss.

[zulchzulu]

64. Russert asked him the question..again and again...

What's Kerry supposed to say?

"Gee, Tim. Can we talk about something else...."

[JaneQPublic]

Did Kerry skip voting on the Medicare Bill to avoid "Accountability"? (nt)

[Monte Carlo]

27. After he led a filibuster attempt?

Maybe he has something better to do than stick around in Washington to formalize a loss? Like campaigning, hmmm?

[JaneQPublic]

30. But if voting makes you accountable, Kerry shouldn't duck accountability

Are you saying Kerry only needs to vote when it looks like his side will win? Is that how Kerry defines "accountability"?

(edited to add text.)

[adadem]

56. Weak attack

Lieberman and Kerry left after it was clear the filibuster would fail.

[Monte Carlo]

59. But Kerry didn't duck accountability.

He led a filibuster against that Medicare bill, and it stands to reason that if there are enough votes to break a filibuster, there are enough votes to pass it in the actual vote. The Senate never goes into the official voting process, and then comes out suprised at the outcome. They already know if a bill has enough votes. This is the job of the whips.

[bread_and_roses]

25. It is almost tragic

that Kerry has this vote like an albatross on his record. I don't know if those of you who are younger realize the enormous weight his having been a Vietnam Vet agaist the war has for some of us, not to mention his later work. I cannot fathom his votes since Bush has been in office. They seem to me only comprehensible in terms of political expediency, and I honestly thought - and still want to think - that he is better than that. (I am also unsure that his vote would be much of a liability in the General, given the continued public support for the invasion, but that is really neither here nor there for me...since I believe that if ALL the Dem candidates were out there with a genuine anti-war message, the polls would be different).

I felt much the same about Clinton's welfare reform, and the Dem support for it - a real sense of betrayal.

And the anti-war support for Dean puzzles me, since I think it vastly over-estimates his opposition to US Imperialism. I still think Kerry's overall record is the best among the "major" candidates. It certainly looks like a more "progressive" record than Dean's, to me.

[ShimokitaJer]

28. I agree with you that Kerry has an excellent record

but his actions since Bush took office have parallelled those of the Democratic Party in general: bowing to Bush's pressure and keeping a low profile. I thought Al Gore was an amazing candidate, but he used those same defeatist tactics in campaign 2000 and I lost faith in him.

The emphasis on Dean's opposition to the war may seem unfair in relation to his actions, but he is gaining support precisely because he is seen as willing to take a stand on the issue when the more mainstream Dems were not. I don't want a Dem who is going to bow to political pressure, but one who is going to examine the facts and act on those. Kerry has an excellent record, but his recent actions have put him firmly in the pool of Dems who vote based on political expediency rather than a belief in what is right. I blame the pressure of the party leadership as much as Kerry himself, but unfortunately he is the one that bears responsibility for his own actions.

That's where Dean's "anti-war support" is coming from. Other candidates make a mistake in thinking it is simply "anti-war" and trying to adopt the same attitude. It merely reinforces their image as political animals.

[Lobo_13]

34. To quote the bard

The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with Kerry.

[newsjunkie]

26. That poll Tim just showed not good for Kerry

2/3 of Iowa Dems say they prefer someone who was against the Iraq war.

[Lobo_13]

35. Too bad you are accountable, huh John?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Senator Kerry cast his vote, 500 soldiers have died, he sent them there with his vote.

I just met a former Congressman who had to vote for the Gulf War. He had the best point I can think of.

The vote to go to war is probably the most solemn and serious vote that any legislator will ever have to cast in his career. It should be done ONLY after extensive deliberation and should never be cast on the basis of politics. Americans die in war, so we can't take the decision to go to war lightly. Kerry broke faith with the people he was supposed to serve and sent our soldiers halfway around the world to die for nothing. He is accountable because he shares the burden of those lives.

[Cocoa]

37. of course Kerry is accountable

accountable means he has to explain his vote, which he's been doing.

And Dean is unaccountable because he didn't have to vote. Which is good for Dean, obviously, but it's not necessarily good for the voters because we don't have that vote to clue us in to how he would have voted.

My personal feeling is I see Dean voting for the IWR if he had to. I don't see him standing with Dennis Kucinich. There's really no basis as I see it for a Dean antiwar position, other than politics.

[salin]

39. I agree and disagree

I agree that the statement is correct. Those who had to vote had to go on the record in a way that those not in Congress didn't have to.

I also think that those who had to vote faced are really complex situation - including trumped up intelligence sold to them in a 'believable way' at the last minute - by the CIA which had - to that point - been more cautious (giving the appearance of more credence.) While I would like to believe that Kerry has the broader perspective to understand the long-term ramifications of the vote (not on electoral politics - but on forcing a very likely longterm (re: historical) geopolitical alignment - esp giving that level of power to this administration that has shown no restraing)... he didn't. So I hold him accountable. But I understand the context - and may yet overlook it (still undecided here).

I view Sen.s Kerry and Edwards in a different light than I do Sen. Lieberman and Congressman Gephardt (and Sen. Evan Bayh - who I believe is still angling to be considered as a VP candidate). The latter worked in conjunction with Bush and Rove to stage a PR stunt that effectively made numerous ongoing, bipartisan negotiations in the Senate for possible amendments to the resolution. The latter three worked to undermine their fellow democrats (and some republicans.) It would be one thing to be strong in their convictions (which appears to be the case with Lieberman - though I am prone to believe that the other two took the stand for more politically opportunistic reasons - Gephardt seemed to believe that pushing the vote out of the way would allow congressional democrats to refocus on the economy in the midterm elections, and Bayh was trying to, imo, further set him up as an attractive (centrist) VP and future Pres candidate).

I also view Sen.s Kerry and Edwards in different lights. This is more based on their rhetoric last March in the leadup and start to the war. Edwards was all for it - only criticizing the unilateral approach but not criticizing the reasoning for the war, and certainly not looking at the potential blowback from the action. Sen. Kerry on the other hand was very public in his criticism of the war, in his criticism of the trumped up intelligence, and in recognizing the potential ramifications of the action -as well as criticizing the unilateral nature of the how the administration was approaching the war.

Of those forced by holding Congressional seats, in terms of taking a long-look at the serious long-term international ramifications of this action... Kucinich (and Graham were he still running - albeit his reasonings were different) are the most sound. And in my book Sen. Kerry comes off better than Sen. Edwards. And Representative Gephardt and Lieberman (and Bayh) fail.

That said - it was so complicated at the time - it is impossible for me to claim that either Dean or Clark would have voted for or against the resolution. We simply do not know.

While I appreciate their more vocal criticism and caution in the lead up... they were simply in very different circumstances by not having their hands forced by the White House. On this point - Kerry is absolutely correct.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

41. and Kerry said today: "I have 35 years backing me up- I can be trusted"

to do the right thing.

[JVS]

42. but yet he fails to do so regularly

and then spends months giving us tortured excuses

[salin]

43. however

in my book - given that long experience. While I can overlook it - I don't think he did the right thing on this vote - as I stated above.

There was very little discussion at the time about the real international consequences of this - a sole superpower no longer being viewed as benign.... Does this force realignment - diplomatic, economic and other - of other countries to try to counter the 'dominance'? This debate did not occur publically. And of course we are already starting to see some shifts that could have long-term impact on the US. I am not talking a little problem here and there... I am talking about historical shifts the kind that one will discuss in history books when one looks at long term trends (eg 20, 50 year spans etc.)

Thus to say he will ALWAYS do the right thing? Always a mistake, imo, to speak in terms of absolutes.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. No one would accuse Bush of being untrustworthy to execute properly

No one would do that in a matter of national security. It would be the equivalent of insubordination.
And imo Kerry is about as trustworthy as you can get.

[Larkspur]

48. Kerry voted incorrectly on the 1991 Gulf War and on the 2002 IWR

What Kerry's record is proving that when it comes to major decisions, like sending our soldiers to war or not, Kerry makes the WRONG decisions. Can't afford that in a Presidential candidate.

[Cocoa]

52. I'm surprised so many DUers concede on the Gulf War

was that war so clearly more justified than this one?

Or was it just better executed, more diplomacy, and arguably a better outcome?

But as far as giving the president the authority, and the moral and legal justification,it seems a lot of the issues are the same.

[salin]

53. Have to agree with you there

At the time - I was against it... but ironically was more concerned - and probably would have supported brief intervention in the Balkans where the first vicious round of ongoing ethnic cleansing was occuring at the hands of Milosevic. DIdn't understand how a trumped up situation that we had diplomatically given a nod to... warranted such huge action... where a real humanrights disaster - ongoing (not citing violations from years earlier) didn't warrant at least short term intervention? Not consistent at all.

[bread_and_roses]

54. I, too, am surprised

the first Iraq war was as avoidable and as politically motivated as is this one. And Kerry stood against that war, making his vote this time around even more incomprehensible.

[sandnsea]

60. It was less justified

That one was clearly over Kuwait's oil. Soldiers coming back have point blank said so. We had no idea about Saddam's nuclear weapons program or the amount of his bio/chem programs and weapons. That's what we found out during the 90's that changed the entire situation. If anything, the 2002 vote was much more justifiable than 1991, it was important to get inspectors into Iraq. And if we hadn't put Saddam in a completely defensive mode by going to war in 1991, maybe we wouldn't have had the mess we've got today at all. It amazes me how people can just spin their heads around to justify positions that I know full well Democrats in general don't support.

[Cocoa]

50. I agree with everything you said there

The IWR vote could turn out to be what causes me to vote for Kucinich over Gephardt, the two I'm choosing between.

But your post is exactly right about the complexities, and the uncertainties.

My hunch is the same about Clark as it is about Dean. Nothing about Clark leads me to conclude he would have voted against the IWR, except possibly in the way Graham voted against it. I just don't know.

But the thing about Clark is that he is not using that vote against the people that voted for the IWR. In fact he has criticized Dean for doing this. I'm with Clark all the way on that.

I don't know of any antiwar person that's credible to me that blame the pro-IWR dems for the war. They all blame Bush.

[salin]

51. I know many antiwar people who have...

but who have begun - as the time grows closer and more information of the info given to those in congress in their last minute briefings - to view the vote through a recognition of the complexities.

However - few are forgiving of the roll that Lieberman (and Gephardt) played in cutting short the senate negotiations.

Personally I think Gep really miscalculated. I do believe that he supported the war - but I don't think he would generally work to sabatoge other democrats (the complaint on the hill just after the Rose Garden speech was that he hadn't even warned other members of the congressional democratic leadership that he was going to do this.) I think his was a calculation regarding the upcoming midterm elections - and the oft dc-dem stated belief that if they could just get the war off the plate (and national security issues out of the mind) that there was a chance to do better in the elections. I believed then and now it was a gross miscalculation. I also believe this, not the future presidential run, is why he resigned his leadership position. Otherwise the switch would have occurred a little later.

It is too bad. On labor and trade issues I believe that Gephardt is very strong, has a history and a great deal of credibility. On that front he was never quite as swayed by the Reagan era faith in the promise of unfettered free-trade in which corporations held ALL of the bargaining power.

[SayitAintSo]

45. Agreed - it's on record - he supported Biden-Luger

'splain that ....

The lead post here misrepresents Kerry's point. Dean's obfuscation will catch up with him, if it isn't already.

[matcom]

47. i beg your pardon

Kerry's point isn't misrepresented at all. he was asked a very pointed question by Russert.

Kerry made the statement above. BTW, i VOLUNTEERED for his senate reelection campaign. i am a fan. but can NEVER forgive him for his vote (or Gep's, Liebermans, Edwards, etc...)

doesn't mean i wouldn't vote for any of them, just that i will not forget.

and this, IMHO, is a SORRY way to answer the criticism by John.

[sandnsea]

62. Voting Kucinich?

He was against the war from the start, he support diplomacy ONLY as a means to deal with Iraq. Is that your position?

[matcom]

63. if he is the nominee, yes

absolutely.

what is your point?

[jcgadfly]

57. The explanation doesn't help Kerry

Having to admit that you were duped by one of the most intellectually lazy men in America is not good for your own qualifications as President.

[sandnsea]

61. That's exactly right

He would have voted for IWR for one simple reason, he always goes whatever way the wind is blowing. If he truly had a spine, he'd know what he thinks and wouldn't have to retract statements every other day.

[quaker bill]

55. About as lame as it gets

Dean was running for President at the time. Last time I checked, the people vote on this. I have even heard that they choose to vote for a candidate based on their public statements on large issues like IWR.

Sounds like accountability to me.

On a related issue, which is it? Has Bush been a success making us safer by capturing Saddam, or was Dean correct in saying the capture of Saddam makes us no safer?

To the extent that Kerry states that Dean lacked the 'judgement on Saddam' necessary to serve as President, isn't Kerry also implying that Bush* had the 'judgement on Saddam' needed for the job?

[thebigthink]

58. I think you're absolutely right

"Dean was running for President at the time. Last time I checked, the people vote on this. I have even heard that they choose to vote for a candidate based on their public statements on large issues like IWR."

Their public statements at the time:

Dean

"...my problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies."

"I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction."

"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.'"

-- Dean on CBS Face the Nation, Sept. 29, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml


Kerry

"Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

-- Kerry Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Oct. 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[zulchzulu]

65. Kerry is absolutely correct

As Kerry mentioned, Dean supported the Biden-Lugar Amendment to the IWR at the time of the vote. If Dean had to lay down a vote, what makes you think he would have not voted for it.

Kerry pointed out that Dean had the convenient position to not being able to vote at the time.

From the transcript:

Kerry:

"Howard Dean, on the 6th of October, five days before we voted on this resolution about authorizing, he stood up and he supported the Biden-Lugar resolution that gave authority to the president to go to war. All the president had to do was write a little letter and say, “I tried to do the diplomacy but it didn’t work.” Howard Dean exercised the same judgment as the rest of us that he ought to have authority. He just put it under a different resolution and then he could run around later on and say, “Oh, I’m against the war,” because he didn’t have a recorded vote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3916793/