Spinsanity Rips Dean For Hypocritical "Blank Check" Comments

[DrFunkenstein]

Dean has implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, 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. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented 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. Dean did not support this resolution. However, as Kerry and Gephardt have pointed out and as Ron Fournier reported last week in the Associated Press, Dean supported an alternate resolution known as Biden-Lugar.

Yet Dean frequently obscures this nuanced difference in his attacks on his rivals for granting authority to Bush to wage unilateral war. For example, in a July 22, 2003 statement, Dean said, "Today, I ask some important questions of those in Congress who had the power to seek the truth nine months ago, who had the power to involve the American people in the debate prior to the Congressional vote, who had the power to ask the tough questions of the Administration, and yet voted to give the President blank check authority to go to war with Iraq anyway."

Of course, "blank check authority" is vague and Dean does not explain why the resolution he supported was not a "blank check." This phrase could be reasonably interpreted to mean authority to wage war without needing further approval from Congress (which would have been granted under both resolutions) rather than failing to require additional certifications to Congress, which is the implicit distinction Dean is drawing.

The "blank check" phrase and similar attacks have been used by Dean frequently throughout his campaign without any explanation of the difference between the resolution he supported and the one that passed the Congress:

---"Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, Representative Gephardt, Senator Edwards, all gave the president a blank check to go to war in Iraq, putting people today in the position of having to decide whether we're going to spend $87 billion on health care or spend it in Iraq." (Democratic debate, 10/9/03)

---"I think it was a mistake for Congress to give the authority to the president to go into Iraq." (Democratic debate, 11/4/03)

---"Senator Kerry is talking about experience in foreign affairs. His experience led him to give the president of the United States a blank check to invade Iraq... The right thing to do would have been not to give George Bush that unilateral authority, as Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Representative Gephardt, General Clark recommended... I think we need somebody who's going to make independent judgments and not cede the role of Congress in making foreign policy and declaring war." (Democratic debate, 11/24/03)

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031217.html

<>

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval.

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.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/
articles/2003/12/10/kerry_argues_that_gore_backed_wrong_howard_dean/

<>

More likely to use restraint? Somehow...

[w4rma]

1. ACLU Applauds Constitutional Checks in New Iraq Compromise

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

• Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.
• Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.
• Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=769599

[DrFunkenstein]

3. You Do Not Refute Any of The Following

Dean later conceded that he backed an alternative to last fall's resolution that would have allowed President Bush to wage war against Iraq without congressional approval.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------

And ACLU's points:

1. The IWR limits the theater of war. Check.

2. Kerry favored Biden-Lugar for it's definition of purpose. However, it doesn't make it less of a "blank check." Check.

3. How the hell does Biden-Lugar reaffirm "the people?" Bush would have to send a letter, not present further debate. Check.

Dean can huff and puff all he wants, but his non-voting self is no better than Kerry. At least Kerry was upfront about his position, and took the heat. Which is more than I can say for Dean, who has been less than forth-right during this entire campaign on many, many issues. Blunt language does not equal straight-talking.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Cut and paste debate

ends up presenting only the appearance of an argument.

[windansea]

11. hmmmmmmmm

and what happens if Iraq stabalizes?

[_Jumper_]

2. His candidacy is based on misleading the people about the IWR and IWR-lite

At least Mondale, McGovern, and Dukakis were honest.

[zulchzulu]

16. Exactly. Dean has been lying and attacking others and can't take it...

...when people start lashing back at his lies.

I'm glad this "blank check" garbage is getting answered to. It's about time.

[killbotfactory]

18. Did someone say "Blank Check"?

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Yeah! Let's vote for that! It's not like Bush said we were going in no matter what, and prominent people in his cabinet and advisors he talks to have been advocating taking over Iraq since the mid-90's or something!

[_Jumper_]

25. IWR-lite was also a blank check and Dean supported it

n/t

[killbotfactory]

38. Not really

It would force Bush to state Iraq was an imminent threat, that the UN failed to act, and use military force to only disarm Saddam.

None of which happened, and if Bush acted the same way under Biden-Lugar, the case could be made he was in violation of the resolution.

[Scott Lee]

4. POOP.

[La_Serpiente]

5. Do you need some laxatives?

I am not sure if you got it all out of your system.

[welshTerrier2]

15. You Know, Scott

when you proposed your great "Poop" idea, you said it should be used as a response to those who do not make sincere, reasoned arguments ...

is that what you call it when you merely respond with "Poop" ?? by your own definition, someone should respond to your post with "Poop" ... and then you could respond back with "Poop" ...

frankly, i think you can do better ... this is a juvenile approach to solving disagreements that arise on DU ...

poop away, if you must ...

i really hope you find a better way to deal with your constipation than by cheerleading for it to end ...

[John_H]

35. LOL! This POOP stuff is the funniest and most perfect proof that

the Dean campaign is a magnet non-serious banwagon jumpers whom Republican activists will eat for breakfast and shit out as 1/32 scale models of Karl Rove.

[Scott Lee]

43. John, it's easy to avoid poop. Stop slinging it.

[blm]

47. You can't refute the truth about Dean's deceptive rhetoric

and the complicity of a press who failed to note it many months ago.

[Scott Lee]

61. It's been refuted ad nauseatedum. That's why the issue is now...

poop.

Get the concept?

[blm]

64. That's why Spinsanity just picked up on the deception by Dean?

Too bad they all waited so long to examine Dean's stance.

Dean doesn't even refute it amymore, why do you?

[Upfront]

6. Poop

[La_Serpiente]

7. Oh, you too eh?

Take some. It'll cheer you up

[deminflorida]

8. Everyone please note,

that this is the kind of wonderful comeback we can expect from these intelligent people when they are actually forced to face serious issues thrown at them by the GOP.

God help us, wait it's happening to me now....OH MY GOD...I SEE DEAN PEOPLE.......

[Julien Sorel]

12. Didn't you see the brilliant arguments they put forth

against the Osama ad? 'It will help Dean raise money.' But how will you refute painting Dean as soft on terror? 'It will help Dean raise money.' But what does that have to do with Dean being labeled as soft on terror? 'It will help Dean raise money.' So Dean wants to raise taxes, and will be painted as soft on terror, and inexperienced in international affairs, when there's a war going on. 'I hate Gephardt.' You didn't answer the question. How will Dean avoid being painted as the second coming of George McGovern? 'Dean isn't McGovern.' How will he demonstrate this? 'He'll fight back.' How? McGovern fought back. Dukakis fought back. They got crushed. 'He'll raise money.' And how is that fighting back? Silence...

[zulchzulu]

20. You nailed it hard...

The "We'll raise money" to pointing out Dean's weaknesses has got to be one of the most insipid reactions I've ever seen. Instead of possibly looking at what the messages are (such as the OBL ad), it's a chance to raise money? Is that how Dean is going to get more experience in foreign policy?

Usually the record of Dean being intellectually dishonest or inexperienced is the issue....and it's answered with blinder-bound reasons to raise money.

So, OK, raise money. To do what? Make more intellectually dishonest statements?

[killbotfactory]

21. Maybe you guys should start a club

The "No-Deaners" Club. You can have a message board devoted to talking about Dean about what stupid liars he and his followers are.

It would cut down the size of Dean threads by half if all the moping was taken out...

[ima_sinnic]

46. yes, excellent idea

. . . and then they should try to get the more than half million people who have signed on to Dean's campaign to agree with them too.

[blm]

57. That attitude towards Dean's fuckups will be the end of the party

if Dean is the nominee.

WSJ reporter said this AM that Dean is forgiven so much by his supporters that it gets fluffed off but the RNC is having a great time compiling all Dean's misspoken words and inconsistencies. She said they will not be as forgiving. Gee...I wonder why.

Man, some Dems can be so shortsighted.

[Scott Lee]

27. You enjoy arguing with yourself - how about with a real live human?

That litany of strawman argumentation was amusing, but completely ineffective. What bothers you and the Dean slimers the most is that your macro-keyed "issues" are not only being increasingly seen for what they are - irrelevent thread spam - but that some of us have found a humorous way to clear the sewage out of the tunnel without a lot of typing.

That way is called "poop". It's vulgar, low brow and socially demeaning, but I'll be damned if it aint effective and accurate.

The best way to avoid being dismissed as "poop" is to stop posting "poop".

Simple as pie.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. In Other Words, You Can't Refute The Article

Pooperific!

[Scott Lee]

40. You've heard the poop - now here are the facts....

Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq is well-known and widely documented. Dean told Newsweek that he thought his opposition to the war may be unpopular but he added, "I don't believe you send your kids to war unless you have a firm understanding and willingness to explain to the American people exactly why that is. I don't think the president did that. So whatever the results in Iraq are, it doesn't change the initial thought process."(Interview with Newsweek, 8/11/2003) The best explanation of his opposition to the war in Iraq can be found in his speech to the New America Foundation last January:

The mistake that we're making in Iraq is this. First, our priorities are wrong. If you ask me what the greatest danger to America is today, it's not Iraq, it's al-Qaeda, and we have been distracted from the war on terror. I deeply respect Bob Graham for having the courage to vote 'no' on the Iraq resolution because it did not include Hamas and Hezbollah and the other terrorist groups. Because the number one threat to America is terrorism, not Iraq. Secondly, what is the second-greatest threat to America? It is nuclear-armed rogue nations, it is not Iraq, which does not possess nuclear weapons. North Korea is a serious problem which, as you know, I believe the President set the stage for early on. He announced - I can't imagine this; as a governor I wouldn't do this to the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, no matter how mad I was at him - he announced, while standing next to the President of South Korea, who he had not informed, that he was changing his policy toward North Korea away from a policy of engagement and towards a policy of isolation. If any governor did that to an important member of his party or the legislature they would get what we're now getting, except of course members of the legislature don't possess nuclear weapons.
Iraq is a serious problem. We cannot permit Saddam Hussein to possess nuclear weapons. And I actually think - although we got off to very much the wrong foot with Iraq because of the bellicosity and the unilateral proposals and so forth and so on -- that we are now where we should be. We have the United Nations imprimateur. We have inspectors on the ground. But the truth is, in my view, the President has not made a case. The President has to make the case to the American people. In 1962, when the Russians put missiles in Cuba, President Kennedy had a press conference and showed pictures of missiles in Cuba pointed at the United States, and there were very few Americans who didn't think that was a real threat to the United States of America. I don't expect the President to be able to have those kinds of pictures, but I do expect him to say what the danger is. The Vice President has said he thought there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The Secretary of Defense has said we might have some evidence that nerve gas has been given to terrorists by Iraq. The President hasn't said anything other than that Saddam Hussein is evil, which we all agree with, but there are many evil people in the world, and we don't put 200,000 of our troops at risk in order to get rid of those evils. (Dean, "The Real State of the Union" 1/14/2003)

And, as the Washington Post reported in one of the most comprehenseive article to date:

"I never cared about the 'imminent threat,' " said one of the policymakers, with directly relevant responsibilities. "The threat was there in presence in office. To me, just knowing what it takes to have a nuclear weapons program, he needed a lot of equipment. You can stare at the yellowcake all you want. You need to convert it to gas and enrich it. That does not constitute an imminent threat, and the people who were saying that, I think, did not fully appreciate the difficulties and effort involved in producing the nuclear material and the physics package."

____________________________________________________________-

Now spin away. I realize you have an allergy to facts, so allow me to pass you a kleenex box before you begin.

[Julien Sorel]

31. In actual fact, I had two 'discussions' with your

fellow poopists that followed that same outline.


If you had a real argument to make, instead of demonstrating a fecal fixation, I assume you, or they, would have made it. Yet here it is, days after that ad ran, and you're doing nothing more than literally talking shit. :shrug:

[Scott Lee]

41. Poop is as poop does.

Mama always said the election is like a box of choc-lits...you never know what the truth is till you throw out all the poop.

[Jerseycoa]

54. Oh, you cad

:evilgrin:

[molly]

17. LOL - and cry aloud - this is truly sad

people responding to honest questions and critique of their candidate with a response of "POOP"? Have they been brain washed or do they refuse to admit they have been mistaken about their candidate? "POOP"? That indicates a disrespect of anyones opinion other than their own. "POOP"? Is that what Joe Trippi told them to say?

[killbotfactory]

19. I believe it's because the argument comes up at least once a day

And, of course, by that time all the arguements made on each side is magically forgotten and we start all over.

[retyred]

29. It's not a response to critique

It's a polite way of letting others know just what their candidate stands for. It's what they see when they have their heads up their....



retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[blm]

55. Translation. The truth scares the "poop" out of them.

Typical physical reaction of cowards.

[Scott Lee]

62. "Truth" is not what comes from the antiDeans, but thanks for playing.

[Julien Sorel]

10. It doesn't matter.

Segments of the media wanted an 'anti-war' candidate as a foil for Bush, and Kucinich was judged too flaky. There was Dean. Neither you nor Kerry will get any traction with this, because the media will not deviate from the Dean = fiery anti-war candidate paradigm they've constructed. They want Bush v. Dean, and what Dean brings to the showdown is his status as an anti-war candidate from a small, liberal state. It's the most dramatic contrast out there, and drama sells. I think the Saddam capture let some of the air out of this scenario, but there's plenty of time to pump it back up.

[DrFunkenstein]

24. Actually, The AP Has Already Telegraphed The Biden-Lugar Thing

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/massachusetts/articles/2003/12/10/kerry_argues_that_gore_backed_wrong_howard_dean/

[MR. ELECTABLE]

13. POOP

POOP

[killbotfactory]

14. Biden-Lugar debate version 500.0456

If Bush went to war the way he did under Biden Lugar he would be in violation of the resolution.

It would have allowed Bush to only disarm Saddam.
It would have made Bush go on record to unequivicolly state that Saddam's weapons posed an imminent threat to the US.
It would make Bush go on record stating that the UN was not acting (and since the weapons inspectors were doing their jobs...).

[Donna Zen]

22. Of those three

None would have stopped junior from going to war. He's in friggin violation of everything now, and no one cares. No WMD? It's okay because this is now a humanitarian adventure.

They own the media...just about all of it, including parts of what we still consider the left.

Disarm Saddam?...well you could just make a case that you had to go there.

Imminent threat? No problem. It becomes an ooops situtation with the media blasting us with the crazy notion that anyone opposed just hates America. Better safe than sorry...said Mr. bush in an official statement.

UN not acting? Well, Rummy told us that the reason the inspectors could not find anything, was proof that Saddam had hidden the weapons. Then the media blitzed the story that France, Germany, and Russia were only insisting on inspections because they had $$$$$$ interests. They would have made the case the UN never acts, because it doesn't function.

As it is, we never ever ever got the second resolution from the UN. Never!

[texas is the reason]

23. UUUUHHHHGHHHH! <poop, splash>....aaahh....... <flush>

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Swimming Again?

Watch out for that undertow!

[LuminousX]

30. Are we back to IWR/Biden-Luger again?

LOL

Okay.

Dean was 100% wrong in supporting the first version of the resolution. Thank god he didn't have to go on record with an actual vote, which allowed him to realize the depth of disaster Bush's military adventurism actually was.

Normally, I would take this moment to bash Kerry a bit, but I see on the DU poll, that Kerry support here at DU is nigh pathetic and he doesn't represent much of a threat. So as a Dean voter, I'm pretty much done with Kerry. Now if the Clark supporters want to jump in on their candidate's position regarding these resolutions, I would love to hear about it.

[slinkerwink]

32. y'know, Dr.Funkystein......

you keep on bringing up the SAME point OVER AND OVER AND OVER......and we KEEP ON REFUTING YOU.....OVER AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER.



Why not just quit it?

[LuminousX]

33. One trick pony

Admittedly, it is a fairly good trick because most people won't bother to dig in and see the timeline progression of the whole thing. Additionally, no one cares. The war is a done deal and all they know is Dean was vocally against it even as the troops stormed Baghdad. All they know is even as Saddam was captured, Dean still said the war was wrong.

We can argue whether or not that position is a winning position or not, but seeing that Clark and Dean both have that position and both are kicking Kerry's ass... it is a moot point.

[blm]

34. In your own minds you've refuted it, but the facts show otherwise.

We'd STILL be in Iraq and Dean NEVER explained the paltry differences between his stance and the others.

He has used deceptive rhetoric to DEMAGOGUE an important issue for his own political gain.

[blm]

36. I wish Spinsanity and other journalists had bothered to scrutinize Dean

before he made his name ATTACKING the other Democrats with DECEPTIVE rhetoric specifically designed to DEMAGOGUE an important issue for his political gain.

[Larkspur]

49. If Kerry was any good at campaign PR, he wouldn't be in the position he

is, let alone need Spinsanity do his work for him.

Dean never supported unilateral war against Iraq unless Bush proved that Saddam did pose an imminent threat.

[blm]

51. if Bush sent a letter to Congress saying force was needed.

Whoop di do.

Kerry can't tell the press what to do. He can't force them to do a job that they REFUSE to do. You should be questioning WHY the media never bothered with such an important story, especially since it formed the base of Dean's support and was the focus of his attacks on the others.

[bitchkitty]

37. Were it not for the wording

One would think that this was a cheesy marketing letter to convince people to sign up now to this awesome program and make 50 million with an investment of just 2 dollars! Or maybe an entreaty to enlarge your penis. Discount vicodin online, anyone?

[spindoctor]

39. That's why I like SpinSanity...

You may not always like what they have to say, but nobody else is saying it and they do straighten out the media.

Anyway, that leaves the one remaining candidate who actually actively opposed the war to be.....umm....Dennis...whatshisname??

[blm]

42. Damn straight it was Dennis. Now WHY did the media let Dean go on this for

so long? The guy was given a press plane last June and with it should have come some responsible examination of Dean's actual record. Especially since he turned that sliver of a difference into a two by four to attack the others DISHONESTLY, while Dennis, the TRUTHFUL antiwar opponent was ignored completely.

Why the media manipulation to present Dean as the antiwar liberal? They've had that same storyline for a year now.

[dsc]

44. and that letter

in Bush's own hand, would have been a lie.

[MiniMoog]

45. Funkenstein

There is a message for you in the lounge. Please check.

MiniMoog

[Myra]

48. I can certainly see how Senator Kerry would be tired of the hypocrisy

"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."

Why would a letter have more leverage than a congressional vote?

[ModerateMiddle]

50. Cuz Dr. Dean said so

and besides that he has money and besides that he has meetup numbers and besides that Gore endorsed him.

Didn't you get the memos?

[blm]

59. It doesn't. I think it's too bad that the media covered up for so long

or they were too lazy to notice the amazing hypocrisy of Dean attacking the other candidates for a "blank check" when it was all part of his deceptive rhetoric.

[stickdog]

52. So Kerry's back to ripping Dean for being FOR the war?

When will the man make up his mind?

[blm]

53. Kerry isn't Spinsanity. But Kerry's point is that Dean is inconsistent

and his rhetoric doesn't match his record no matter what he says now.

You try to do what Dean does, oversimplify the argument into prowar and antiwar, which is a deceptive approach. But, you know that.

[chaumont58]

56. Spinsanity is insanity, they suck

Read down their web site and take in the spin that the Bushies didn't say WMDs were imminent. They go off on a tangent that the Bushies never used the word imminent. The US invaded and conquered a sovereign nation. but that nation was not and one that was not an imminent threat? That boggles the mind, and that insanity-spinsanity would split hairs that way only proves they are an EMINENT part of the beltway whores.

[killbotfactory]

60. They say that?

I could have sworn Ari Fleisher said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Either way, there arguement is insane.

[RetroLounge]

58. Ooooh, this topic AGAIN???

well, here's my reasoned and well thought-out response.

POOP!

[Scott Lee]

63. Yuppers - ready to pull the flush chain?