Kerry Doesn't Share Dean's View on Spain

[Guaranteed]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_el_pr/dean_spain_1

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Wednesday he does not share fellow Democrat Howard Dean (news - web sites)'s position that President Bush (news - web sites)'s decision to send troops to Iraq (news - web sites) appears to have been a factor in the Spanish train bombing.



The chairman of Bush's re-election campaign called on Kerry to repudiate the comment that Dean made during a conference call arranged by the Kerry campaign.


"The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend," Dean said as he defended Kerry from a Bush television ad that accused Kerry of turning his back on U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq.


Asked about the comment on his campaign plane Wednesday, Kerry said, "It's not our position."

<more important stuff>
--------------------------

All I can say to this is "God dammit." Kerry just conceded an issue that he shouldn't have, and left Dean- and ME- out to dry. AGAIN.

Kerry needs to make the distinction between the Iraq war and the war on terror NOW- and make it clear that Bush is NOT helping the war on terror by invading countries that had no connection with Al Qaeda.

[MercutioATC]

1. What a weak ass (again)...

Show me how you can responsibly refute Dean's claim. He's trying to help Kerry and Kerry's to weak to take the baton. What's going on here? Kerry has a BETTER explanation????

[Guaranteed]

2. He's not going to stand up to this.

He's finished.

[MercutioATC]

12. I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll clarify my position:

I think you're agreeing, but I'm not sure...

The Spanish government chose to support Bush in his war on Iraq, despite popular opinion in Spain. The transit attack on Spain triggered an anti-Bush sentiment among voters (which they already had) and they voted the pro-Bush administration out.

Dean simply said that the Spanish government's support of Bush's actions led to the popular election of a new administration. Kerry says his camp "doesn't agree"???

Every time I try to like this guy, he shows what an ass he is again...

[sangh0]

28. A quibble

The bombing in Madrid did not trigger an anti-Bush* sentiment among voters. That was already there. It triggered an anti-Aznar sentiment mainly because the Aznar admin insisted it was ETA even as evidence that it was Al Queda increased.

Dean simply said that the Spanish government's support of Bush's actions led to the popular election of a new administration. Kerry says his camp "doesn't agree"???

Kerry's right. It was a combination of things. As my previous remarks indicate, the way the Aznar admin lied about the ETA was a bigger factor in the vote than Spain's participation in Iraq. Spain was participating in the occupation of Iraq during the week before the bombing but the public was still going to vote for Aznar's successor.

[MercutioATC]

33. I disagree...and I'm glad..

I think the thing that "brought it home" to Spanish voters was the transit atack. I'm happy that they're finally voting for the anti-establishment, anti-terrorist candidate.

[sangh0]

43. I agree with that, to an extent

However, saying that it "brought it home" implicitely acknowledges that there were other factors, and many Spaniards are saying that Aznar's insistence on blaming ETA was a factor.

IOW, I called it "a quibble" not because you said anything that was unreasonable, but because IMO it didn't take into account ALL of the factors, and instead concentrated on Spain's participation in Iraq to the total exclusion of other factors.

[babzilla]

71. Dean said it was a factor, not the only factor.

"The president was the one who dragged our troops to Iraq, which apparently has been a factor in the death of 200 Spaniards over the weekend," Dean said as he defended Kerry from a Bush television ad that accused Kerry of turning his back on U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq.


Asked about the comment on his campaign plane Wednesday, Kerry said, "It's not our position."

[sangh0]

74. I stand corrected

Thank you.

[BootinUp]

3. Theres no need to try

and connect that Spanish tragedy the way Dean did. Its controversial and unnecessary.

Instead simply say that the change in focus from Ql Qaeda to Iraq let the terrorists regroup, and that is the main problem to address. See the Krugman: Weak on Terror post in GD. Article is at nytimes.

[madfloridian]

8. We disagree on this. Read Brooks in the Times today.

Listen to Hannity about elections, and look at the questions about elections and terrorism on the news sites.

Dean said March 6 that divisive change was coming, faster than the people want.

I think there is no choice to float the truth and NOT sugar coat it.

We can not keep sugarcoating and making it easier to swallow.

[revcarol]

4. I agree with Dean.

Bush stirred up al Qaeda recruiting with the Iraq invasion

and painted a bullseye on the backs of our "coalition of the willing" allies.

Kerry wimps again.I rue the day anyone said the word electability.

[shivaji]

109. Don't understand why Al Qaeda was upset about our invasion of Iraq

since Al Qaeda had no connections to Iraq and in fact
despised Saddam?????????????

[orwell]

5. Vendetta

The proper point of attack is not to equate the Spanish bombings as retaliation for the Iraq invasion, as Dean's comment would seem to imply. This helps support Con talking points about a linkage between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The proper attack point is that Iraq became a diversion in the hunt for the real terror networks. This paints Bushco as conducting a vendetta rather than pursuing national security.

That being said, I didn't hear the Dean quote directly so I don't know if it is being taken out of context.

O

[madfloridian]

10. He was quoting the tape the terrorists put out.

I had a thread here last night with a better article from the SF Chronicle.

[kcwayne]

6. This behavior is what I cannot stomach about Kerry

He has to read the polls and see which way the wind is blowing before he can take a stand. He operates in the margin of safety, and does not lead from conviction. His criticism on the war on terror would lead one to believe that he would share Dean's position. But his handlers are saying that expediency should govern here, not conviction, and like so many times before, Kerry steps aside.

I will vote for him because he is clearly a better candidate than Bush. But I do so with no passion or hope for a better future. A better future than under Bush, but what is that saying?

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Since my reply in the other thread will no doubt get wiped..

Here's my "less caffeinated" version...

Kerry's refusal to take a stand against Bush on this, or damn near any other issue is a perfect example of what is wrong with this party.

Dean is a perfect example of what this party SHOULD be.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. I agree with Kerry

No need to attach yourself to comments that don't serve in any way to help your cause.

If Dean makes a statement like that he should preface it with "In my opinion..."

[madfloridian]

11. Say the proper things at all times? Dean did not say it was Kerry's view.

Trying to hush Dean is dead wrong. Sorry.

[Cocoa]

16. Kerry's not trying to hush Dean

why twist it like that?

[madfloridian]

19. Ok

Kerry just does not see the connection of what happened and the Iraq war or else he is unwilling to address it.

That is why I am bothered. We can not win unless we are politically correct, but if someone does not point out the obvious soon there will be no time to do it.

[sangh0]

31. "if someone does not point out the obvious soon..."

"there will be no time to do it"

Since you somehow missed the obvious fact that Kerry said nor did anything to "hush" Dean, I have some doubts about your ability to discern the obvious. And since you have trouble predicting the past, I doubt your ability to predict the future.

[madfloridian]

39. Ok.

.

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. hush him?

Kerry said Dean statements were his own and not a reflection of how he feels.

Nobody's telling Dean to hush, although sometimes maybe it might be a smart idea to suggest it to him.

[madfloridian]

18. Ok.

You are right. Kerry in his speech said Spain should not pull troops out. I guess I see things all wrong.

[sandnsea]

65. I do too, it was a stupid comment

Al qaeda finds excuses to attack. If it weren't for the troops in Iraq, they'd find some other reason to attack. That statement denies the reality of al qaeda terrorism.

Iraq, in and of itself, is a separate issue. We did in fact create the attacks that are happening there. But whether we were there or not, al qaeda would still be attacking. Dean's comments naively ignore that very dangerous reality.

81. Yes, Spain is an OBVIOUS target

What was I thinking. I'm sure this would have happened to that Great Satan known as Spain regardless of their being a part of the "coalition of the willing"

Yep.

[sandnsea]

84. The western world is a target

They've targeted France in the past, London. Get real. Every western democracy is a target, no matter what they do. It was a stupid, stupid comment. I wish Dean would shut the fuck up and go back to Vermont.

86. Get Real? Real is telling the truth

Even when others think you stupid for having done so.

As far as your concern for Dean's housing arrangements, let me quote so many vocal members of the Kerry crew: "GET OVER IT"

Dean's not going anywhere but in the faces of people who can't stand to hear the truth.

[sandnsea]

100. 18% of the Democratic vote

Democrats didn't want him. How the hell can Dean's "truth" do anything except hurt the entire party and guarantee a defeat in November? His message of "truth" was rejected because he makes too goddamn many stupid comments, just like saying western countries can avoid terrorist attacks if they all leave Iraq. Wouldn't change a thing and that's the problem with what he said. The rest of the country will get it, but it'll fall on deaf ears around here.

104. Listen, Only One Person Can Win

That doesn't mean Dems don't want Dean, it just means they feel safe with Kerry. Popularity and the truth have often been on opposing teams.

Not surprising, since people are challenged by the truth. Truth is messy, it's not something you can fold up and carry in your pocket.

Truth is often painful, and truth tellers are often blamed for the pain.

Truth forces us to ask questions, and rarely provides soundbite answers, delivered in 15 second installments designed for the attention span of the average voter.

Like you, many people just want the truth to go away. But it won't, thank god for that.

The time has come for people to hear the truth, even if they fight against it. Like it or not, the truth is our medicine. It may go down bitter, but we are sick with easy answers and career compromise.

Be a big kid. Take your medicine.

[madfloridian]

88. OMG

SNIP..."They've targeted France in the past, London. Get real. Every western democracy is a target, no matter what they do. It was a stupid, stupid comment. I wish Dean would shut the fuck up and go back to Vermont....."

So we all just sit back and get comfortable, right? Relax, no problem, can't be solved anyway.

[AntiCoup2K4]

98. You can wish in one hand and DLC in the other....

...but Dean's not going anywhere :)

[redqueen]

13. Not saying I agree with his distancing himself, but...

maybe there's good reason for him to avoid taking this controversial stand right at this point in time. I don't know what factors went into his decision to do this but I'm not going to second guess him on it. Dean said what needed to be said, and that's out there, and Kerry's non-endorsement means it stays in the news longer. I view that as a positive.

As Dennis wisely put it:

"We're talking about the essential mission of government -- and John Kerry is going to need a lot of help. He may not be able to say the things he needs to say, so we need to say the things that must be said. We need to present the issues. We need to set the priorities of our party, and we need to set a direction for the Democratic Party, so when people come in November they’ll be lining up outside the polls. We need to set a direction for the Democratic Party so there will be so many people lining up to vote that it will be a like a mighty wave come to sweep this administration out of office -- a tidal wave for social and economic justice." DK

[Jacobin]

14. <sigh>

Denying the obvious will not be helpful.

[newsguyatl]

15. yeh, very disappointed in kerry

tho not surprised.


right wing and media are already smelling wimp blood in kerry this week and then he hands them this.


i certainly hope kerry won't continue to be a "yes massa" kinda guy to the bush cabal and media.

[mzmolly]

21. That's why we need a Dean for VP!?

:P

[mzmolly]

20. I honestly think that an official political position can vary from a

personal position...???

Frankly, Kerry is a politician, and perhaps is distancing himself for *political* reasons.

Here is Kerry's actual quote on this subject...
"It's not our position." That's it.

Obviously those of us attracted to Dean liked the fact that he was frank. But the majority of America doesn't appear ready for an upfront leader. WE like our politicians to be slippery.

I think Dean is a great spokesman for the *truth* and Kerry and he will certainly disagree, at least (on the record).

Think good cop, bad cop folks...

Kerry was PRESSED for a statement on this. I don't take this personally me-self... :shrug:

Edited for spelling.

[orwell]

23. Great Sig mzmolly...LOL n/t

[mzmolly]

25. he he ... Thanks!

Feel free to use it yerself! :)

[Guaranteed]

30. But this means that Kerry isn't going to make the effort to separate

Iraq and the war on terror- not for offensive, but for defensive, reasons. If he doesn't do this he's going to look soft on terror, no matter what. He has to stand up to this NOW, because once he concedes the "Iraq is part of the war on terror" concept to the Republicans, they'll just go on the offensive with it.

[sangh0]

35. Not true

It just means that Kerry is going to LINK SPAIN to Iraq and the WoT. He already has been attacking Bush* for how the invasion of Iraq distracted from the WoT, so your predictions of the future are as inaccurate as your predictions of the past.

[mzmolly]

63. I agree that he needs to do that NOW... excellent point!

:hi:

[sangh0]

95. Kerry has been doing it for months now

as you already know, because I've pointed this out to you in another thread.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. You might notice that...

Dean has "clarified" his position.

Meaning, of course, that he shot his mouth off again, but still didn't blow the foot out. He's done a lot of "clarifying" over the past few months, hasn't he?

Now, I tend to mostly agree with Dean about this, as do many, but it's still not the smartest thing to actually say in a campaign where a large number of the voters tend to think that we should have been in Iraq, but are questioning just how well we're doing there. The opposition spin is that Dean is blaming Bush for the attack, and blaming Bush is just not going to work, except for those of us who just hate Bush, and are willing to lick up anything bad about him.

Rule of thumb in campaigning-- every time you open your mouth you risk pissing off 10 times as many people as you impress.

And if you say something concrete, you always give the opposition something to slam you with.

Kerry's being sensibly cautious here, and it's got to be other people, pundits and talk radio types throwing this kind of stuff out, not politicians actually running for office or anyone connected with their campaigns.

[mzmolly]

24. "shot his mouth off again"

I think it's a sad day when an honest man is accused of shooting off his mouth for being just that?

Please edit out that nasty comment, there is no need man. You got your point across without it...

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Nope.

One of my biggest problems with Dean is that his "plain speaking" gets him in trouble all the time. He just hasn't learned how to get the point across without stirring up an unnecessary shitstorm. And that would be fatal to a Presidency.

You have to pick your own fights, not give the oppostion ammo to attack at their leisure.

Sorry, but this guy's just not ready for primetime yet. He may be a decent person and hero to the true believers, but he wanted to be the President of another couple hundred million people who aren't so sure.

[madfloridian]

40. Wrong. It is time for the truth to come out.

Now. Not later.

[sangh0]

45. Since you had so much trouble predicting the past

why do you continue to try to predict the future?

[madfloridian]

50. That is enough, ok? Prove what you say about me, please.

I do not have a clue what you mean about predicting anything. I never remember predicting anything.

[sangh0]

56. When you say "Now is the time....Not later. Now"

you are making a prediction (ie. that if it's not done, something bad will happen)

[TreasonousBastard]

51. The truth is already out there...

but the problem is how to get about 150 million people to see it by November. Most of them don't want the "truth." They have a pretty good, if perhaps faulty, idea of what they want to be told.

A political campaign is a sales and marketing campaign, nothing more nor less. You can't sell people on something by pissing them off or questioning their basic beliefs, even if those beliefs are silly.

Like all sales, it is a slow process of listening to the prospect and hearing what their wants and problems are, and answering them. You would be silly to try to close a sale by pushing something the customer is convinced he doesn't need while you have something he does want desperately.

Later, when he trusts you, you can work on something he doesn't know he needs.

That's how winning politicians work it.

[madfloridian]

61. That is exactly what I mean.

Let them dictate the terms. Don't educate the people, don't push forth the truth, just relax, it will come.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. Like I said...

it's all in the technique. Ther are ways to get the message out, but it has to be a tasty one.

You can lead a horse to water...

[madfloridian]

79. Yummy, make it "tasty" for them?

Make it palatable? We have done that long enough.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. No we haven't.

Amazingly enough, I agree with everyone who's said we've done a lousy job of getting our message out. (If we even agree on what that message is.)

The other side has completely controlled the debate for years, even during the Clinton years, and now they're really drunk with power.

Rather than get all that bogged down with arguing over Dean, which I'll admit to contributing to, we have to understand just how to properly reclaim our side of the hall and be heard.

The opposition has for years found certain fears and hopes that resonate through the populace, and had worked them. Clinton took some of that away from them and worked them himself, but never really got a new message out.

We're pretty much at a loss what to do now, and it's getting down to the wire.

I gotta run now, I'm late for something, but my primary point is that we need a powerful message, and we have to deliver it in a way that it will be accepted.

[mzmolly]

57. Sad day when Truth is considered *ammo*

:eyes:

Like I said, America want's slippery politicians. :hi:

[sangh0]

60. Yes, it is sad

but that doesn't make it any less true.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. Yes, it is...

but it was a sad day in Athens when they wanted slippery politicians, too. And in every republic since.

I don't for a moment agree with all of this, or like it, but that's simply just the way it is, and I see no way to change it. I wish I did, but everyone who's tried to change it has gone down in flames.

I am convinced that politics changes people. You can't possibly run for office without making compromises that hurt, and it soon becomes a way of life. Politics is not alone in that, of course, and everyone working for a living knows how so often you have to compromise your personal beliefs with the demands of the job if you want to keep it.

Life, I suppose, sucks. But it will suck a little less with Shrub out of office.

[mzmolly]

80. This we agree on:

"Life, I suppose, sucks. But it will suck a little less with Shrub out of office."

Here's to helping make that happen. :toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

105. I think...

that once we get past the trivial arguments, we all have much more we agree on than we disagree.


:grouphug:


Now let's get on to taking our country back!

64. Maybe more people out to shoot their mouth off

and then we might have less people shooting themselves in the foot.

When timid men are called reasonable and honest men are called foolish, you have to begin to question the motives of those who make such divisions.

After all, who has the most to lose by Dean speaking honestly? Kerry or Bush?

[madfloridian]

66. Wow, I love your statement:

SNIP..."When timid men are called reasonable and honest men are called foolish, you have to begin to question the motives of those who make such divisions...."

That just about says it all.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. In this case...

Kerry.

Speaking "honestly" is not always what it's cracked up to be. Too often, it's just preaching to the choir.

Try this-- instead of Dean, or anyone else, making a link between Iraq and Madrid, just leave that part alone for now. Use Shrub's own words and ask if the world is really a safer place with Saddam gone? Bombs in Indonesia, possibly France in the future, Israel having more problems with bombers, Saudi insurgents, orange alerts, cancelled flights...

Eventually, the link will be made in the public's mind. It's already there in the background, but not that many want to admit it. Just give them a reason to make the association themselves. Keep pointing out that the world is NOT a safer place, and seems to be getting more dangerous.

Everyone will get the point, and they'll start blaming Shrub for the mess we're in.

It's a sales pitch, and it worked when I was selling lighting, computers, and a few other things. It's just not always a one call close.

[madfloridian]

92. Not now. I disagree.

Things have gone too long without the truth being said. The world is in turmoil, and everyone needs to be speaking out about it.

Dean said absolutely nothing wrong at all. It was good he said it.

If Kerry does not agree, then his eyes are not open wide.

Of course, the war on Iraq impacted the election. Of course it did.
If Kerry disagrees with that and lets the RNC slam Dean, then Houston we have a really big problem on our hands!!!!!

[madfloridian]

27. That is what is wrong with the Democrats now.

They call the truth "shooting ones' mouth off".

Shame on you for saying that. He told the truth.

[mzmolly]

29. Here here!

:toast:

[madfloridian]

37. Cheers, mzmolly.

I am mad now at all the mealy-mouthed folks who want to be so sweet.
People are dying every day, the emperor has no clothes, and Dean is being left out to dry.

Every word he said was the truth. He needed to say it, others need to say it.

[mzmolly]

42. Damn straight MF!

And, damned the fools who castigate Dean for speaking the friggin truth.

77. And it has been the problem for some time!

Which is why some of us were so happy to have a man like Howard Dean running for office.

Thank God he isn't accepting the offer to sit down and shut up.

Dean leads, even in defeat.

[TheStateChief]

26. Kerry Is the Gambler's Candidate

I don't want to get flamed, but I was a Dean supporter and while I don't want to spend a lot of time rehashing the past, I was behind the guy because he stood for something. He had convictions and believed in what he said (sometimes imperfectly, but at least you knew where he stood).

Kerry was nominated, according to polls, in large part by Democrats who felt he had the best chance to win in November. They didn't vote for his policies or because of some position, but because they thought he stood the best chance to beat Bush. They gambled on him, pure and simple. They cast a vote in Jan, Feb, March trying to imagine how he will look against Bush in November. I don't believe that enough time was spent vetting this guy in the primaries and I think he has only started to show that he may not be the leader we were all hoping he could be.

Again, I don't want to get flamed, but I feel like the party has nominated a guy purely based on appearances and not substance. Yes he would be better than Bush. Yes I will vote for him. But although Kerry looked good on paper during the primaries, I'm starting to wonder if he's going to make a good game of it come this fall.

[mzmolly]

32. You share the view of many. I feel great trepidation that Kerry didn't

get proper scrutiny in the Primaries, and Democrats made an ignorant choice because of that.

Not that voting for Kerry is *ignorant* but Dems didn't get to see all the Kerry laundry before committing to him.

*sigh*

I still think he can win, but my hope fades slightly with each day.

[sangh0]

36. So let's go with the ones who failed the vetting process!!

That sounds like a winning plan

[mzmolly]

46. Dean was the ONLY one properly vetted. IN fact *vetting* is putting it

lightly.

He was trashed, while the other candidates were virtually given a free ride.

[sangh0]

55. SO what?

I didn't say that Dean wasn't vetted, or that anyone else was. I just pointed out the foolishness of going with a candidate who fail to pass through the vetting process.

And if the other candidates were given a free ride, it was because Dean sucked up all the media attention, something he seemed to be enjoying for a long time...until the last two weeks of it.

It's not the other candidates fault that the media swooned over Dean for months and months.

[mzmolly]

59. What exactly was your point then?

"I just pointed out the foolishness of going with a candidate who fail to pass through the vetting process."

Are you saying supporting Kerry is foolish?? He is the one who failed to pass the vetting process, cause it neva' happened!

[sangh0]

62. NO, I'm saying that since the only candidate to be vetted by the media

was Dean, and he failed to make it through, we have no viable option but to go with an unvetted candidate.

Kerry hasn't "failed to pass the vetting process". As you said, it hasn't occured yet.

[mzmolly]

67. Yikes! Thanks for clarification, but I'd say Dean was netted by the media

and fed to the sharks. Vetting is putting it lightly. ;)

I wish all of them had proper vetting, but the media didn't want the strongest Dem to win, they never do.

[sangh0]

76. I'd argue that "proper vetting" is an oxymoron

because it requires a certain viciousness to be done "properly"

:-)

[mzmolly]

89. It also requires everyone be subjected to it .. to be done "properly"

It's like the hiring process. All candidates should be equally vetted, and then voters can make a fair/educated choice.

Granted, reality and *shoulds* rarely intertwine.

[sangh0]

90. They will be subjected to it

Anyone with a viable shot at the Presidency gets vetted....unless they're a Republican.

[Leilani]

106. I want to butt in here for a second

Clark was also trashed, & I think along with Dean he was also a truth teller.

I am enjoying this discussion very much, because I'm pretty confused right now.

We did the best when Dems were out there fighting the good fight, & calling Bush on all his policies, & screw ups. Sure, there were differences between candidates, but everyone was singing from the same page.

Now, with Kerry chosen as nominee, it seems tactics have changed, & I'm really not understanding what Kerry's position is; it's so nuanced, I don't get it.

He voted for the war, but voted against funding for it. He criticizes Bush for not providing equipment for troops, but when questioned about this discrepancy, he says well, first I voted for it, then I didn't.

And I don't understand his position on Spain, Al Queda attack connection to Iraq or not, etc.

I pay pretty close attention to the news, unlike most Americans, & if it confuses me, than what about Joe Main St.?

[TheStateChief]

47. Do you think Kerry and Dean were vetted to the same degree?

I remember ads on television questioning Dean while Osama's picture filled the screen. I remember constant attacks on Dean from all sides within the party and from without. I remember an incredible level of scrutiny and parsing of every word that came out of Dean's mouth.

I don't remember any of that happening to Kerry after Iowa. Perhaps, if it had occured, Kerry wouldn't have been perceived as the most "electible". I just have great reservations that we're going to find out that Kerry isn't the most electible when it matters most: in November.

[sangh0]

58. No, not even close

remember ads on television questioning Dean while Osama's picture filled the screen. I remember constant attacks on Dean from all sides within the party and from without. I remember an incredible level of scrutiny and parsing of every word that came out of Dean's mouth.

And I also remember the month's that the media gave Dean adoring coverage, not to mention numerous cover stories on the nations leading magazines. The other candidate's would have killed for that. Despite the months of free publicity Dean recieved (and the millions Dean raised and spent) he still couldn't get past the vetting process. Is Dean couldn't defeat the media onslaught, why do you think he'd be able to survive the Repukes attacks?

[madfloridian]

34. Someone MUST say Iraq does not equal terror.....it has to be done.

Dean did it on MTP on Sunday. No one followed up. Dean said it yesterday, Kerry disagreed.

There is just not a hell of a lot of time left to play around with words and play nice and not make waves.

I am sorry, but it is time to kick some butt and make folks mad!

[sangh0]

48. It's already been done

Kerry has, on dozens of occassions, said the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a distraction from the WoT, and not a part of it.

Someone MUST say Iraq does not equal terror.....Dean said it yesterday, Kerry disagreed"

And again you are misportraying events. Kerry didn't disagree with Dean's statement that "Iraq does not equal terror". Kerry disagreed with Dean's statement that Spain voted Socialist because of the bombing"

I am sorry, but it is time to kick some butt and make folks mad!

And again, since you can't even predict the past accurately, I doubt you can predict the future

[Guaranteed]

99. Then there's no reason not to agree with Dean on this.

LEAD, Kerry.

Besides, it's the fucking truth.

[Leilani]

107. I beg to disagree!

Clark was on with Joe Scarborough the other nite, after Dean's MTP appearance, & he CONSISTENTLY made the point that Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. That it was a distraction that took away our troops & funds, & that it was a war of CHOICE.

[NoPasaran]

41. Once again, Howard's problem with the truth

He speaks it.

[madfloridian]

44. Amen!

You are right.
:hi:

[mzmolly]

52. LOL... Indeed...

:hi:

69. It Only Seems Like Hell

now where have we heard something like that before?

[goodhue]

49. What is the Kerry position?

I'd seriously like to know. Anyone?

[goodhue]

93. anyone?

[Guaranteed]

102. LOL

:shrug:

[w4rma]

53. I agree with Dean, but American voters are mostly ignorant, imho, so

I support Kerry on this.

Kerry knows that the Republican controlled big media is trying to grab onto any diversion to repeat over and over to scandalize Kerry, our nominee.

Also, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and so did many Dems, so they can't really take Dean's position on this and remain consistant and not admit some level of culpability.

Imho, they are both doing their jobs well.

[ulysses]

54. not good.

We need to hit Bush with every possible issue, and they're giving one away. Damn, folks.

[sangh0]

73. Bad advice

Hitting Bush* with every possible issue means dividing our time up into ridiculously small pieces because there are just so many possible issues.

It's better to concentrate on a few issues (such as Bush*'s Credibility Gap) and constantly hammer Bush* on them.

[ulysses]

78. would that we realistically had the choice.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, sangha, but we're already being hit on all fronts. Focusing on a few to fight back on isn't much of an option.

There are a lot of people out here. We can do this if they can, it's just a matter of organization.

[sangh0]

83. We always have choice

And I don't see any relevance in your reference to Bush*'s non-stop attacks. The fact that Bush* is attacking on several fronts does not mean we are obligated to respond in kind. I have no idea why you would even consider that to be true.

[ulysses]

85. common sense.

The fact that Bush* is attacking on several fronts does not mean we are obligated to respond in kind. I have no idea why you would even consider that to be true.

Trying to tapdance your way out of a full frontal assault is a fine way to get your ass handed back to you.

Iraq is one of the best issues we have against the regime, an issue that's even got the stupid media reporting that military families that voted for Bush in 2000 will not in 2004, even *after* the capture of Saddam. It will quickly fail to be so, however, if the campaign fails to take advantage.

[sangh0]

91. Common sense is over-rated

And trying to "tapdance" your way out of a full frontal assault is SOP for the military. Most military activity involves manuevering to avoid a full frontal assault.

And the issue being discussed here isn't Iraq, in general. It's Spain, and how it's participation in Iraq affected the election and the bombing. Kerry has been speaking about Iraq on a near-daily basis.

[ulysses]

94. LOL!

Common sense is over-rated

Can I quote you? :D

Most military activity involves manuevering to avoid a full frontal assault.

Let's continue with the analogy. We're faced with antagonists who are doing no such thing, and instead are attacking with everything they have along a long front. In fact, they've been doing it for decades (triangulating constituencies that they can't simply overwhelm or bypass) and it's pushed us back. It's pushed us back a long way, far enough that our original starting point is an unattainable dream to many.

I understand the temptation, in military terms, to try to break their line in a few places and "get into their rear", as it were, but they have too many reserves, in terms of both money and media. Our strength is in numbers, many of whom are in dire need of mobilization and a task.

(check back later for more tortured military analogies...)

[sangh0]

97. Feel free to use it as often as you wish

Let's continue with the analogy. We're faced with antagonists who are doing no such thing, and instead are attacking with everything they have along a long front. In fact, they've been doing it for decades (triangulating constituencies that they can't simply overwhelm or bypass) and it's pushed us back. It's pushed us back a long way, far enough that our original starting point is an unattainable dream to many.

Wrong. They most certainly do maneauver to avoid full frontal assaults. That explains their obstruction of various investigations, like the 9/11 investigation, and their dropping of numerous campaign pledges, like Bush*'s pledge to fight for vouchers in NCLB. It also explains several Bush* flip-flops, like how they reversed themselves on arsenic levels in water.

Furthermore, you mention their efforts at triangulation, and triangulation is a defensive maneuver, and not an offensive one like the full frontal assault. In fact, triangulation is what Clinton used to move the Democratic Party towards the center, a move ISTR you objecting to. Now you're pointing out how effective it can be.

The truth is, we don't have the numbers to overwhelm them with, and they have more money and are better organized. Keeping with the military analogy, we are the weaker force, so it's more important for us to conserve resources, attack only where they are weak (and Spain is not a weakness for Bush* or the Repukes), and to never meet the opposition head on unless a large majority of Americans are behind us on the particular issue. When it comes to Spain, the large majority of American voters are not behind us on this.

Our strength is that we have the truth on our side. It has nothing to do with quantity. It has everything to do with quality

[ulysses]

101. offense v. defense

They most certainly do maneauver to avoid full frontal assaults.

From the Democrats, sure - of course, it helps defensively if the media and certain of your nominal opponents help you quash investigations and the like. I meant offensive frontal assaults on the part of the GOP which, as I say, they've been launching for decades.

and triangulation is a defensive maneuver

No it isn't, it's a way to get two or more enemies to attack each other instead of you while you make off with the goods.

In fact, triangulation is what Clinton used to move the Democratic Party towards the center, a move ISTR you objecting to.

I am indeed, at least when it's used by the GOP...or the DLC.

Now you're pointing out how effective it can be.

I never said it wasn't effective. In fact, I've called in this forum for the Democrats to triangulate corporate republicans and the religious right. I think it's a fine idea to this day.

The truth is, we don't have the numbers to overwhelm them with

If so, that's because we've abandoned any attempt toward broad-based appeal in recent years in favor of this sort of market-based, focus-grouped stance that, while it may appeal to a couple thousand office-park-dads who live in the suburbs, have no clue about world affairs and drive compact SUVs, turns off the people who should be voting with us by the millions.

[flpoljunkie]

68. I assume that he meant that Dean speaks for himself and can answer for

himself.

72. Then THAT is what Kerry should have said.

Instead of leaving Dean hanging high and dry.

But that's ok. Dean leads, even in defeat. Judh\ging from the past, I expect to see Senator Kerry coming around to Dean's position soon enough.

[flpoljunkie]

96. A Spaniard speaking on NPR has said he felt it was more a case of voters

punishing Aznar's party, the Popular Party, for lying to them about who was responsible for the bombings. Aznar's administration led the people of Spain to believe that ETA was responsible, and they were enraged when they found out on Saturday, the day before the election, that they had been lied to by Aznar.

Sound familiar?

[AmyStrange]

103. WAIT A MINUTE...

didn't Dean explain TWICE that he was quoting someone else about the reasons for the terrorist act which resulted in the about face in Spanish politics as a result of the election.

I don't think Dean said that it was HIS position,


For the best "unofficial" DU Slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/




Serial Killer Cafe...
and searchable missing person news archives:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org /
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe /


Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[mikehiggins]

108. You may recall Clark and Moore and the AWOL charge

Kerry was pretty quick to distance himself from that one as well.

Later on it was a different story, but he let Clark hang out there on that one until Terry Mac took up the discussion.

More Senatoritis sez I.

Kerry has to start acting more Presidential than Senatorial. Sometimes you have to step up to the bat and swing. You can't take a third strike and wait for your next at-bat. Sometimes the game is over before you get another shot.