Kerry adopting the Dean stance on the Iraq war

[FirstDoNoHarm]

This I feel is good news. This should help energize the base in these final weeks and put Kerry over the top.

[xray s]

1. America is adopting Dean's stance on the war

that is the good news

[AuntPatsy]

2. Since he was my first choice along with Edwards, I find it

very good news indeed...

[Mr_Spock]

19. Iraq is in on the Bush is to blame for this mess too.

Comedy on late night "Bush said he was going to create jobs for black people". "I agree with him". "He's gonna start up the draft" lol.

[MercutioATC]

3. I missed the source for this...wouldn't that be rather hard to do?

Their stances on the war were completely different in the primaries. What's changed?

[JohnKleeb]

4. See this is why I defended Kerry back in the days when he was stuck

I realize he didn't vote the way I would have prefered him vote but he's just been on fire this week, this is the man who is Teddy Kennedy's sidekick in the senate, the man who shares a simliar record to him, really Kerry I think can win this thing and become one of our better presidents in recent years. Always glad I had him high on my list.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Sidekick

Greeat. Now I'm picturing him in a moth costume, getting kicked to the side.

[PaDem]

5. This should have been the position of most Dems prior to invading.........

and Lieberman thought Dean was taking the party off the cliff. Crazy.

[troublemaker]

6. This was Rush Limbaugh's big talking point today

and it's a lie. Kerry has not "adopted the Dean position," and hasn't really changed his own position. One might even say that Kerry has retained his own position. But one cannot hear Rush's talking points too often, I guess.

[snippy]

62. It is a major RNC talking point. I have heard several republicans

say this today. It is part of the flip flop theme.

[janx]

95. Yep. It's all over the wingnut boards.

.

[emulatorloo]

7. Actually, no, Kerry's Position has been the SAME SINCE DAY ONE.

Diplomacy, inspectors, allies, war as a last resort.

Bush did none of those.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Same stick as ever

Kerry just keeps sharpening the tip, jabbing, seeing if it gets through, then sharpening it again.

[emulatorloo]

11. Looking forward to see him poke some eyes out ASAP n/t

[JohnKleeb]

13. that's right

He is asking the questions that he said he would ask after he reluctantly voted for it. He has so many great strengths, really, no offense to anyone but I really am increasingly glad he's our nominee.

[mzmolly]

8. To a certain extent. He now realized the President was totally full of

shit ... Dean simply knew it sooner.

GO KERRY! :toast:

[Fleshdancer]

9. How has Kerry's position changed?

Dean's stance on the war was that it was wrong and should have never have happened. Kerry, from my viewpoint, has always kept the same position that the war should only occur if Bush exhausts all other options.

Has Kerry said something different in the past few days? (I'm taking a week off from watching news for sanity sake)

[LittleClarkie]

12. Nah, he hasn't adopted anything

There's just a family resemblance now, because Kerry has gotten passionate the way Dean was passionate. Still the rhetoric is unchanged.

[Fleshdancer]

15. That's what I thought. I do welcome the passion however

BTW, that's a great painting of Kerry. Who did it?

[LittleClarkie]

16. Elizabeth Peyton

If you can get a copy of Artforum Magazine, it's in the September issue I believe. Part of a collection called Electoral Collage

[darknesstolight]

14. Wrong all wrong

How dare you bash Kerry. Its not a Dean subject all the polls indicate its an election topic thats what people want Kerry to address. They want a leader to get @hit done. I suspect the Republics will do more spin but the truth no matter how Kerry voted on all the war topics it Bushes mess. Bush was the one who pitched it, the reason to go to war, if anything Kerry is a victim of the Bush lie like all the American people.

[madfloridian]

25. The OP did not bash Kerry.

I don't want to get into it tonight, but Kerry said Dean was unfit for president if he believed we were not safer with Saddam gone.

[sangh0]

84. It is an implicit bash

It reinforces the idea that Kerry changes positions (flip-flop) when the truth is that Kerry hasn't changed any of his positions on Iraq. He has only re-phrased them.

IMO, Dean's and Kerry's positions on Iraq havent been all that different from the begining. IMO, some people confuse style with the substance.

[madfloridian]

87. That is a meme that is destructive to the party.

Their stance now is not different, to say we won't just leave. However, Kerry thought Saddam was a threat to us and to the world, and he said Dean was unfit to be president because he said otherwise.

Yeppers, that is a difference.

[sangh0]

91. And Kerry hasn't changed his position on Dean's Saddam statement

or on any other matter, so I don't see how the subject line of this thread can be anything but wrong.

BTW, Dean also said that Saddam was a threat to us and the world. There is no difference between Kerry and Dean on that score.

And you are mistaken when you say "Kerry thought Saddam was a threat to us and to the world, and he said Dean was unfit to be president because he said otherwise."

1) As I pointed out before, both Dean and Kerry thought that Saddam was a threat.

2) The real reason why Kerry said Dean was "unfit to be President" was because Dean said we are not safer now that Saddam has been caught. At the very least, you should get the facts straight

[secular_warrior]

18. Kerry should have voted *against* the IWR and *for* the funding

and I'm sure deep down he knows that. If he did he'd be in a much better position than tied; he'd be way ahead. The thing that has dogged Kerry since the primaries is the nuanced position on Iraq (it is a clear position, but it's too complex to explain in soundbites).

If he had voted against IWR, there never would've been a Howard Dean; Kerry would've won the nomination easily. He would've had a much stronger, clearer, soundbite friendly position. He also would not be open to these 'flip flop' charges now, which *has* hurt him much more than the SwiftLiars, IMO.

[JohnKleeb]

21. Actually Dean got in to the race early on

I too wish he had voted against the war resolution but I don't hold it against him.

[secular_warrior]

22. What I mean about "there not being a Howard Dean"

is that Dean still would've been in the race, but the Dean phenomenon would've never occured -- he would've been an asterisk -- a marginal candidate -- if Kerry had voted against IWR.

I don't hold Kerry's vote against him. He is not a warmonger. He did not "vote for the war" as the meme suggests, but the authority to use force if necessary. I'm sure deep down Kerry wishes he voted against it, but it is not politically smart to say that at this stage in the game. Either way, I don't hold it against him. The objective is to get rid of the cancer in the whitehouse.

[JohnKleeb]

23. I got ya

I dont know for sure, I really do think a lot of Dean supporters wouldn't have had a problem with Kerry had he voted against it. If Kerry had voted against the IWR, I think many in the party's left wing would see him as their champion rather than just someone who just has to beat Bush, now since his great speech at the convention, many have changed their views on Kerry but I really think people should have despite Kerry's reluctant vote seen Kerry as one of us, he's a very liberal democrat who I think will make an even better president than Clinton, sure he talks sometimes moderate but he's like one of hte most liberal out there yet a maverick somewhat too.

[secular_warrior]

26. Yes he is one of us - a true Democrat and a maverick liberal

He's been there through most of the fights over the past 30 years -- that counts for something.

Yes, that was my point, that things would've been sooo much easier if Kerry had voted against IWR because the Democratic base would be much more passionate about him instead of simply being ABB, in addition to clarity and simplicity of position and all the other reasons, etc.

Let's face it, Kerry had to vote against that 87B in order to regain some credibility with the base and fend off Dean. If he had voted against IWR, he would've had more than enough political capital with the base to vote for the 87B -- which would've been the perfect position : opposing the war, but voting for the funding once we had troops in the field of battle -- that would've been the best position to have now.

[madfloridian]

24. Wrong, until Dean spoke NO ONE criticized Bush. Not just the war.

They were all walking on their tippy toes so as not to offend the GOP, because they get a lecture. Dean took the lectures in stride, and kept talking.

His stances were not just about the war. Good grief, how untrue. He was brought down in part because he had the guts to sign the civil unions bill.

I don't want to go there tonight, but Dean was never just against the war, he was against Bush and the evils he was doing. He was against the fact that our Dems were voting with him on destroying Medicare and Social Security and the NCLB bill.

Then they bent over and said more Mr. Bush.

[secular_warrior]

27. True, but if Kerry had voted against IWR he

would've had far more 'love' from the base. They would've remembered that Kerry stood with them during that vote. Dean would've never garnered the type of support and attention he did -- especially with a centrist record in Vermont -- because as soon as Dean or a Kucinich would've started to attack Kerry about those secondary issues, Kerry would've easily neutralized it by brandishing his vote against the IWR and by speaking out against Bush more forcefully. As it is, Kerry had enough credibility with the base to eek out a victory in Iowa. The same couldn't be said for people like Edwards, Gephardt and the others who also voted for IWR. The only thing that saved Kerry is his vote against the 87B and his solid liberal record in Washington: first as an anti-war activist and later as a senator. Plus primary voters felt his Vietnam record and experience in foreign affairs would neutralize the inevitable Republican attack on the Democratic nominee's national security credentials. If the GOP and the media turned a decorated war hero like Kerry into a traitor, could you imagine what they would've done with the 'anti-war' governor a small 'socialist' state who 'took a deferrment to go skiiing' ?

I'm not questioning the fact that before Dean spoke out against Bush, the entire Democratic establishment including Kerry were afraid to challenge the Republican agenda. But we should also remember that a longshot candidate like Dean really had nothing to lose by speaking out. I never found him to be that courageous as people were saying. What else was he going to do but move to the left in a Democratic primary ? It would've been far more amazing if a member of the Democratic establishment had run for president and opposed the IWR and Bush's agenda -- such an individual would've had everything to lose. But of course this entire situation over the past 2 years is basically the problem with the party in a nutshell: it shouldn't take an outsider longshot candidate like Dean to stand up for the people the Democratic Party is supposed to be fighting for.

[eridani]

28. Long before that--

--Kucinich voted against the damn thing and led the opposition in Congress as well.

[JI7]

29. Kucnich did and Kerry went after Bush for Afghanistan failure

[polpilot]

32. ...STILL walkin' on their tippy toes with one hand in the air gauging wind

direction...they need to look up...cliff ahead!!

"You can't beat Bush by ....." Howard Dean...

[blm]

34. Wrong, mf. Dean sided with Bush publically OVER Kerry in July2002 MTP.

His response to attacks on Bush by Kerry, "It's easy to second guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I choose not to do that." He sided with Bush and claimed that Tora Bora WAS a successful mission, when it was the BIGGEST military blunder in Afghanistan.

I really tire of the "noone spoke against Bush until Dean" meme. It's demonstrably false. Noone got much AIRTIME when they attacked Bush until the media focused on Dean. As we now know, the media had no good intentions when they did that, they were only trying to divide the Dems on war by exaggerating their positions.

[madfloridian]

42. Here are his comments from the transcript: Kerry is not mentioned.

"MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I've seen others criticize the president. I think it's very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don't choose to engage in doing that."

Actually at that time in July 2002, a lot of folks thought the war was pretty successful there. All this shows is that Dean still thought Bush capable of rational thought. This was months before the IWR. I doubt Dean believed at the time that we would actually divert the troops to Iraq.

There is a paragraph or so about GWB in his new book. When they were governors together he actually found him to be fair and honest in his dealings with Dean as a governor. I will find my post.

I would never start a thread like this, I will respond if it gets to be unfair in my view. I have the CNN article and several others with Lieberman and Kerry and Gephardt declaring Dean incompetent because he said the world was no safer with Saddam gone. I don't want to post it as flamebait. If they said that, then they must have thought Saddam was what Bush said he was. :shrug: Or else they wanted us to believe they did, or something.

Dean did NOT say Tora Bora was successful, he said the operation in Afghanistan was and made it clear as he has all along he supported the operation. Where in that statement is Kerry mentioned?

Dean did his full share of attacking during the primaries. I have no gripes with anyone saying that. However, Kerry is now using his exact words. I find that a good thing, but I find it wrong to deny it. There are too many sites with every speech of Dean there to read. Dean was not an angel during the primaries, and he is the first to admit he has cycled in some of his views. Get his book and read it. He does not criticize Kerry at all. Not one word, so it is ok to buy it and read what the Democratic Party needs to do.

I have no gripe with you at all, and I am proud our candidates are speaking out. I don't care who started it but I will defend Dean when unfair stuff is said.

[madfloridian]

43. Comments on Bush from Dean's new book....might clarify his view....

Dean saw Bush in a different light when they were governors together. I never liked Bush, and I never trusted him...but I can see that someone else might have held a little different opinion.

From You Have the Power:
...DEAN..."I hadn't started out a Bush basher. In fact, I'd been predisposed to like George Bush. I knew him personally and had dealt with him professionally when we were both governors. He'd always been charming and hospitable to me and my family, both in the Governor's Mansion in Texas and at the White House. He'd always been more than upright in the business dealings between our states, keeping his word when he had no legal obligation to do so. What I knew of his record in Texas bespoke a moderate man who was willing to put pragmatism before ideology, to raise taxes when necessary to equalize state education spending, and to take some heat from the right wing of his party for doing so. ("I hate those people," he'd once snarled at me when I ribbed him at a White House governors' gathering about some trouble he was having in Texas with the Christian Coalition.)"

[blm]

46. Russert had just finished playing clips of Kerry attacking Bush on Tora

Bora and then he turned to Dean with his question. There was no mystery as to who was being discussed.

I know earnest Dean supporters don't start threads like this.

And I don't trust those who make threads like this and use Dean or Kucinich for cover. I don't believe they have any interest in a unified Dem party. Dean and Kucinich do.

[madfloridian]

49. blm, if Kerry felt Bush was wrong on Tora Bora....

Then why did he think he could trust him to handle Iraq correctly? I am not going to say anymore, as we support Kerry right now. But putting it back on Dean is not right.

If Kerry felt Bush had handled Tora Bora incorrectly, he should not have given him sole power to attack in Iraq. They should all have kept that role for congress. One man does not need that much power, especially a man like Bush.

Perhaps our party and our country has learned from this, but blaming Howard Dean is inexcusable.

Our Democrats did not do what they were supposed to do, and we are paying the price. That said, I do not believe Kerry would have invaded but would have tried other ways.

Falling back on a statement that Dean once made about Biden-Lugar is not the right way to defend this issue.

[blm]

50. Except B-L had that same point, Bush had sole determination of force

AFTER the other steps to prevent war were taken, just as in IWR.

Blaming IWR is the DUMBEST thing any Dem can do, since it takes the blame off Bush who should take the blame for not FOLLOWING the guidelines of the IWR.

[secular_warrior]

52. Oh, c'mon now. I'm 100% behind Kerry, but the fact is Dean

was the first Democrat to really stand up forcefully against the entire Bush agenda, and it created a movement in the process.

However, I never felt Dean was that courageous because he was a long shot candidate with nothing to lose. Also, his record as a centrist governor doesn't square with becoming darling of the left. It's not as if he was some liberal fighter for years and years with a record of standing up for the base. I'm pretty sure his policy on gay unions were his first move to the left, no doubt took that position with an eye on the nomination. Dean understands the base and Dem politics well, as he spoke about in that video about the Iowa caucuses, where he criticized interests groups etc and extolled the virtues of centrism. It's no wonder that he started to move left sharply when he felt he may want to run for presidency. IMO, Dean's whole you-got-the-power 'man of the left' schtick is an act. But I'll give him a pass on that because most politicians are simply playing a role.

I think the main problem was that the Dean movement -- while the message was absolutely correct -- was very immature and disorganized. Why would any mature adult want to vote for such a candidate? It seemed to mainly consist of overly idealistic white suburban kids. Now, any strong campaign needs energetic youth support -- it adds life to a campaign -- but I don't believe they should be the main and only 'face' of the campaign as they were with Dean (and failed insurgents such as George McGovern). I don't think voters reject the message of the left so much as the immaturity and seeming instability and unprofessionalism of some of these campaigns. The many young Deaniacs may've thought that being as visible and vocal as possible helped their cause, but my opinion is that it deeply hurt it with the 'silent majority' Dem voter. While Kerry was surrounding himself with firefighters, seniors and veterans, Dean was surrounded mainly with kids -- and the campaign reflected a teenage type of mentality.

[madfloridian]

53. That is probably the most offensive thing I have read here.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote that it can not be answered in one post.

You defined nearly all of those who supported him and supported DFA as kid-like and immature. That is so absolutely totally inexcusable.

You know what? This party for 3 damn years has kissed George Bush's you know what, and the only reason they started standing up was because they got called out on it.

Young folks were actually the smallest portion of his campaign.

Frankly, I consider him to be every bit as good a candidate as was the one who said he was "unfit to be president" because he said we were no safer with Saddam gone.

Let's stop this stuff now. I will never start this kind of thing, but I will not tolerate being referred to obliquely as an immature kid. Hell, I have grandchildren, and two college degrees, and many years of teaching. I will not be referred to as immature in any way. Shame on you. Shame on the one who made calls during the primary and said Dean had forfeited the right to be president because of the civil unions bill. Dean did that because he felt it was right. Anyone who condemns him for it should change parties, IMHO.

This board and this party need to grow up.


OH, and before the Kucinich people jump me, I will say that he was speaking up..

[secular_warrior]

59. I did not mean to offend you or imply that MOST Deanies were immature

Of course most of his supporters were regular Democrats. But the 'face' of the campaign was not.

I believe Dean's basic message was correct and necessary: stand up to Republicans and be proud of what Democrats stand for.I just don't agree with the type of campaign he ran --it projected a sense of wreckless, exuberant, idealistic immaturity based simply on a kneejerk 'opposing anything Bush' rather than formulating a coherent philosophy to oppose conservatism. Joe Trippi himself, on the Charlie Rose show, even spoke about how they were a 'rag tag bunch' and basically a 'little league team in a world of major leaguers'. Look at the way they misspent all that money, look at how bad their strategy was. It had a very immature/amateurish air about it. How anyone would refuse to admit this a major flaw in the Dean campaign is beyond me -- it's as plain as day even to someone like Trippi.

Yes, Dean was right about Saddam and Kerry was wrong. Yes Clinton was wrong to try to sabotage Dean because of the civil unions issue. But, you know what ? That is hardball politics. Tell me something, if Dean couldn't beat the feckless/inneffective Democratic establishment he spoke of so passionately, how was he going to beat the very effective and ruthless Republican establishment ? Kerry ran a stronger campaign and at the 'silent majority' Dem voters who were put off by the over the top Dean supporters voted for the candidate who projected stability and maturity.

I always wondered about this complaint from the Dean camp, that somehow he was 'sabotaged'. C'mon. Dean's whole message was that Democrats should be tougher, that he was tougher and badder than the weak Dem establishment -- and yet that same establishment was able to beat him ? My complaint with the party is not only one of message (which Dean addresed) but one of politics -- I find that they're not tough enough 'street fighters' and constantly lose elections not on issues but because the right wing has beaten them up and stolen their lunch money when Democrats came to the contest expecting a game of chess. So, if Dean lost such a big lead to the wimpy Dem establishmet with all the money and momentum he had -- how was he going to beat the ruthless Republicans who would've done 1000 times worse than the Toricelli 'Osama ad'. Dean always struck me as a tough talker, but someone who couldn't take it when the 'big boys' started to pound him. As it is, look at the problems the Kerry/Edwards campaign is having on this same front, and they beat Dean by playing a little dirty.

Again, I didn't mean any disrespect to you or other Dean supporters. We are all die-hard Democrats fed-up with this party. I think I just have a different vision on what the party should become, especially with regard to political strategy.

[madfloridian]

61. Trippi is making money off the campaign while criticizing it....

and belittling it. None of us are stupid, and no campaign is perfect. Trippi should be ashamed that while pretending to stand up for Dean he is undermining what Dean is trying to accomplish.

Trippi was in charge. He knew there were problems, and he is refusing to take his share of the blame.

I hate to tell you this, but this stupid little, childish little ragtag bunch is still hanging together.

When you insult us, it just makes us stronger. Do not say you are not insulting, then proceed to do so.

Do not call Dean a weakling when they all ganged up. Don't worry, being right is the best revenge of all.

It was more than wrong to belittle his civil unions bill....it marginalizes a whole segment of society. To say a man who stood up for millions or more forfeited his right to be president. I am not gay or lesbian, but I find it insulting.

To say that he was unfit to be president because he knew Saddam was not the problem? That is more than just simple mistakes, my friend.

Yes, you did insult greatly.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. Dean was the front runner... he had everything to lose

He is authentic and has convictions he is not afraid to speak out about. That's just the kind of person he is. He would be the same if he were running right now.

[secular_warrior]

60. I'm talking about at the beginning,

before he shot to the top of the polls. He was a longshot with nothing to lose. He had to get around all of the establishment guys who had better name recognition and more money. What better way to do that but play to the base and go against the establishment ?

Is Dean authentic ? Why was he such a moderate Rockefeller Republican type of governor of Vermont then ? You're not going to tell me that Dean was some sort of liberal warrior as governor of Vermont ? I just don't see how the Howard Dean as moderate governor squares with the Howard Dean as darling of the left. Granted his campaing message was worthy of becoming darling of the left, and I understand that politicians reinvent themselves all the time(even George McGovern did), but to somehow claim Dean as some sort of loyal, liberal crusader is simply disengenous. Maybe now he is firmly on the left, but it is more of a recent occurence than some sort of life long mission.

[madfloridian]

63. That was the 2nd most offensive post.

You are obviously enjoying the attention, so I guess that says something after all.

Go ahead. We have been expecting this. There is no divisiveness between the Kerry folks and Dean folks that is enough to keep anyone from voting, so the purpose may be defeated. A lot of may leave the party after the election and go independent, but we will vote for Kerry.

Transparency in all things.

[secular_warrior]

69. Now that was an offensive post

You are trying to imply that my motives are not to elect John Kerry. You are judging me on my post count instead of the content of my posts.

I feel it is better to talk about the disagreements between the Kerry and Dean people and all the camps in an open and constructive way. That is the only way we will ever strenghten and rebuild this party. No where did I suggest that Kerry was a better person than Dean, nor did I try to sew divisiveness. In fact, die hard Kerry people would find much in my posts to disagree with. I was merely talking about the relative strenghts and weaknesses of each campaign.

I am 100% committed to electing John Kerry and John Edwards and working with Dean supporters. Howard Dean has an important role to play and represents much of the future of this party.

[madfloridian]

71. I don't think I was judging you.

I think divisiveness plays a part in some posts. The divide is there from the ugly primaries, but it will not affect any of us voting for Kerry. What happens after November is up for grabs.

[secular_warrior]

89. Of course the divide is there

but there is no way any of us are going to hold that against each other when there is a common and dangerous enemy currently in control of this government. Even most Naderites will vote for Kerry. I think liberals of all stripes understand that if Kerry were to lose, the ball will be pushed so far right (SCOTUS, especially) that even a DLC type moderate may appear to be a rabid left winger and have a hard chance winning in 2008. This country has never been so far right and I'm not exaggerating about that. I don't want to even think about what this country will look like if Kerry loses.

ps. I agree that after November there will be a fight to rid the party of the DLC and much of the party establishment regardless of the outcome of the election. And on that issue, people like me will not be on the opposite side of people like you. The Democratic base, whether pro Dean or not, agrees with much of the problems voiced by Dean, and understand the need to remove the Republican-lite influences ushered in during the Clinton era.

[janx]

92. Dean never pretended to be anything other than what he is.

He has been and always will be a centrist. He's a fiscal conservative, and those are hard to come by these days.

I don't know where you got your misinformation.

[hansolsen]

102. Dean never ran to the "left",and never departed from his record in Vermont

He ran as a centrist Dem with reasonable plans for the economy and medical care.

No one needed to be a card carrying leftist, or peacenik, or pacifist to be against the war in Iraq.

I supported Dean because he was a conservative Democat, not a Liberal Democrat, and I believe his stand on civil unions fits my choice of labels to a tee.

[hansolsen]

101. Dean had many older supporters including this 60 year old, who found

his message to be serious and mature. I point first to Iraq, but also to his message on fiscal responsibility which resonates with me. Nevertheless, I do see fatel flaws in Dean as a candidate and do not expect him to rise from the ashes.

[hansolsen]

98. You're making far too much of one off hand comment on MTP. Dean

clearly led the way in standing up to Bush. Get over it.

[hansolsen]

97. All true. N/T

[Malva Zebrina]

99. this is true--people were aching and yearning for someone to speak

out and support them-the Democratic party was not forthcoming in any support whatsoever and they never got another dollar from me after that.

[hansolsen]

96. Right on. Well said. N/T

[Bush was AWOL]

20. More like Kerry is adopting reality as the situation on the

ground changes in Iraq. Bush is still living in a fantasy land where a democracy is set in place and elections will be held peacefully in January.

[unfrigginreal]

30. You're right and it's happened not a moment too soon.

Simon Tisdall
Wednesday September 22, 2004
The Guardian

Call it Howard Dean's revenge. For when White House hopeful John Kerry finally took the gloves off over Iraq this week, the US presidential campaign came full circle.

A year ago, Mr Dean was emerging as the Democratic frontrunner, tapping into grassroots anger over the war. Yet it was Mr Kerry who eventually won the nomination as primary voters opted for the safer, conventional, less confrontational man.

The picture looks different now. Mr Kerry's furious, all-out assault on the Bush administration's honesty and competence over Iraq on Monday amounts to a belated endorsement of Mr Dean's main line of attack and is reminiscent of Mr Dean himself. It marks a strategic shift by a Kerry campaign that has so far failed to find a "killer" issue and has lost its way - and its poll lead - since the Boston convention in July.

snip

The Kerry speech was a total demolition job. George Bush, he said, had "misled, miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking". The president's lack of candour, arrogance and outright incompetence - Mr Kerry's own words - has "created a crisis of historic proportions and the prospect of war with no end".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x845088

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | September 23, 2004

"DEAN, DEAN, Dean, Dean," presidential candidate John Kerry once muttered in frustration during the Democratic primary season that now seems like ancient political history.

snip

In his Monday speech at New York University, Kerry called the war in Iraq "a profound diversion from that war (on terror) and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." That was strong, clear Dean-like language. On David Letterman, Kerry answered "no" when asked, "If you had been elected president in 2000, in November of 2000, would we be in Iraq now?" The Letterman audience cheered the straightforward response.

snip

Last December, Dean was derided by the political establishment on both sides of the aisle when he said that the capture of Saddam Hussein "has not made America safer." At the time, Kerry said Dean's statement "is still more proof that all the advisers in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times." On Monday at NYU, Kerry put himself firmly in Dean territory when he said of Hussein's removal from power and subsequent capture, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

snip

It also holds appeal for women. The pollsters and pundits say women will vote for the candidate who makes them feel most secure. Some polls show that female support is shifting to Bush. Kerry needs to change that dynamic -- and quickly. By voting to authorize war, Kerry essentially turned the car keys over to a president who recklessly drove America to the wrong war in the wrong country at the wrong time. Taking back the car keys should make many women feel more, not less, secure. Putting Kerry in the driver's seat makes sense, as long as he stops driving around Iraq in circles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x75060

--------
Although I suspect that your moniker contradicts the real intent of your post, there are some that legitimately share your opinion.

[blm]

31. You are WRONG. Dean and Kerry were never that far apart to begin with. The

media EXAGGERATED Dean's position into an antiwar candidate. Dean actually supported another version of the IWR, the Biden-Lugar bill, which was similar to the IWR in its guidelines for war as a last resort.

The differences were exaggerated by the media, and subsequently, the campaigns, as a way of maneuvering, but an honest read would tell anyone interested in comprehending the truth that they were never that far apart to begin with.

[BootinUp]

33. One will never know

Because Dean didn't have to vote. The whole point is uh pointless.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. The truth hurts sometimes.

At the time, Kerry said Dean's statement "is still more proof that all the advisers in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times." On Monday at NYU, Kerry put himself firmly in Dean territory when he said of Hussein's removal from power and subsequent capture, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

[LimpingLib]

37. Dean and Kerry did agree but.........

.... the agreement was that if Iraq had WMD then we invade.

Everybody thought he did even ME.

My position was that even if he had them they werent any reason to invade.

I knew the whole Iraq mess was something our leaders and CIA brought on which NEITHER Dean nor Kerry bothered pointing out.

I am sick of hearing the hair splitting partisans on a done issue though. Iraq has been done in and mostly by the sanctions which Clinton , Bush , Kerry , Dean supported.2 Brutal regimes ended when Saddam was overthrown. Hussein himself plus the dreadful sanctions. Fewer children will die in the next 10 years as died the past 10 years thanks to the sanctions being removed.

The war is almost irrelevant IMO.

Iran is the current issue as far as Im concerned. Since our leaders will easily be able to justify Irans "WMD" due to their nuclear program and wont bother giving the history ...allow me to offer a LA Times quoted article to put some perspective into the confused issue

www.zmag.org/bouzidlat.htm

Im more concerned about a UN resolution passing on Iran. Kerry only now says he doesnt support the Iraq war because of WMD not being found. Maybe we should make it clear that it was worng to support war PERIOD , WMD or not. Otherwise Iran is next and that is a large 70 million person economy that is already in bad shape and will be ruined for at least 100 years should we attack it.

[blm]

45. Tough for you, eh?

Too bad. You know how to add? Does the phrase SUM TOTAL mean anything to you?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

90. Did he, or did he not

criticize Dean for the Hussein statement?

Did he, or did he not, basically just say the same thing (We're less secure)?

Get off your "Kerry is Perfect" Highhorse and come down here to the real world and answer the question honestly. It's not a big deal, it's just that his statement pissed me off at the time and his recent statement is more than a bit ironic. And here you are still carrying water for a bullshit statement that crossed the line. And that's the SUM TOTAL.

[blm]

94. You don't take into account ANYTHING about Kerry's reasons at any time. I

did and I do because I BOTHERED to find out.

YOU may think it was OK for Hussein to be a target of Bin Laden and be overthrown by his loyalists leaving Iraq under al Qaeda control. Kerry did not. He knew it was coming and had been aware of it since 98. Clinton knew full well that was a Bin Laden objective. THEY judged the dynamics of the entire region as a WHOLE. The GOAL was a good one. Bush handled EVERYTHING the WRONG way....the WORST way.

Kerry felt that Hussein could be removed diplomatically and allow regime change without wholesale bombings and also remain a secular state.

YOU never bothered to look into his MANY years of thinking through the reality of Iraq. Yes, RIF, sum total. If you never added any other factors in ANY of your assessments you never offered a fair summation.

[madfloridian]

100. Maybe I misunderstood you.

blm, are you saying Bin Laden was going to overthrow Saddam?
You are saying Kerry knew it? Well, then, all is ok, isn't it? So what country is Bin Laden going to overthrow next? Maybe we should attack them as well and kill tens of thousands of them. Something is so wrong with that picture. I know Kerry probably did not intend for so many innocent Iraqis to be killed, but they were. This sounds like you are saying his goal is to take over countries before Bin Laden can. What you present in the paragraph below sounds like a PNAC plan. I hope you are wrong on this.

QUOTE from your post:...."YOU may think it was OK for Hussein to be a target of Bin Laden and be overthrown by his loyalists leaving Iraq under al Qaeda control. Kerry did not. He knew it was coming and had been aware of it since 98. Clinton knew full well that was a Bin Laden objective. THEY judged the dynamics of the entire region as a WHOLE. The GOAL was a good one. Bush handled EVERYTHING the WRONG way....the WORST way....."

So, how does that connect with giving the power to Bush to demand Saddam disarm?

Boy, I am really confused now. Maybe it is that 3rd hurricane eye staring at us in just a few weeks, but I am having trouble with this...perhaps I don't understand.

[blm]

103. Y'know, blame Kerry all you want for the IWR and blame the IWR for war

just as you would blame B-L if it passed. ALL of those were for DIPLOMACY FIRST and war as a last resort.

Let Bush off the hook for not implementing ANY of the guidelines. If it makes you all so gawddam happy in your own self-righteousness about IWR, then po ahead and blame it and give Bush the pass. Because THAT is the bottom line.

That said, I'm surprised you are not more up on what was really going down in that region and the overall dynamic. I know others would not listen because they wanted to dislike everything about Kerry and every move he made.

This is the short version:

It WAS US policy for "regime change" in Iraq since 98 and there WERE reasons for it. Clinton and those advising him (Kerry was one) just didn't want to use force if they could achieve it through diplomatic pressure. Even Kucinich was on board for that "regime change" policy then.

Those of us who were well aware of the Taliban power surge and tracking their gains since 96 and knew of Bin Laden's growing power also knew that Hussein was one of his targets for overthrow. Surely you remember when people were arguing that Hussein and Bin Laden were ENEMIES and no way was Hussein helping him or part of 9-11 like Bushies claimed. But, it was more dangerous for the world if Bin Laden succeeded in assasinating Hussein and taking over the Iraqi government and all its assets.

Now, of course, since Bush DIDN'T use diplomacy to oust Saddam and violence is begetting more violence we are NOT safer. In fact, Bush is making Iraq MORE a haven for Islamic extremism and al Qaeda itself. But, that was NOT how Clinton and Kerry envisioned a post-Saddam Iraq. It was more important to them to secure a secular government and concentrate on food, schools and medical needs.

Bush only cared about securing the oil fields first and destroying much of the infrastructure so the billions of dollars could start flowing to favored corporations.


Kerry, like Clinton, cared more for the stability of the region and preventing the spread of terrorism and its symbiotic relationship with Islamic fundamentalism.

[LimpingLib]

35. I think we should make Kerry sign a blood oath that he wont invade Iran

no matter what kind of nuclear program they might have.


Make any canidate we consider voting for swear by pricking their finger and writting in their own blood "I wont invade or bomb Iran" .


Kerrys was as strong as any right winger on invading Iraq (during several administrations)in recent years but now the WMD issue has enabled him to say "but there actualy werent any weapons so now I theoreticaly oppose the done war".

Im just worried about Iran because they do have missles like all other nations and also they have a nuclear program (like another mid east nation and many other nations).

Im trying hard to not goggle anything on Kerrys foreign policy positions because I honestly want to hold my nose and vote for him (infact Im determined)but I swear the second I hear him talk about a "democratic Iran" in a deragatory fashion and their weapons program Ill spit out any chance of voting for him like vomit.

Afterall Iran WAS a democracy before we overthrew their beloved leader and installed the Sha as total dictator contrary to the Iranian constitution which simply had him as a figurehead.

[bagnana]

38. not the "Dean" stance.

Kerry is being consistent with all of his speeches and his position throughout the war: he voted to give the president authority to use force in order to keep the pressure on Saddam. That's all. Why do people keep misstating his position? It's maddening.

[dansolo]

39. If Kerry had voted against the IWR

Would he have been taken down by the other hawkish members of the Democratic Party (e.g. Lieberman, Gephardt, From, etc.)? Or were their attacks just convenient ways to knock out Dean?

[kiahzero]

40. Actually, Kerry's position hasn't changed

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

[Snivi Yllom]

41. well since I think Dean was a much stronger candidate

that's great

buuuuuuut

I still rather have Dean.

[KittyWampus]

44. Creative Way To Attemp Driving Wedge Between Dean & Kerry Supporters, IMO

but what the hell do I know....

[snippy]

65. Agreed. n/t

[Placebo]

47. Why does DEAN get credit whenever ANYONE...

speaks out against the war? does he have a copyright on 'anti-war' or something? :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

73. well he was the only anti-war candidate

oops I mean "major" anti-war candidate as he would say. :eyes:

[HFishbine]

48. Where'd you hear that?

Come on, you can tell us.

[MUSTANG_2004]

51. It doesn't just energize the base

It gives people who aren't liberal a reason to vote for him. If Kerry says he'll stay the course, send more troops if needed, etc, what incentive would an anti-war moderate/conservative have to vote for him?

[Nicholas_J]

54. Kerry adopted Deans stance on the War

Before Dean did.

His stance on the war was that we should do nothing in Iraq unless it could be proven that Iraq had WMD's and a connection with Al Qaeda:

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
New York Times
September 6, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

http://www.cfr.org/pub5596/john_f_kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php



t r u t h o u t | Address
Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University

Thursday 23 January 2003

"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility...

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm

Notice that the dates on these documets precede any speech that Dean gave to any foreign relations organization, and that the second speech given by Kerry bears a striking resemblence to Deans own speech to the Council On Foreign Relations. Though Deans speech was given 5 months later.

Three weeks afte Kerry;s op ed speech in the New York Times, Dean gave an interview on Face the Nation in which hestaes that he would go to war with Iraq Unilaterally if Saddam Hussein did not disarm, though the case had not been fully made that Saddam had WMD's.

Essentially, Kerry;s stance on Iraq has been pretty solidly the same since that first op-ed piece, however the point is moot, because you note that Kerry would have gone after Al Qaeda first, and left Saddam until later, and with U.N. involvement. Since Bush invaded Iraq, this is moot. He cant go after Al Qaeda first.

DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

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."

But there's been this kind of bellicose talk going on for three or four months now about unilateral intervention and all that. I think the American people are confused about this, and I think it could have been very easily stated from the outset: "Here's the problem. Here's the threat. Here's the conditions under which we will go in."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

IN fact, in this interview, Deans olution is a bit more bellicose than Kerry's which does not support unilateral action under any circumstance.

[Cheswick2.0]

55. Now if he would take Deans stance on NCLB and several other issues

I would be happy.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

57. Forget it....

Deleted. See below.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

58. ON SECOND THOUGHT

this whole OP is BULLSHIT.

Thought you'd be clever, eh? Thought you'd dredge up a bit of primary hostility, eh?

WELL IT ISN'T GONNA FUCKING WORK!!!!

Mentioning Dean and his positions aren't necessary at this point. KERRY is the fucking candidate, KERRY is the one who is going to spank bush's ASS, and KERRY'S POSITIONS ARE KERRY'S POSITIONS.

Damn.

I love Dean, I love Kucinich, I love Kerry, I love all of them. YOU AREN'T going to come in here and stir up shit.

The wagons have circled buddy. Good try.

[snippy]

67. I'm glad you gave it a second thought. I like your post. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

64. It's nice to see that he's finally adopted

Clark's stance on the war. Or at least Clark's clarity and simplicity in explaining his position. It looks like those recent meetings between Kerry and Clark have paid off. :D

[BootinUp]

66. yeppers

It means we are finally on the right track. :)

[madfloridian]

70. Yes, we all know he consults Clark on military issues.

Of course he does. Yes, Clark was the only one who spoke out. Ok.

This is so childish and so tiring. Of course he consults Clark, of course he does. He probably consults Clark more than anyone because our nation is always going to be at war.

No one is taking away from Clark's importance. No one should be taking away from any candidate's importance.

[madfloridian]

68. Oh, good! Now it is becoming a three-way battle on this thread.

It is like my candidate is better than yours kind of thing, without real respect for anyone.

Cute.

[Radical Activist]

72. They've had the same stance for a long time

Dean, in case you didn't notice, supported keeping troops in Iraq for several more years and his solution was to bring in more troops from other nations. Kerry has long had the same position.

Maybe what you mean is that Kerry is adopting the Dean rhetoric, because in terms of proposed courses of action they were always the same. Sorry, but you had to look to Sharpton or Kucinich for a real stand against the war in Iraq.

[madfloridian]

74. Talk about misinterpreting the stance of everyone.

OMG

[Radical Activist]

78. Are you denying that Dean said he would keep troops in Iraq

for several more years? If so then you saw a different set of debates than I did. How does that differ than what Kerry is saying now? Kerry and Dean had very similar plans for how to deal with Iraq throughout the primary, despite how Kerry voted.

Only Kucinich and Sharpton called for timely withdrawals. Can you name a misrepresentation?

[madfloridian]

81. No, he says "now that we are there."

He did not take us there, though. Kucinich is wrong, we can not just pull out right now. I don't think even Kerry can get world support for this disaster.

It is a total damn mess, and you want to nitpick with me.

[Radical Activist]

83. Yes, it is a total damn mess

and staying there won't make it better. The longer this war lasts, the more popular the withdrawal option will become.

All I'm saying is that from the standpoint of where we go from here, Kerry shouldn't be faulted for being any better or worse than Dean. They've had basically the same plan all along. I think they are both wrong to want to stay in Iraq for several more years, but we'll see what happens in the next year.

[madfloridian]

85. No! They did not have the same plan.

Dean would not have taken us there.

[Radical Activist]

86. Neither would Kerry

from the standpoint of what we do now, they had the same plan. What is past is past. For the future, I never saw any major differences. They both proposed bringing in more foreign troops to keep the war going for several years or more.

Kerry has also said he would have handled things differently than Bush if he were President, so I don't believe for a minute that a President Kerry would have taken us into this war. The only difference between Dean and Kerry on the Iraq war issue is that Kerry was in the Senate to take a vote on it and Dean wasn't.

[WillyT]

75. LADIES AND GENTLEMAN !!! - Place Your Bets Right Here !!!

I'm sayin that this 'I still can't get over the Primaries' thread will go 137 posts before gettin locked by a mod!!!

Here's the beer I owe if I'm wrong!

:beer:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[WillyT]

77. Dat's What I'M Talkin Bout !!!

:yourock:

[madfloridian]

79. Yes, Kerry is the nominee.

But the fall in line is too much. I don't start threads like this, but if I see a view misrepresented, I will respond.

The party sat on its butt for 3 years, and many are almost ready to lose their Medicare and Social Security benefits because this war is draining our treasury.

So, why is it we can not speak up? We have donated to Kerry and we will vote for Kerry, but as Americans we get to fuss at our leaders.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

80. I'm not saying you can't correct something that is false

I would want to, too. But I just see this whole thread as an obvious ploy to try to divide us any way possible. That's all.

[madfloridian]

82. I said so several times in the thread.

Of course it a ploy. But two or three misrepresented so I answered. That is part of being an American.

The board admin knows that this is going to happen, and it is possible to follow the planning at other sites. I feel the threads are started very slyly, and the mods are being careful not to over react. That is good.

Yes, it is meant to disrupt.

[janx]

93. If there's one, then there's probably more than one.

Freepers seem to travel in pairs around here.

[DemCam]

88. C-L-A-R-K

[shivaji]

104. I just wish we had nominated the REAL thing....Dr. Dean himself..sigh