Candidates Should Be Ashamed for Distorting Dean's Words

[BurtWorm]

to make political points for themselves. Is this how they'll respond to Rove attacks during the general election if Dean is the nominee? That's treachery.

We expect it from Lieberman.

[blm]

1. Can you please post a speech by Dean where he accurately explained

to his audience what little difference there was between his original position on Iraq which supported the same provisions in the IWR that allowed Bush to make the final determination on use of force, even if unilateral, and those who supported IWR?

It seems to me that he spent much of the year distorting the differences and oversimplifying the debate to antiwar and prowar and nuance be damned.

[BJ]

2. Basic difference is that Dean didn't vote on IWR.

Nor did Clark, Moseley Braun or Sharpton. Of the candidates running for the nomination only Dennis Kucinich voted no when the IWR was brought up in the House.

[blm]

3. Not the point, is it? We're talking about candidate distortions.

The only candidate distorting positions is Dean. He distorts his positions and the positions of others to glorify himself for political gain.

[ex_jew]

5. Do you at least admit that Dean came down anti-war in the end ?

He didn't toss it all overboard when Saddam was captured, as other candidates have. Perhaps the details are more complicated than some would like to believe, but the fact remains that is on the record as a STRONG war opponent, and that matters a great deal to me.

[ibegurpard]

13. BLM will admit to NOTHING that might paint Dean in a positive light

n/t

[blm]

15. Doesn't change his 11 month campaign of deception does it?

.

[BurtWorm]

7. Please cite an example of the distortion you're referring to.

[blm]

18. You NEVER heard Dean say the others gave Bush a blank check with IWR?

Somehow I find that hard to believe because he said it in almost every stump speech I heard.

Ryan Lizza on Biden-Lugar- :
>>>>>
Huh?Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. As Gephardt's crack research staff helpfully points out in a piece of paper delivered to reporters at the debate, The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."

Dean himself admitted in the debate that he did indeed support it. Mustering some faux shock that his rivals would attack him on this issue, he retorted, "Let me use the first five minutes to correct an important thing that Dick Gephardt just misinformed us about."
Then he explained his interpretation of Biden-Lugar: "The Biden-Lugar amendment is what should have passed in Congress, because the key and critical difference was that it required the president to come back to Congress for permission. And that is where the congressmen who supported that resolution made their mistake was not supporting Biden-Lugar instead of giving the president a blank check."

This statement caused Kerry to almost jump through his television monitor. It was his turn to make a correction. In what would be the final volley of the Biden-Lugar war, Kerry patiently explained, "the Biden-Lugar amendment that Howard Dean said he supported, at the time he said he supported it, had a certification by the president. And the president only had to certify he had the authority to go. It's no different from--fundamentally--what we voted on."
By my reading of Biden-Lugar, Dean is indeed wrong that Bush was forced to "come back to Congress for permission" to attack Iraq.

The resolution required Bush to do one of two things before going to war. First, he had to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. (This was the key difference between Biden-Lugar and the resolution Congress actually passed.) Obviously Bush got a U.N. resolution. It's a matter of some debate whether the resolution authorized the attack. The Bush administration and Britain say it did. Most of the rest of the world says it didn't. But Biden-Lugar had one more rather large escape clause for Bush to go to war even if he didn't get a the U.N. resolution.

According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution."
Isn't this exactly what happened? Bush went to the United Nations. He failed to get a clean resolution authorizing force. Then he "determined" that the threat from Iraq's WMDs was "so grave that the use of force is necessary." At the time Bush complained that Biden-Lugar would "tie his hands." He preferred the Gephardt resolution that had no strings attached. But in the end, assuming you interpret the "make available ... his determination" clause literally, the war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably have led to exactly the same outcome--a unilateral war with Iraq.

>>>>>>>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[BurtWorm]

36. (leaning into microphone): I do not recall that, Senator.

;)

I honestly don't, and I'm not saying this to assert that he never said it, just that it never struck me that he said it. It could be that that was so much my own feeling that if he said it didn't seem like a big deal to me.

And I should say that I have always been skeptical of Dean's real leftism and the depth of his opposition to the war. I have given him the benefit of the doubt on his assertion that he was moved by the anger and passion he felt among opponents of the war to decide to be a voice for them. Now this may be seen as opportunism by some--by most of his opponents and their supporters, in fact--but if it gets the opposition points made and heard, I forgive it. And I think Dean's remarks lately (in particular his remarks in the wake of Saddam's capture) suggest that I'm not wrong to forgive it.

[sandnsea]

49. What??

You don't think Dean was really anti-Iraq-war, that he just went along with it because there were alot of people who were against the war???? And you support a candidate who ignores his own beliefs on national security??? This is really the most wild statement on Dean I've ever seen.

[BurtWorm]

50. I don't know how profound his opposition to the war was.

I doubt it was profound as my own. I most certainly did not say that I don't think Dean was "really anti-Iraq-war." I can see why you'd think such a statement was wild, given that it came from your own wild imagination. ;)

[sandnsea]

54. You said

You were skeptical of the "depth of his opposition to the war" and thought he was giving a voice to the anti-war people. Sorry, this is just crazy to me. National security is too important to elect a candidate who may be going against his own beliefs in order to give a voice to a group who he thinks might be wrong. It's what you said, it's not my wild imagination.

[BurtWorm]

58. What I said is not what you're representing it as.

You're spinning. Spin away! ;)

[LSK]

79. Dean did not have a vote

Dean did not have a vote, so I dont know why you make a half-truth statement. How can someone vote NO if they are not even allowed in the vote???

[BurtWorm]

6. Honest request from you.

I've never heard Dean distort these differences--honestly, I haven't. I've never heard him even mention IWR, not because he hasn't mentioned it but because I'm not such a Deanie that I can quote him chapter and verse. Could you please cite an instance of what you're talking about?

I will say that in reading his remarks on the capture of Saddam, I don't see a single line that open him up to honest criticism. He spoke the truth: Saddam's capture has not made Americans any safer. Events in Iraq over the last two days have proved him right. Furthermore, his point is that Saddam is not the enemy we need to eliminate to ensure that Americans are safe.

[BurtWorm]

8. Is silence signficant?

Does it mean there's no instance worth citing or something else or just that you need more time?

[blm]

14. Dean has been distorting the differences all year long.

Every time he said the others gave Bush a blank check to go into war unilaterally, he was being deceitful.

First of all, the IWR was NOT a blank check in that Bush did go to the UN, inspectors were put back in, and Iran and Syria were taken off the table.

Second, B-L, which Dean supported at the time of the IWR vote, provided Bush with the power to determine that use of force was necessary, even if unilateral. The same thing Dean attacked the others on.

[Ficus]

21. NH ad

"I was the only candidate to oppose the war."

false

[ThirdWheelLegend]

42. exactly...

Not only a blatant falsehood, but severely misleading and dishonest to any undecided voter in NH who is not as informed as DUers.

TWL

[mzmolly]

9. No because there was a great deal of difference between B/L and

taking out Saddam. :hi:

[stickdog]

12. Note to blm: That was LAST week's Kerry bash on Dean.

In the wake of Saddam's capture, it's now time to say the opposite and hammer Dean for not supporting the IWR.

Come on, girl, when will you learn to stay on message like your candidate?

[blm]

17. Kerry is pointing to Dean's inconsistencies and his

wrongheadedness in saying that Americans are not safer because Saddam is gone. Clinton wanted Saddam gone for a reason back in 98 and that reason hasn't changed. Saddam DID need to be dealt with whether Dean understands the greater implications for the region or not.

[BurtWorm]

31. Dean said very clearly that Saddam's *capture* does not make Americans

safer. His capture. To misrepresent his statement as Kerry and the other establishment Dems have done is unconscionable.

[blm]

44. That's wrong. His CAPTURE does have ramifications for the entire region.

The region has a greater chance for stabilization with Saddam captured. Many Iraqis feared Saddam's return because he was the only known power in their lives and they were conditioned to think he would always prevail.

Now they can be assured and help themselves to take the steps necessary to build a governing body.

Hopefully they'll be doing it with a Democrat like Kerry in office who can help them do it HONESTLY and not treat Iraq as a prize.

[BurtWorm]

45. Dean's point is that Saddam's capture doesn't solve the al Qaeda problem.

That's a valid point, isn't it? Also, unless Saddam was only pretending to be a decrepit specimen, he wasn't the threat he was thought to be--same sort of exaggerated threat he was pre-war. Granted, the fear he generated was a major cause of instability for the reasons you cite. But even the Bushists donn't want to overstate the magic Saddam's capture would work, because the fact is, they don't know. Of course, they're only too happy if others overstate the magic. It helps make them look like wizards.

[blm]

48. That doesn't factor in the dynamics of the region, at all.

The sooner a governing body is put in place through an election, the less chance that the people will accept Islamic fundamentalism as an alternative, thus weakening al Qaeda and Taliban influence in that country.

Why do you think removing Saddam was important policy for Clinton? It all has to do with regional dynamics and the goal stabilization of that region. Too bad that Bush has to wiener it up with his profiteering, but the goal the Dems supported was a good one.

[BurtWorm]

57. I'll never get elected with my politics about that region.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the notion that the US can guide the Iraqis or any nation to a suitable form of government there. I don't like the arrogance of such an idea and I don't trust the motives behind it, either. It smacks of neo-colonialism. If you want to stabilize the region and decrease terrorism, get the US's nose out of the region's business. Too often we wind up dictating how things are going to be, and punishing people economically and militarily for resisting us.

Now I know this position of mine is viewed as anti-American. It's actually anti-imperial and anti-colonial. I don't think most Americans would be comfortable with the notion that their country has become an Empire and a colonial power. Superpower is cool, but colonial power is too much like what Europe was in the 19th century.

There is no way a candidate with my views on that region is going to win even the Democratic nomination, because it it's so easy to spin this critique as "weak on defense" or "America-bashing." But I will accept a candidate who expresses skepticism about conventional wisdom, as Dean does and as Gore has done in his speeches for Moveon.org. I have a more difficult time accepting a candidate who accepts the conventional wisdom that the US has a right or a duty to stabilize (or do anything imperial) in that or any other region.

[blm]

62. Even when that region is producing people who WANT Americans dead?

There has to be a progressive approach to dealing with the region, but there is no way even a progressive approach will work without taking tough measures to get there. That's why it's imperative to move quickly to an effective governing body elected by the Iraqi people. The UN should handle the peacekeeping force to back them up until their own law enforcement and military are in place.

[BurtWorm]

63. Why do people there want Americans dead?

That's the question a progressive solution must take into account FIRST.

[blm]

67. That's the point. Part of Kerry's plan

when he worked with Clinton was to spend the money on open secular schools so kids aren't forced into religious schools dominated by the Islamic extremists.

[PassingFair]

89. Huh?

Uh right, let's attack the entire middle east. There's evildoers there. Are you channeling Peggy Noonan? I know you don't care for Dean, but now you're sounding a little Pnac-y.

[mzmolly]

72. heh heh... How quickly they forget.

sheesh.

[Patriot_Spear]

4. No doubt. I've had it with the Beltway insiders making it easy for Shrub..

Enough is a enough. Can't they see how they're poisoning the whole process?

[Jerseycoa]

10. Can we have a day without this?

Just one day, pretty please? When we are not attacking or responding to attacks on Democratic candidates and are not reposting, in one form or another, how candidates should be ashamed of something? Tired.

[BurtWorm]

11. Not today. This issue is too important to get wrong.

The issue is the rationale for the war. Does the capture of Saddam magically erase every doubt every Democrat, every DUer on this board has had about this war? Can we allow reasonable questions any candidate asks about it to be twisted into signs of vulnerability? I don't think so. I'm still clear about why the war was wrong. I'm not going to pretend it's any less wrong because of the Saddam spectacle on Sunday. And I'm not going to let candidates who pretend it's less wrong off the hook.

[Hep]

19. Hell, make a thread

where you ask people to stop for a day. They won't.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

20. Sigh

Nice try.

[rumguy]

22. Sigh

Another Deanhead, another sigh, another roll of the eyes, it's all getting pretty sad.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Hep]

24. Furthermore

I don't see how saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is weak solves anything anyway.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[rumguy]

35. You're not reading closely enough

I donated 50 bucks to his campaign. But I want to win, I want to win so bad I can taste it. Thus, I am getting sick with all this talk about Graham as VP.

And I'm also getting sick of Deaners huddling together and whining about their front-runner being "attacked" - and not even being able to entertain the notion that he won't win. I just wonder if this is indicative of his overall campaign? Is it? I don't know, but if it is, it scares me.

I hope the Dean campaign is thinking critically, and not just going on blind faith.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Gman]

66. Somebody's using up their chits pretty fast

[BurtWorm]

29. This is not whining. This is scolding.

This is whining:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=929458&mesg_id=930669&page=

[windansea]

27. Dean should be ashamed

for distorting his own positions...he jumped on the anti war bandwagon solely to position himself for the primary and was the first to start the attacks with "bush lite" statements.

Now he's playing the victim...

[Hep]

28. He's playing the frontrunner

And your guy, whoever the hell THAT is, is playing the desperate loser.

[BurtWorm]

30. Was it accurate to say that Saddam's capture doesn't make Americans safer?

If it was, then it's inaccurate to claim such a statement is a sign of Dean's vulnerability on foreign policy. And candidates and their supporters who make such a claim can't claim Dean's alleged past bad behavior to excuse their own bad behavior.

[windansea]

38. The most accurate criticism

of Dean's lack of foreign policy experience is his LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE....gee...I traveled a lot and had a meeting in Canada.

"And candidates and their supporters who make such a claim can't claim Dean's alleged past bad behavior to excuse their own bad behavior"

hmmmm...good logic!

[BurtWorm]

39. Again, you're dodging the relevant point here.

Dean's lack of experience may be an issue, that misquoting or willfully misinterpreting Dean's remark about Saddam's capture not making Americans safer is a profoundly dishonest way of trying to make that point.

[windansea]

52. see post 51

[windansea]

55. according to these numbers

the Deanster put foot in mouth


on 12/14/ 2003

George W. Bush 52


Howard Dean 31


12/13 2003


George W. Bush 51


Howard Dean 39

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[windansea]

51. no need to mindread...Dean Quotes

(kudos to Nicholas j for this post in another thread)

Yet, Dean says capture of Saddam has not made America safer:

“The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”

Claims he never said Saddam was a danger to US …

“I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever. Saddam was a regional danger. I believed that he had weapons of mass destruction. I believe we could have controlled him. I believed that the proper way to remove him should he need to be removed was through the United Nations and I never wavered from that.” Fox News Channel, 12/10/2003

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.” CBS Face the Nation, 9/29/2002

Dean did not know whether Iraqi people were better off without Saddam

“We don't know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off. And the most important thing is, we don't know whether we're better off.” Meet the Press, 6/22/2003



“Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country.” Dean speech, “Defending American Values – Protecting America’s Interests,” 2/17/03

Compared Hussein to a punk who is trying to annoy you

“’It's kind of like when you are walking down the street and there is some kid, some punk, who is using swear words and trying to annoy you,’ Dean said, according to a political website. ‘Now you are bigger and older, but at some point you get really annoyed and frustrated and want to take him out. Now that punk doesn't represent an immediate threat and you can contain him and let him swear at you. This is like Iraq and Saddam Hussein.’” Union Leader editorial, 3/26/03

But, Dr. Dean, do punks have WMD?

RUSSERT: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if Saddam Hussein didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

DR. DEAN: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is.” NBC, “Meet the Press,” 6/22/2003





“This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.” Dean statement on the capture of Saddam Hussein, 12/14/03

But, didn’t know if getting rid of Saddam is a good thing

“We've gotten rid of Saddam, and I suppose that's a good thing.” Washington Post, 4/29/03



NBC/WSJ POLL SHOWS THAT DEAN'S GRIP ON REALITY IS NOT THE ONLY THING SLIPPING…

In an overnight poll taken by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, the capture of Saddam Hussein did not significantly help George Bush in head-to-head match-ups. However it clearly hurt Howard Dean, who dropped nine points further behind Bush in a single night. Dean’s lack of foreign policy credentials and leadership clearly affected his electability when the public is reminded of the importance of the issue.

If the next election for president were held today, and George W. Bush were running as the Republican candidate and Howard Dean were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?

on 12/14/ 2003

George W. Bush 52


Howard Dean 31


12/13 2003


George W. Bush 51


Howard Dean 39


on 11/3/ 2003

George W. Bush 50


Howard Dean 35



Dean is clearly slipping againist the Bush administration, and it is obvious that his foreign policy stance is a complete wash.

The party and voters ought to reconsider this no trick pony fast if it wants a win in 2004.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. They aren't even ashamed of their vote for war.

To expect them to suddenly sprout ethics over an election is to wish for the Texan-in-Chief to become "compassionate".

[BurtWorm]

37. I have a little hope that their supporters can crack the whip

and make them behave like rational adults instead of the usual vote-and-money-grubbing voidoids.

[eileen_d]

40. Treachery? Shame? bwahahahaha

Politics were an amoral game of shit-slinging the last time I checked. I'm afraid Dean's entry into the race is not going to change that.

[Justice]

47. Why Only A Concern About Distorting Dean's Words?

Shouldn't we be equally concerned about the distortion of the words of other democratic candidates?

[BurtWorm]

59. I'm concerned here about a blatant distortion of a quote

about "Saddam's capture not making Americans safer." These are the words three establishment candidates distorted to suggest Dean was lacking in foreign policy experience. In fact what Dean said should be on every Democrat's lips.

[Justice]

69. Credibility Gap

Will Dean supporters' be expressing as much concern about the blatant distortion of other candidates' quotes as this quote?

Will we all be concerned about the truth and the accuracy of quotes of Dem candidates - or just some?

[mzmolly]

74. Hell yes!

This one will. Let the right wing war mongerers use RW talking points. We don't need this shisa.

[windansea]

56. Dean distorts own words..

see post 51

[PurityOfEssence]

60. Candidates should be ashamed for distorting ANY CANDIDATES words!

This is something people just don't get. To a great degree, the nastiness of people when dealing with Dean is due to his general approach. That's human nature.

This too, is human nature: I'd wager that if someone nicer like Mosely-Braun or Kucinich was in the front-runners slot he/she'd be taking a lot of heat too, but it would't be as vitriolic as what Dean's getting because they wouldn't have amplified it to that kind of level. Human nature is bad and good; by that I mean simultaneously bad and good.

[BurtWorm]

61. The reason this particular distortion disturbs me

is that what Dean is saying is true--or at least worth taking seriously. Other candidates are using these words--this valid criticism of the hype surrounding the Saddam capture--to cut Dean down while building, not just themselves, but the whole fucked up Bushist program in Iraq up. They all had a chance to be on the same page about this, but the ones in office now, it seems to me, have demonstrated the classic cowardice of the office holder to say anything original or against the conventional "wisdom." Wouldn't it have been something if all of the Dems had said exactly what Dean said: Saddam's capture will not make Americans safer. Saddam already did his damage, and it was mostly against Iraqis. This is the truth. The truth ought to be what separates the Democrats from the Republicans.

[blm]

73. It's not the truth.

Saddam had to go at some point whether it be Clinton or Bush. Bush was wrong to force war when diplomacy was not exhausted first.

[mzmolly]

76. So the war was the right thing now?

Innnnnnnnnnnn-teresting. :freak:

Saddam was contained, Saddam was disarm(ing)-(ed). This was not a war on tyranny, it was a war on terra, and the numero uno terra-ist is still roaming around pakistan.

[blm]

80. No. Bush rushed it when he didn't have to.

But the goal of removing Saddam was worthy. Dean thought so at one point, didn't he?

The problem is that Bush's goal doesn't stop there. That's why we need a Democrat who can win in 2004 who understands the ENTORE picture and has studied the area.

[BurtWorm]

82. Where does Kerry's goal stop?

Serious, honest question.

[ErasureAcer]

64. once again

anyone can distort Dean all they want after Dean started off by distorting Kucinich in his ad a few months back...

saying that he(Dean) was the only one who was against the war.

Dean opened the floodgates...not that the tide has turned on him...he has only himself to blame.

Dean...you can't trust the man.

[Gman]

65. No, Deankakis should be ashamed of doing this to the Democratic

Party. He can't win in November but he won't drop out of the race. How selfish.

[LuminousX]

68. Clever name calling... that'll win an election

[RetroLounge]

70. You want the FRONT RUNNER to drop out?

Bwwwwahahahahahahhaahhaa.....

[Gman]

75. Deankakis can't win in November

so whether or not he's the front runner is really irrelevant. Winning the primaries wins nothing.

[BurtWorm]

83. Stop asserting your opinion as fact, would you?

Did you think Dean could win the primaries? Do you now?

[mzmolly]

77. Dannkakis, cute. I voted for Du-kakis you?

:shrug:

[blm]

71. Hey BurtWorm, is THIS Dean distorting the truth?

From Spinsanity:

Dean has implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq. Yet on most of those occasions, Dean has not explained that, at the time, he supported an alternate Congressional resolution that would also have granted the president authority to take unilateral action if he made additional certifications to Congress before doing so. Dean contends having to make these certifications would have prevented Bush from taking action, but this subtle distinction is often lost in his rhetoric.
The Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq passed in October 2002 with the support of Dean rivals. Dean did not support this resolution. However, as Kerry and Gephardt have pointed out and as Ron Fournier reported last week in the Associated Press, Dean supported an alternate resolution known as Biden-Lugar.

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

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

The "blank check" phrase and similar attacks have been used by Dean frequently throughout his campaign without any explanation of the difference between the resolution he supported and the one that passed the Congress:
---"Senator Kerry, Senator Lieberman, Representative Gephardt, Senator Edwards, all gave the president a blank check to go to war in Iraq, putting people today in the position of having to decide whether we're going to spend $87 billion on health care or spend it in Iraq." (Democratic debate, 10/9/03)
---"I think it was a mistake for Congress to give the authority to the president to go into Iraq." (Democratic debate, 11/4/03)
---"Senator Kerry is talking about experience in foreign affairs. His experience led him to give the president of the United States a blank check to invade Iraq... The right thing to do would have been not to give George Bush that unilateral authority, as Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, Representative Gephardt, General Clark recommended... I think we need somebody who's going to make independent judgments and not cede the role of Congress in making foreign policy and declaring war." (Democratic debate, 11/24/03)

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

[mzmolly]

78. One statement BLM...

Dean has said time and again that he would support 'defending' America under certain conditions. Being Biden/Lugar never actually hit the senate floor, I don't see how emoting his support for it is prudent.

Saying "if saddam is an immediate threat" I would support military action is prudent, and it's what Dean said.

Oh and "simon says" get a new talking point, the Biden Lugar position will only help Dean in the general.

[blm]

81. He wasn't exactly honest with his antiwar supporters was he?

He exaggerated the difference to attack the others. That's called deception.

B-L won't help Dean in the general (very cynical of you, btw) because he has too many conflicting statements and even showed his own misunderstanding of the bill in the debate where Gep pointed out the inconsistency. Dean screwed up.

Rove has it all catalogued ready to use. You can be sure of it.

[TLM]

90. BZZZZT Bullshit alert...

"Dean has implied in a number of cases that he opposed giving the president authority to take action in Iraq."


No he opposed giving Bush a bank check for taking over Iraq without UN support when he had not made the case for the war.

Dean said over and over he supported taking action against Iraq through the UN. So to say he opposed action in general, because he opposed the IWR and what it allowed Bush to do, is a distortion.

Dean supported the Biden Lugar version that had specific targets, a stricter push for the UN, and did not allow for take over of Iraq.

[John_H]

84. Dean should be ashamed of running away from his record.

[mjv135]

85. WTF?

Dean lies. Period.

Does this come as a shock to any of you? It shouldn't, I can't believe so many intelligent, politicaly savvy people can get taken in by this used car salesman. He's distorted and streched his positions, flip flopped on his views to suit his audience, and sealed his records to prevent any more unpleasent truths to interfere with his campaign.

Take this exchange with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week":

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) You have changed on various issues. On NAFTA, you used to be a very strong supporter of NAFTA.

HOWARD DEAN: George, you're doing it again. I supported NAFTA and wrote a letter to President Clinton in 1992 supporting NAFTA. That's different than "you used to be a very strong supporter of NAFTA."

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) You were a strong supporter of NAFTA.

DEAN: I supported NAFTA. Where do you get this "I'm a strong supporter of NAFTA"? I did anything about it. I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter supporting NAFTA.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) Well, are you ashamed of that now?

DEAN: No, I'm not. And I tell the labor unions I did and I tell them why I did it. Because NAFTA did a lot of positive things for Vermont because it's right up against the Canadian border.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) But now you've renegotiated.

DEAN: What I see you doing is painting me into a corner that I was never in, and that's what a lot, that in some ways it's a funny ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) But I don't get this. I mean, you were a supporter of it. You wrote a letter supporting it, you talked about it.

DEAN: Sure, yeah, right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) And now you have a different position?

DEAN: No.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off Camera) Why isn't it right to ask about that and explain what you mean by it?

DEAN: It is. It is fine. I have no problem with you asking about it but don't put me in a position, which most journalists do, including you, of "you were a strong supporter of NAFTA and now it's not true."

Classic Dean.


Dr. Deans word of the day - "rationalization"

[BurtWorm]

87. What is the problem with Dean's answers to Benedict Steph?

I honestly don't see a problem with them. In fact I like that he's sticking a shiv in a media whore's belly over it.

[arewethereyet]

86. Dean should be ashamed that he provides so much opportunity

perhaps he would be better off hiring a professional to help him with this weakness.

[Kanola]

88. Dean will do great if nominated

He has demonstrated so far why I would vote for him as the front runner.