"It's Not Who Supported What Resolution" Howard Dean 1/11

[KittyWampus]

So let me get this straight.

Howard Dean uses the IWR as a wedge issue within his own party...

even though he didn't have to vote for it...

and supported an alternate Resolution that either did OR DID NOT give Junior similiar "latitutude"...

he sent out emails celebrating the One Year Signing of the IWR...

he labels anyone who signed the IWR "Bush-Lite" including longtime LIBERALS such as Senator Kerry and Harkin...

And he NOW decides that it's not important who supported WHAT RESOLUTION?

Did I get that right?

[Cheswick2.0]

1. the voters are the ones who are deciding IWR is an issue

do you have a problem with citizens who think for themselves?

[kayleybeth]

5. Uhhh... Dean has made the IWR a HUGE issue in his campaign

n/t

[quaker bill]

13. No, the voters did.

I was never going to support a pro-IWR candidate. Dean had nothing to do with this. I made that decision well before I had heard of Howard Dean, in fact, well before the IWR vote was cast. My letter to Senator Kerry said as much and urged him to vote no.

I got my answer. He will have his.

[blm]

32. So you support someone who was NOT really antiwar?

That doesn't make sense and in fact, smacks of unearned sanctimony.

Only Kucinich supporters have any claim to arguing the antiwar position. Dean supported a resolution that was much the same as the IWR that had all the same guidelines that led to use of force.

THAT'S why Dean dodged the question.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. Dean was an opportunist.... He knew how to manipulate the voters.

n/t

[Lefta Dissenter]

7. Oh Please,

Dean has used that, for the most part inaccurately, in every debate and every other public speaking opportunity he has had. Of course, the voters decide for themselves which, if any, issues are important to them, but this has been a cornerstone of Dean's campaign.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[blm]

24. Dean used it as his WEDGE issue and you know it.

He even put up ads against Gephardt and fliers against all the others who supported a resolution.

[xultar]

2. Yes! Let's see what he says in a few weeks n/t

[DancingBear]

4. The heck with that

Let's see what he says in a few hours. :)

"Fluidity, thy name is Howard."

[nomaco-10]

3. IWR is not just a wedge issue...

it is a HUGE issue for voters like myself that think the war was a bullshit sham perpetrated by politicians on the left and the right.
When Iraqi civilians and young US soldiers die daily, believe me, it is not a "wedge" issue.
I would take this opportunity to urge you to reevaluate your stand on this issue and then vote accordingly to your conscience.

[KittyWampus]

6. So Basically You'd Be Voting For Dennis!

:toast:

And the main point is that Junior WOULD HAVE GONE NO MATTER WHAT!

At least the Resolution made his Unilaterial recklessness a matter of LEGISLATIVE FACT.

[nomaco-10]

11. Since you asked, I'm most happy to.....

answer your inquiry. I am front and center for Howard Dean. I like Dennis and Carol very much, but all my support is behind Howard Dean. I could never vote for the likes of Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. Thank heavens a candidate is availiable to us that we know where he stands. We were lied to and taken into war by not only bush* but those on the democratic side that thought more of keeping their seat than doing the right thing.
People are dying daily, US soldiers, Iraqi civilians including women and children and I choose to stay aware and updated daily of the deadly debaucle that is Iraq, and I will choose my candidate accordingly.

[KittyWampus]

16. Well Dean Just Dismissed The Importance Of Your Issue

because he just said "It's not who voted for what Resolution"

[jadesfire]

38. Re: "Thank heavens a candidate is availiable to us that we know where..."

...he stands"

Ummm, sorry but your candidate changes his position depending on who he is talking to.

Where does he stand on Middle-Class tax cuts? he won't tell until after Feb 3rd.

Where does he stand on the Iowa caucus'? he has two very different statements on that one...

Where does he stand on the war? first: we may have to go in unilaterally and sadaam has weapons and is a threat.......then: how dare this president go into iraq and our country is no safer than before saddam was captured

Where does he stand on the environment & energy? he hasn't said- only have his hand holding with IBM & the ski industry in Vermont to go on and that is NOT progressive.

[Lefta Dissenter]

12. My issue with Howard Dean

is NOT his opinion on the war. Going to war is the most important decision anyone has ever had to make, so it SHOULD be a difficult decision. I don't envy any of the Senators who had to vote, particularly after finding out that their votes were based on lies coming out of the White House.

My issue with Howard Dean is that he has USED those votes and opinions of the other candidates in a devisive manner. He has misrepresented his own and others' positions, and has based his campaign on those misrepresentations. So to spend two years claiming that he's the only one (or only major one, or only one but Dennis, or only... whatever) and NOW to say that positions taken and statements made a couple of years ago don't MATTER??? What the heck? NOW what's the basis of his campaign?

[nomaco-10]

15. Howard Dean devisive?????

What news are you watching??? And where does your avi candidate stand. Do you even know? This is the guy that voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and bush 1. Instill alot of trust, does it.
I am begging you to check out the real Clark and his ties to corporate lobbyists and his job descriptions that he's had since being relieved of duty under the Clinton administration. It's all out there for your perusal, just check it out.

[KittyWampus]

17. Clark Supporters Are Well Informed On His Record

and how he helped companies develope products for use in the Armed Services... he LIVED Army for 35 years. For precious little pay.

[jadesfire]

40. But the two main problems with Clark

are his:

1. Support of the School of the Americas (see thread from Saturday). this is not the type of thing we should be supporting to change the way the international community sees the United States.

2. Serious lack of Domestic policy and agenda

Don't get me wrong, Clark has done some great work- he's just not well-rounded enough to be President at this juncture in history...

[TeacherCreature]

22. I am sure he voted for Bush II also

I do not beleive he voted for Gore.

[Lefta Dissenter]

23. Oh, I get it,

You believe him when he tells you that he voted for Reagan, but for some reason, you refuse to believe him when he says that he voted for Clinton x2 and Gore? If he were going to lie, why wouldn't he have just claimed that he's voted Dem all of his life? It would have been a LOT easier on him! Your claim is just silly!

[Mairead]

27. Saying that he voted GOP is what's called a 'declaration against interest'

in legal parlance. It's considered much more probative than a self-serving declaration.

[KittyWampus]

28. Of Course Clinton Went On To Give Clark 3 More Stars

and a helluva lot of Responsibility.

And Clark went on to stump and fundraise for Democrats as well as donate money to them.

So I'd say that's all a pretty good measure of interest as well....

[Justice]

61. And If You Studied Up on The Law, You'd Know That

The declaration against interest tends to make the statements about Clinton and Gore more true. And what Clark said was he voted for Clinton twice and voted for Gore.

Funny to see you parse through what you like and take that as true and then just dismiss what you don't like.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. Yes - he did vote for Gore

n/t

[jadesfire]

39. is lying to people about another candidate 'devisive'?

Just wondering...

http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1230d.html

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Hell yes, he's divisive. Calling people "cockroaches", Bushlite.

How is that not divisive. BTW - you spelled it incorrectly - doesn't exactly give you much credibility...

[mike_c]

8. it's damned important to me!

Howard Dean notwithstanding....

[JI7]

10. because of southern state primaries coming up ?

it's probably because of the primaries in southern states coming up where he doesn't speak on this issue since they aren't as opposed to it as iowa and new hampshire.

[Karmadillo]

35. Maybe we're only days away from a statement where he claims

to have supported the war as evidenced by his embrace of Biden-Lugar. And don't, maybe he'll say, forget that quote in Salon where I wanted a firm deadline and then unilateral action.

[arewethereyet]

14. it was the poorest answer he could have given to the question asked

but, sadly, he had no choice but to go with such an answer as actually answering it would expose his politics of convenience for what they are.

[blm]

25. BINGO. He HAD to dodge the question, because the truth would

show his disingenuousness at hawking an antiwar stance that he never really had.

[dfong63]

18. you have provided not one shred of evidence for your claims

[blm]

26. He said it in the debate last night.

Dean lies. Try holding him accountable for those lies for a change.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

58. lalalallala

I'm can't hear you!!

Why don't you stop bashing Dean with Dean's own words!

:)

TWL

[sandnsea]

19. Exactly right

Unbelievable. Well, nothing with Dean is unbelievable anymore.

[sangh0]

29. Just incredible

Dean says something on TV, and the Deaniacs demand proof that he said it. It's just another way to avoid answering questions on Dean's unltra-mobile positions.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

50. Saw somebody on here who said "Are you sure it was Dean and not

an imposter?" THAT'S how far some take this. I'm a former Psych social worker and I can tell you this election will provide one of the best studies in Cognitive Dissonance we've ever seen. It's actually fascinating. I seriously hope that the more "obsessed" don't hook up with someone REALLY bad.... You can't follow someone to these extremes - it's NOT healthy.

I'm not saying this about everyone mind you...

[ThirdWheelLegend]

20. Is this real?

His campaign took off built on the apparent anti-war RHETORIC.

Dean is misrepresenting his and others' positions for personal political gain.

whatever

TWL

[KittyWampus]

21. Yes, Dean Said That Last Night- Believe It Or Not

he matches Junior in the sheer magnitude of his deception.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

36. argh

TWL

[KittyWampus]

37. Yes, It Seems Dean Wants Us All To Just Get Over It.

[w4rma]

30. The anti-Deanies are the ones promoting this, now. More and more

you guys WANT to talk about the IWR as a context to try to bash Dean with. :shrug:

[sangh0]

31. Turnabout is a bitch

huh?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. He shouldn't have made it the cornerstone of his campaign- along with race

Very bad judgement to make those his "issues."

[isbister]

33. Its the misleading statements that...

...bother me the most. In last night's debate he listed the candidates that voted for the resolution and then made the misleading statement that they all supported the war at the time.

He frequently refers to the candidates that voted for the IWR as those who "voted for war" and it is not accurate. John Kerry, for example, did not vote for war and did not support the war bush gave us. He voted to give the President the authorization to use force against Iraq if bush the provisions in the resolution. Kerry said at the time of the vote that he would speak out if bush did not do so and he has been speaking out since well before the war. Kerry also said at the time of the vote that he believed the President had the authority to use the military to protect the national security of the US and that he did not need the resolution to invade Iraq if he, the President, saw the security was threatened (which is what bush ended up citing as one of his reasons for invading)

Maybe they average American has never read the resolution or read it so long ago that they don't remember what it said but Dean does (and if he doesn't he shouldn't be speaking about it).

It is misleading for Dean to:

A) Group the candidates all in one prowar, anything bush says is okay category, especially when there are those that felt/feel the exact same way as he does/did... inspectors needed to be in Iraq to be sure about WMD and Saddam (and the UN) needed to know the US was serious about this

B) Insinuate the IWR was a vote for the war we ended up getting. Dean often puts forth that bush lied about evidence, about the war etc. He knows what the resolution said (or he should). He knows bush lied when he said that all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, Iraq was connected to 9/11 terrorists and that Iraq threatened our national security and that bush used this (in writing, as per the resolution) as his "official" reasons for invading Iraq.

C) In Kerry's case, Dean knows his position on the war and has since before the war, they've been on the same stump making speeches for a long time now, yet it is more beneficial for him to mislead about the matter, to mislead about Kerry, to gain votes.

So, it is a wedge issue because Dean chose to use it as one. Instead of placing the blame for the war on bush, he's misled the many in the public into believing that 1) all of the candidates that voted for the IWR resolution believed in bush's "invade other countries when it feels good" policy and 2) bush followed the resolution.

If you're a Dean supporter, write him and demand that he stop misleading the public, come clean about the IWR and demand that he put the blame for the Iraq War squarely on the shoulders of the only candidate in the race that had a vote "for the war" George W. Bush.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. I loved it when he said "I was the ONLY one -- except Dennis, and Al

and Carol, they were against it too."

Now we understand some of his gaffes: he doesn't know what "only" means.

[maddezmom]

42. LOL

:)

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. He also said last night

after being asked about his caucus statement and his lack of hiring AA while goevernor for 5 terms..."I think people are tired of debating who said what and when and who did what when." He never did answer the question. We'll see Howard. Since HE is the one who has been attacking all of the other candidates about the very thing he NOW says...people are tired of.

He's right. I'm very tired of his crap.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

52. wtf?? "People are tired of debating who said what when and who did",

What are we supposed to do during the primaries - play tiddily-winks and make small talk? He'd like that wouldn't he...

[thebigthink]

43. RP: On a scale of 1 to 5...

...where 1 is strongly opposed and 5 means strongly supported, here's how I would have to rank the positions of all the candidates on Iraq at the time the resolution was passed, based on their public statements at that time.

5. Lieberman
4. Dean*
3. Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry
2. Graham
1. Kucinich

* The reason I rank Dean a little higher than than most of the others, even though their basic positions were all nearly identical, is that Dean was the only one I ever heard tossing around deadlines and ultimatums.

Sample Statements

Lieberman

"Mr. President, for more than eleven years now, since the early spring of 1991, I have supported the use of military force to disarm Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, since the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998, that has been the law of our land. Therefore, I am fully supportive of such military action now."

-- Lieberman Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Sept. 13, 2002
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/13/senatorj.html

Dean

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

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

"Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying 'If you don't do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.'"

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

Clark

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provide strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

-- Clark statement before the House Armed Services Committee, Sept. 26, 2002
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

Edwards

"We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so."

-- Edwards Senate Floor Statement on Iraq, Oct. 10, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html

Gephardt

"I have said for a long time that Iraq is a problem. It presents a problem after 9/11 that it did not before, and we should deal with it diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. And I think this resolution does that."

Gephardt on PBS Newshour, Oct. 2, 2002
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/bkgdiraq_10-2.html

Kerry

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

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


Graham and Kucinich

Graham and Kucinich both voted against the resolution, Graham because he was on the Senate intelligence committee and had access to classified information the others didn't have that undermined the entire premise of the Bush administration's case. Bob's out of the race now of course, and in any case he voted against the resolution for purely practical reasons.

If want to support someone who opposed the whole idea on principle, you have exactly one choice and that is Dennis Kucinich. I would have to respect anyone who made that choice even though I might disagree on practical terms. If you can't bring yourself to make that choice (on practical terms), I can understand that completely too, but for crying out loud stop deluding yourself and don't let anyone con you. We've got a pretty damned good field of candidates here. Pick one for a real reason (or better yet, several good reasons) and let's go win this thing.

[isbister]

44. Excellent post, shouldn't be burried here

I'd take Graham out, since he's home

5. Lieberman
4. Dean
3. Clark
4. Edwards
3. Gephardt
2. Kerry
1. Kucinich

Dean's attacking after 60 days was clearly second onlt to Lieberman's let's go now.

You know what, that exactly how I see them left(1) to right(5), although Clark and Dean could flip back and forth on issues.

[blm]

45. This should have its own thread. GREAT POST.

Pure logic always shows Dean to be the deceiving candidate on this issue.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

53. Dean's many flip-flops on Iraq

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

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.



http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

Opposed, with occasional tics: in August 2002, said he would support unilateral action if convinced Iraq had usable WMDs (source: Slate.com), a position he repeated in January 2003 (source: Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03, no longer online);

in February said unilateral action could become "unavoidable," although, to his credit, he preferred UN intervention and was skeptical of Colin Powell's case (source: Salon.com);

in March, demurred in conservative South Carolina that "it's hard to criticize the President when you've got troops in the field" (source: The State); shortly thereafter resumed vocal opposition, maintained to the present (source: DeanforAmerica.com)

[KittyWampus]

54. Thanks, And It's Worth Noting Dean Is Now Touting His "Opposition"

to the Iraq War again, as of yesterday ... Monday.

He doesn't want to be a pincushion.

[sangh0]

55. More proof of Dean's dishonesty

He continues to claim that he's the only Dem candidate that opposed an invasion of Iraq from the start, but Kerry's statement (see below) makes it clear that Kerry did NOT support an invasion, while Dean most certainly DID support a unilateral invasion.

"Kerry

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

[blm]

56. Posting at other sites.

I really urge you to start a thread based on this post. It really is pure logic.

[sangh0]

59. I 2nd the suggestion

Good post

[curse10]

48. Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

Everyday it's something new. Maybe he should just keep his damn mouth shut.

[retyred]

57. Your not saying dean flip-flopped again....are you?

issue non-issue
" Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

[maddezmom]

60. and now has a new ad in Iowa

so is it important or not?