How do you feel about Kerry again attacking the UN?

[TLM]

Poll question: How do you feel about Kerry again attacking the UN?

Once again Kerry has attacked the UN as a way to take shots at Dean.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000911.html

"He (Dean) stated that, as President he would have acted in Iraq “had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force” – implying that he would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."

This is the same attack Kerry's campaign made on Dean back in Feb of this year when Dean was sayign we needed UN support for Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[aquart]

1. So Kerry's position on the UN is essentially George's?

The PNAC position? America is entitled to go it alone and everyone else should just follow?

In that case, he shouldn't have mortgaged his house.

[TLM]

4. THat's just it... I do not even really think that's his position...

but he just assumes that position to launch a few cheap shots at Dean.

Then the hypocrite goes right back to saying...


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy

By involving NATO, troops from other countries, and the United Nations, Senator Kerry believes that we can best achieve our goal of helping the Iraqi people to create a stable and democratic Iraq, while reducing the burden on our military and making America more secure by increasing our ability to combat terrorism.

[AWD]

7. Didn't you get the memo???

The week of the IWR vote was "opposite week". Kerry voted AGAINST the war, but since he was playing opposites, it went down as a Yes vote.

At least that's the excuse 2 weeks ago. Now he likes the vote again!

Say, they renamed French Toast to Freedom Toast. I wonder if Kerry should rename waffles after himself?

[WiseMen]

11. Kerry is referencing FUNDAMENTAL U.S. POLICY. CARTER, CLINTION, BUSH

Bushes crime is that his action was not based on true national
self-defence and he went to war not as a "last resort."

[TLM]

13. Kerry says seeking UN support is giving veto power over America’s security

to france and russia. His quotes are right there and he has said it more than once.

Kerry attacks the idea of seeking UN support when Dean suggests it... but then turns around and says the same thing himself. He's a dishonest hypocrite.


By involving NATO, troops from other countries, and the United Nations, Senator Kerry believes that we can best achieve our goal of helping the Iraqi people to create a stable and democratic Iraq, while reducing the burden on our military and making America more secure by increasing our ability to combat terrorism.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Every Democratic President going back to President Roosevelt

would take exception with Kerry about his views on the UN and collective security, the keystone of the Unite Nations.

[WiseMen]

24. Is this DEAN CAMPAIGN SLIME? Kerry Defined the Policy Dean Missconstrued

It is the same policy enunciated by Clark etc.

The issue is Dean's missuse of language due to his lack
of experienc. But with potentially disastrous consequences if
he were President.

[TLM]

25. Dean is not missconstruing anything. I am quoting Kerry and his campaign

Kerry and his campaign have made the same statment attacking the UN in order to attack Dean for saying he'd seek UN support for actions in Iraq.

At least twice now the Kerry camp has said that seeking UN support is, giving "nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."

Why is Kerry insulting our allies in order to atack Dean? Is Kerry really that shortsighted... or just that desperate?


These are Kerry's own words... not Dean's.


http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000911.html

"He (Dean) stated that, as President he would have acted in Iraq “had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force” – implying that he would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."

This is the same attack Kerry's campaign made on Dean back in Feb of this year when Dean was sayign we needed UN support for Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[liberalpragmatist]

27. Kerry NEVER SAID he'd NEVER Seek UN Support

I'm not going to stick around too long b/c this is idiotic flame-bait. Nor am I attacking Dean.

Kerry has ALWAYS said we should try for UN support -- that's a point he has ALWAYS emphasized and ALWAYS maintained, and he harshly cricized Bush for abandoning the UN.

Kerry was responding purely to Dean's remarks that he would ONLY have gone to war IF the UN said so -- that's a complete reversal of all U.S. policy, including ALL the Democrats -- Clinton, Gore, Carter, Kennedy, etc. No U.S. Administration has EVER said that it will ONLY go to war if the UN allows it. All that Kerry is saying is that he would not rule out going to war if the UN still said no -- the U.S. should fight when it needs to fight, regardless of whether the UN says yes or not. However, he also stresses that we should always seek UN support and work with other govt.'s, abandoning them only as a last resort.

I know only too well that most likely you're just going to dispute this, and ignore what I've said, and flame me with some other post. That said, if you don't, that's nice of you, and thank you -- I'd appreciate that very much.

[TLM]

28. Kerry said he'd seek UN support, then attacked Dean for saying the same

"Kerry has ALWAYS said we should try for UN support"

Except when he was attacking Dean for saying we should seek UN support before going into Iraq, saying that doing so “would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."


"Kerry was responding purely to Dean's remarks that he would ONLY have gone to war IF the UN said so"

That's not what Dean said... Dean said that if there was a real imminent threat to the US posed by Iraq, he would act even without the UN's support. However Dean said since Iraq did not pose such a threat, that he would not have gone into Iraq without UN support.

Unlike Kerry who feels that seeking UN support, “would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security," Dean feels that UN support was important and necessary.

[liberalpragmatist]

29. You're still misrepresenting his position

I know that Dean has since said that support for the Iraq War was needed from the UN since it wasn't necessary. That's what Kerry said too.

Kerry is discussing a previous statement in which Dean DID say that the US shouldn't act unless the UN approved. Now, since Dean has since elaborated, it IS a cheap shot. It's okay to criticize Kerry for taking a cheap shot, but don't mislead and misrepresent his position. The attack is a stupid attack, but the basis of it is not that Kerry does NOT support the UN -- the basis of his attack is that, according to Kerry, Dean would let the UN have the final say. His position has ALWAYS maintained a large UN role.

Do I disagree with his attack? Yes. Like I said, it's a cheap shot, b/c Dean no longer maintains that. But it's misleading of you to then say that Kerry doesn't support the UN -- that's false reasoning.

I don't want to get into an endless debate here, so I'll let you have the final word.

[TLM]

33. Dean NEVER maintained he wouldn't act on an imminent threat without the UN

Kerry took one line from a statement...as usual, ignored the part that directly contradicted his attack, and acted as if Dean said something which he never said.


Dean has always maintained that he would act to defend this nation form an imminent threat, even without the UN's support. However since Iraq never rose to that level of threat, Dean says he'd have wanted UN support before acting in Iraq.

It is just like when Dean said we should not make policy based on might makes right because we would not always have the strongest military... and Kerry lied, saying that Dean was advocating the determination of our military.

This is all Kerry seems to be able to do… and that’s why he’s now polling in single digits.

[liberalpragmatist]

36. fine -- though I'm a Kerry supporter, I'll admit that's a legit criticism

My quarrel is with you saying that Kerry is bashing the UN and acting like * regarding the UN -- that's a gross misrepresentation and isn't backed up by any facts.

The last post, however, was legit, and I'll accept that. Just don't say that Kerry's trying to disregard the UN, b/c that's totally not true.

[TLM]

37. Hey listen it doesn;t just piss em off as a Dean supporter.

I liked Kerry... he was my number 2 or number 3 guy. But he seems to be determined to fuck up any support I may have had for him with one cheap ass stunt after another.

I do not think Kerry acted towards the UN as badly as Bush has... but he sure as hell hasn't helped the situation.


Kerry could be a great man and a great leader if he would just put his career second and his heart first.

[drfemoe]

30. Isn't this the objection

the UN had in the first place? They wanted to prevent an 'illegal war'. Preventing illegal warfare would appear to be in the interest of national security. If there was a genuine threat to our national security, I suspect the UN (at least at one time) would have fully supported military action. Remember the little boy who cried 'wolf'?

Bushes crime is that his action was not based on true national
self-defence and he went to war not as a "last resort."

[mzmolly]

45. It is this week, last week he felt strongly the opposite

:shrug:

[TLM]

2. Frankly I could more easily deal with Kerry's UN position...

If he was at least somewhat consistent. But it seems that whenever Dean talks about the UN and getting UN support, Kerry attacks him like he's giving up American choice in protecting our nation.

Not only is that a bullshit attack since Dean has said over and over if there was in fact a real imminent threat to the US he would act without the UN, but Kerry keeps switching positions. First he attacks Dean for wanting UN support in Iraq, then he says that we need to get UN support in Iraq. Then he goes right back to attacking Dean for saying we need UN support, as if seeking UN support means turning over all our national security decisions to France.

Oh and nice Bush style shot at our allies there Kerry... joining in on the repuke French bashing to try and jump start your dead campaign is yet another example of why democrats are not supporting your ass.

[Padraig18]

3. Which UN?

The one he hates when he wants to slam Howard Dean, or the one he loves when he's nuancing his IWR vote?

[SEAburb]

5. Neither Dean or Kerry are making any sense

Dean would attack Iraq with UN approval, even though Iraq wasn't a threat to any nation.

And Kerry's position only makes sense if Iraq was an eminent threat to the US.

I hope they aren't going to try to out do Bush on this issue.

[TLM]

6. "even though Iraq wasn't a threat to any nation" HUH!?!?!

Dean said he'd support action to disarm Iraq though the UN specifically because they were a threat to the region... just not to the US.

Which is position I think most everybody supports.

[SEAburb]

18. Did you miss the fact that inspections worked

Iraq's army was worthless and weak. What country were they a threat to.

[TLM]

19. Well wothless and weak enough to kill almost 500 of our boys so far

and to injure about 10,000.

I do agree with you that iraq was not the threat to anybody that Bush and Lieberman and Kerry tried to make them out to be.

However they were a threat to their neighbors... not a major threat. But they could have rolled some tanks into Kuwait or sent troops into Turkey and caused a problem.

And it was up to the UN to push Iraq to disarm... and had the UN found use of force necessary, Dean would have supported that effort.


That's a far cry from saying Dean supported attacking Iraq through the UN even if they were no threat to anybody.

[Scott Lee]

9. Dean's position is consistent, actually.

He has said inumerable times that he was ok with going to war against Iraq IF there was a certified case that Iraq was an imminent danger to the security of the United States (which it never was).

Kerry? Well, his position seems to change weekly so let's ask him on Monday.

[Scott Lee]

8. Kerry, Bushhole and the extreme right xenophobes agree on the UN!

I think that about says it all.

[TLM]

10. For some reason Kerry's supporters seem awful quiet on this

Don;t they support their candidate's relentless attacks on the UN in order to attack Howard Dean... and don't they love how Kerry then flip flops back to wanting the UN's support?

[Scott Lee]

14. My guess is they're doing a spin-huddle as we speak...

Hang on to your chair as the good Senator sticks his finger in the wind on this one...

[TLM]

16. I bet you're right.... somewhat

I also suspect that some Kerry supporters are pissed off to see Kerry saying this again. They've been trying to ignore the comments from Feb, and now they're back to slap them in the face again with Kerry's attacks on UN support.

[TLM]

12. So far 3 votes for UN is irrelevant and support = loss of US sovereignty

Would you folks care to explain why you feel this way... and how you feel when Kerry contradicts his attacks on Dean for wanting UN support with his own hypocritical call for UN support?

By involving NATO, troops from other countries, and the United Nations, Senator Kerry believes that we can best achieve our goal of helping the Iraqi people to create a stable and democratic Iraq, while reducing the burden on our military and making America more secure by increasing our ability to combat terrorism.

[WiseMen]

15. Entirely Phony Post. Typical Straw Man. Kerry states Clinton Policy

Do you have any knowledge of the nature of U.N. debate and
authorization (or lack therof) of action in Bosnia and Kosovo by
Clinton?

[TLM]

17. Please cite where clinton said that seeking UN support for military action

"would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."


Oh after a quick search on Clinton's position on the UN and Iraq I found that Clitnon ALSO called for getting UN support for action in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/index.html


LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he hopes President Bush gets the support of the United Nations before undertaking any military action against Iraq, but he said international law doesn't require that he do so.

In an exclusive interview Thursday on CNN's "Larry King Live," the former president said he sees a good possibility that the international community will unite to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"I still hope the United Nations can act together on this, and I still think there's a chance we can, and there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," Clinton said.

[Scott Lee]

20. Clinton policy on Iraq invasion and occupation?

Come again?

[TLM]

26. Yeah apparently Clinton was anti-UN and Kerry is just following him...

at elast that seems to be the current desperate dishonest spin to cover for Kerry's hypocritical attacks on the UN and Dean for wanting their support in Iraq.


See my post above... I found that Clinton said pretty much the same thing Dean did about Iraq, that we should get work hard to get UN support.

So the idea that Clinton is somehow anti-UN is just flat out false.

[drfemoe]

21. Kerry should criticize Dean

at every opportunity. Why change a losing campaign strategy now?

[TLM]

23. You are right...maybe Kerry's campaign wil get a bounce

when they finaly hit bottom.

[sleipnir]

31. I'm just sick of Kerry...period.

I've had it with him, it's high time for him to bow out and stop slandering candidates that actually have a chance to win the nomination. When will you leave Mr. Kerry?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[TLM]

34. Kerry did attack the UN

He flat out said that seeking UN support is giving veto power to France, and Russia etc. Kerry is attacking the UN and doing so to attack Dean for saying we should get UN support.

How pathetic are Kerry supporters getting when they have to make up shit all the time to defend Kerry blatant hypocrisy… like claiming Clinton was anti-UN.


"Next time Dean says anything about wanting to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, I am going to post a thread saying that Dean is attacking the middle class again. How would you like that Dean supporter*"


The problem is that Kerry seems to agree with Bush on those tax cuts... while Dean supports the fiscally resposnable position. Dean's position is ultamatly more helpful to the middle class... Kerry's position helps only Kerry and Bush.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

50. Permission does not EQUAL diplomacy

Again, words have real meanings that are specific and in the goddamn dictionary. Safer doesn't MEAN safe. Permission does not mean engaging the UN diplomatically. Permission MEANS you don't act without it. The U.S. does not get PERMISSION from anybody to do anything, never has, never will. We do however, willingly work with other nations for their support and cooperation.

Words matter. I've been saying that around here ever since "evenhanded". Which actually is a definitive policy in the Middle East. Not just a random word.

[TLM]

52. You might have a point if Dean had said permission both times...

that Kerry made this same attack. But alas Dean did not.

Kerry did not make his comment on the permission quote last time. Last time he said it about just seeking support from the UN beforehand. That's why I quoted both instances... to show Kerry makes this attack whenever Dean speaks of seeking UN support regarding Iraq.

Also as I explained above... Dean has said often that were there a real threat from Iraq to the US he would act without the UN. However he feels we should not have acted without the UN in Iraq since the threat was not at the level that Bush and Kerry say it was. There was no threat to US security, despite Kerry mouthing the repuke argument otherwise in order to attack Dean .

Kerry attacked both times saying Dean wanted to give the UN veto power over decisions to protect US security, even though Kerry has admitted that Iraq posed no such threat to American security... so exactly what would they veto? Not only did Kerry barf up the republican party line on Iraq being a threat to American security in order to attack Dean, but this time he specifically joined in the repuke France bashing.

[sandnsea]

56. Why both times?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3718010/

Dean said it. He says all kinds of goddamn goofy things. Words have specific meanings. He needs to be called on it when he says stupid shit. Whatever kind of stupid shit it is. You can't have some country holding the U.S. to some harmful agreement because Howard "misspoke".

And French bashing? Where do you get that from?

[TLM]

57. What harmful agreement....

There was no threat to US security posed by Saddam and Iraq. So seekign Un support for action in Iraq would not allow any veto of decisions regardign american security, sicne the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with american security.

As I said it is a shame to see so called dems mouthing the repuke lie that Iraq was a threat to the US in order to prop up attacks on Dean for wanting UN support.

French bashing... lumping france in with China and russia and attackign the Un as if somehow seeking their support would undermine US security... Kerry's own little axis of evil I suppose.

[sandnsea]

60. PERMISSION

The word in question is permission.

My children ask me for permission. I DO NOT ask my husband for permission. I ask for his support, cooperation, assistance. I argue, negotiate, debate to get that support, cooperation, assistance. But in the end, I make up my own mind. I DO NOT need his PERMISSION to do anything.

Do you get the difference?

And the French bashing is just reaching. He was not bashing the French. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

35. It's not all Dean supporters -- just those like TLM...

[cindyw]

39. point taken. I thought I was the only one who could see this person's

Dean supporter*ness.

[Scott Lee]

44. Hey don't blame TLM for posting facts. Blame Kerry for his mouth.

And I might add, his ill informed and increasingly rightwing mouth. If I were you Kerry supporters I'd be leaning on him to explain himself here or apologize. I've never heard a real liberal democrat express sentiments like that on the UN.

[TLM]

53. They can not do that scott... so they instead attack me personaly

because Kerry's attacks on teh UN and attacks on Dean for wanting UN support can't be defended.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Scott Lee]

41. Does it bother you that Kerry parrots rightwingers regarding the UN?

It would bother the living shit right out of me if I were a supporter of his. Think about it. Kerry's comments about equivocating UN cooperation and sanction with ceding US sovereignty to the UN body is nothing short of some of the most outrageous tinfoil hat wearing rightwing hate speech I've ever heard. If you doubt me, go over to FR or a rightwing extremist board of your choice and bring up how great the UN is. Report back to us what happens, k?

In the meantime, I'd do some soul searching on my candidate about now, if I were you. Kerry's UN comments have made this a whoooole new ball game.

[cindyw]

42. Sorry you are ignored.

:shrug:

[clarknyc]

48. That's special

You ignored your own post...

[Egnever]

43. OMG your kiding right?

this whole friggin forum is full of outright lies about all of our candidates.

And kerry comes out with a lot of em all by himself about Dean. this just hapens to be one example where one of his lies about Dean hapened to step all over his own positions.

[cindyw]

47. Name the lie about Dean.

Not an interpretation wither. Give me a quote and how this is a lie. Not a columnists opinion either.

[TLM]

55. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#12821

[RetroLounge]

46. Uhm, wake up and smell the bias...

but it's not a DU bias, or a board bias. It's personal.

Everyone here has a bias, and an agenda.

and should *you* see this as proof, blah, blah, blah, so what?

[cindyw]

49. Last time I checked there was a boat load of Clark supporters here.

If the mods have a Dean bias. That is a problem.

[TLM]

54. The quotes are right there...and they are from KERRY.

He said that shit... not me.

THe big lie Kerry is telling here is that Iraq was a threat to US security. By saying Dean is handing over veto power on US security decisions by seeking UN support before acting in Iraq, Kerry is saying that the actions in Iraq were based on US security. Yet even Kerry has admitted there was no such threat to the US posed by Iraq... of course he's contradicted that as well. But hey what position has Kerry ever held that he has not contradicted?

The other lie is in misrepresenting the fact Dean made it very clear that had Iraq posed a threat to the US, he would act without the UN to defend against such a threat. However because Iraq posed no threat to US security, Dean felt it should be a matter for the UN. Dean said that he would support the UN if they took action against Iraq.

However Kerry ignores that and dishonestly acts as if Dean said that he would not act under any circumstances at all without the UN, so that he can attack Dean for giving up american control over our own security decisions. Not only it that bullshit, Kerry has to prop it up with more bullshit about the decision to attack iraq having anything to do with US security, which is the Bush crew's argument. SO not only does he lie about what Dean said, he lies about the premise of his own fucking attack by mouthing the Bush cover story as if it were true.

More right wing shit arguments from Kerry to attack Dean and to attack the UN.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000911.html

"He (Dean) stated that, as President he would have acted in Iraq “had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force” – implying that he would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."

This is the same attack Kerry's campaign made on Dean back in Feb of this year when Dean was sayign we needed UN support for Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. I think Kerry is advocating for the commander and Thief very effectively

A few more days of this rah rah for the Iraq war and Bush should win in 2004 quite handily.

[TLM]

58. Yeah i am disturbed by the number of Kerry supporters

Who are backing up Bush lie that Iraq was a threat to the US in order to prop up these attacks on Dean.

[sandnsea]

59. This should be locked

According to DU rules that have been applied on other threads today, the title of the thread does not match the content of the link.

[Moderator]

61. I am locking this thread...

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

and this thread has degenerated into a flame war.


Thanks,
DU Moderator