Daily Howler takes on Dean's claim of being against the war from the begin

[cindyw]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011404.shtml

I for one find Daily Howler a little more credible than Saleton. IMHO all the candidates, except Lieberman took a stand on war as a last resort. The article is also about Clark, but I left him out of this topic because he is not making claims that he was the Only one to stand up to Bush. Obviously when this war started Dean was against it, but then again, so was Kerry.

snip...

ATTACK ON ALLEGED FAKE ATTACK: We met Will Saletan some years ago, and we’re sure that he’s a superlative guy. But how bizarre is our public discourse? Saletan reviewed the last Dem debate for Slate. Here’s his account of what he termed the “fakest attack” from the session:...Fakest attack: Kerry. “Gov. Dean has had it both ways . On October 6, five days before we voted in the Senate, Gov. Dean took a public position supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution, which gave authority to the president of the United States to go to war if he found that the diplomatic effort had been exhausted and all he had to do was write a letter.” (Are you kidding? Dean bet his whole campaign on opposition to the war. If the postwar had gone smoothly, Kerry would have called Dean soft on Saddam. In fact, Kerry has called him that. Kerry’s the flipper.)
“Kerry’s the flipper,” Saletan said—without making the slightest attempt to evaluate the solon’s assertion.

Is Kerry’s complaint about Dean on-target? In fact, on October 5, 2002, Dean did “take a public position supporting the Biden-Lugar resolution” (see Des Moines Register excerpt, below). And to all appearances, that proposed resolution did “give Bush authority to go to war if he found that the diplomatic effort had been exhausted.” Here’s how David Rosenbaum described the measure in the October 6 New York Times:
ROSENBAUM (10/6/02): Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and thus the Democrats’ ex officio spokesman in the Senate on foreign policy, stands somewhere between the hawks and the doves.

Just how different was Biden-Lugar? David Firestone reported, then let you decide:
FIRESTONE (10/1/02): Instead of citing only the national security interests of the United States, as the White House resolution does, would emphasize the defense needs of the United States and its allies.

It would also require the administration to notify Congress within 30 days of an invasion of the degree of assistance from other countries and the status of plans to rebuild Iraq, with further reports required every 60 days. The White House had agreed to report every 90 days.
Every 60 days, not 90! To be honest, it doesn’t sound all that tough.

There seems to be no question that Dean supported Biden-Lugar. And for weeks now, Kerry has claimed that Biden-Lugar would have let Bush go to war in Iraq, just as the final resolution did. But the press corps has made no attempt to examine this belated complaint. Saletan simply dismisses the claim without attempting to sort it out. “Dean bet his whole campaign on opposition to the war?” That is precisely Kerry’s point! Kerry says that Dean favored a resolution that would have let Bush go to war. Shouldn’t someone see if that statement is accurate? Not in this press corps—a corps which now seems to base all its judgments on what sweater or duck boots hopefuls wear.

snip..

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011404.shtml

[LuminousX]

1. I guess I have to hate Somersby now, god dangit

Too many casualties.

[cindyw]

2. Isn't he right though?

n/t

[LuminousX]

5. See my post below...

Somersby is 99.9% right. I've never argued this point that Dean would have supported a resolution that would have ended in similar results, though he wasn't in congress and wasn't fully aware of all the pesky details regarding the legislation, what clauses were being added and subtracted, etc. He would have been better off not saying anything at all about the legislative aspects. He didn't and is tied to supporting Biden-Lugar.

Trying to make this hurt him, though, is pointless. It won't. As I said below, Dean will be remembered as the voice in the wilderness.

[LandOLincoln]

34. Nice.

"I've never argued this point that Dean would have supported a resolution that would have ended in similar results, though he wasn't in congress and wasn't fully aware of all the pesky details regarding the legislation, what clauses were being added and subtracted, etc."

Please remember this the next time your guy accuses my guy--that would be the General, of course--of flip-flopping on the war,'kay?

Thanks ever so.

[blm]

36. Lum can take a hit.

He's definitely one of the more open-minded and realistic folks around.

[LuminousX]

3. I wonder if anybody cares at this point since he is considered anti-IW

by so many.

His campaign lives or dies by how well things are in Iraq in November 2004. So no matter what was supported or not supported at the beginning of the war, what will be remembered was he was the person who was the voice in the wilderness who gathered so many of us who felt orphaned by the leaders we were relying upon to stop Bush.

[BootinUp]

7. Good point

It will take a lot of screaming to change the perception at this point.

[blm]

8. You can't build a campaign based on a lie, LX.

Not Democrats. This is a BIG lie and it WILL matter, especially when Rove is shoving Dean's words down our throats in ad after ad after ad. Dems will be cast as the craven opportunists who perpetuated the lies for Dean.

He ain't worth it.

Alot of us don't want to go off that cliff with you, LX.

[LuminousX]

Rove wants an anti-war candidate

What more can I say.

[cindyw]

14. Rove would portray Gephardt as anti-war if he had to.

n/t

[blm]

16. No. They do better smearing the whole party as LIARS.

Who would trust someone with the country who was so willing to deceive his OWN SUPPORTERS?

[KoKo]

9. I think the focus might be better put on he was the first along with

Kucinich to say it was WRONG! Kucinich voted against IWR, but Dean then came out opposing the IWR and WAR.

What other candidates still standing came out that early? Dean spoke up for those of us who took time out to make signs and stand on the streets weekend after weekend, to go to Washington and all over and who attended candlelight vigils once the bombing started. (Oh and I forgot about e-mailing the UN until 2:00 a.m. one night and all those phones/faxes to our Senate House Reps.

So, for some of us Dean/Kucinich are the Candidates who heard our voice.

AND...Dean was the first to say "Gore was our Real President." That meant everything to those of us living under this cloud for over two years!

That's what it's about. And, I love Daily Howler, but read it with a grain of salt just as I read everything else. It's an interesting article...but I stated what many of us Dean/Kucinich supporters feel about both issues.

[cindyw]

15. I don't see what Dean did for you except make speeches just like Gore and

Kerry. It was the media that gave the anti-war mantle to Dean. He just ran with it when it started having a positive effect on his campaign. "Dean spoke up for those of us who took time out to make signs and stand on the streets weekend after weekend, to go to Washington and all over and who attended candlelight vigils once the bombing started. (Oh and I forgot about e-mailing the UN until 2:00 a.m. one night and all those phones/faxes to our Senate House Reps."

By the time you were doing these things, Kerry was speaking out against the coming war based on the conditions that he stated would make him not support the war. I too was doing those things and I can still see that the Congress was lied to and that Kerry would not have started that war. I don't agree with the vote cast, but I agree with what he said. he did not support the war as early as January.

The main argument I have heard is that Kerry should not have given authority to the President, but given the fact that Dean would have too, I don't see where this argument does Dean any favors.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. A sampling of Dean and Kerry statements on Iraq

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html


In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Kerry: "If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. 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." http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html









And compare their stances here:

Kerry: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States"
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own Regime Change

Kerry: "This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush



After all Kerry was learning about speaking out during wartime while Dean was learning about skiing bumps.

[blm]

20. And almost EVERY Kucinich supporter would disagree with you.

They are the ones who saw the deception Dean was playing on sincere people who were against this war. THEY are the ones pissed off that Dean LIED about his pro use of force stance to garner support that RIGHTFULLY belonged to Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis deserved the millions of dollars that so many were duped into sending to the "liberal, antiwar candidate Dean."

Dennis deserved the attention on HIS voice. His HONEST voice against the war.

Dean is a jerk. He doesn't deserve to be on the same stage as Kucinich.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Yes, and not only has Dennis Kucinich CONSISTENTLY

opposed the war and the occupation and never supported any measure (IWR or Biden-Lugar) to give Bush the power to invade Iraq, he participated in at least one of the peace marches, just as he demonstrated against so-called "free trade" and the WTO in Seattle and elsewhere. Howard Dean didn't attend any peace marches in 2003. (I know of no evidence or even a claim that he ever marched for peace or civil rights in the sixties and seventies, either. Hell, Joe LEIBERMAN marched for civil rights in the South in 1963!)

Howard Dean didn't have to cast a vote on IWR, either.

Who is the ONLY candidate who voted "NO" on IWR? Dennis Kucinich

Who is the ONLY candidate who has spoken out since February of 2002 -- two years next month!!! -- against invading Iraq, occupying Iraq? Kucinich

Who is the ONLY candidate who has sued George W. Bush in an effort to stop the war? Dennis

Dean has lied and the media has lied about Dean and ignored Kucinich in order to build up Dean's candidacy. It never ceases to amaze me that people at DU DON'T KNOW this. I thought people here knew better than to trust the media whores. It's immensely frustrating.

[blm]

39. Hopefully. more will hear the truth.

The other candidates deserve the truth to be told, especially Dennis and his supporters.

[goodhue]

48. amen!

I couldn't have put it better myself. And then Dean supporters act suprised when Kucinich supporters don't like their guy.

[BurtWorm]

21. I don't think the Daily Howler story is about Dean and the war

but about how clueless the press is in reporting about Dean and the war. There were differences between IWR and Biden-Lugar that boil down to this: IWR gave Bush responsibility to carry out the war, at his discretion, for whatever reason, as he saw fit. B-L required him to exhaust diplomatic avenues to resolve the WMD issue, and then gave him permission to go to war if diplomacy failed, and then only to disarm Saddam if a threat was found to be imminent. In other words, IWR put Bush in charge; B-L put Congress in charge.

This is also from today's Daily Howler:

DEAN SPEAKS: Here is the relevant part of Beaumont Thomas’ report in the October 6 Des Moines Register. Thomas refers to Dean’s appearance at the previous evening’s Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. Given the trivia being flogged in the press, surely this topic deserves more attention than it has gotten so far:

THOMAS: Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. That resolution puts more emphasis on diplomacy and specifies that force be used only for disarmament purposes.

“It’s conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,” Dean told reporters before the dinner.

“The greater fear that I have is that the president has never said what the truth is: that if we go into Iraq, we will be there for 10 years,” he said at the dinner, noting that Bush hasn’t outlined an exit strategy.

...

Now tell me, does that sound like someone in favor of Bush's war?

[blm]

23. Wrong, Burt.

Bush didn't have to come back to Congress. All he had to do was send a letter of determination that force was needed to the Speaker and the Pres pro tem of the Senate.

IWR had Bush at the UN, had inspectors back in, and expectations that all diplomatic means would be used first. Bush not fully complying with that was not the fault of those who voted for the resolution.

In fact, it was those who negotiated IWR who PREVENTED Bush from the blank check he wanted - No UN presentation, no show of evidence, no weapons inspections, and further extensions into Syria and Iran.

Dean took the sliver of difference and demagogued it. He reduced the debate to black and white terms, antiwar and prowar. He had to misrepresent his actual stance and the stance of the others to get away with it.

The press never really bothered to examine his claim. It seems many of his supporters didn't bother separating the rhetoric from the facts, either.

[Cocoa]

38. correct about not being about Dean

Somerby doesn't write about politicians, he writes about reporters, in this case Saletan.

I agree they've done a terrible job not examining the charges about Biden-Lugar.

Just one of many failings of the press this time around. The biggest one, imo, is their failure to look into Kucinich's plan for troop withdrawal.

[blm]

41. On that, Burt was right. It was about the press

and its failure to examine Dean's actual record on an issue he was using to beat on the others.

Lazy press or COMPLICIT press?

[goodhue]

49. complicit

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I like the way you ignore the substance and paint this idyllic picture.

A 'voice in the wilderness' who supported a resolution that would allow Bush to go to war and now ridicules his opponents for doing the same.

[cindyw]

13. I will not stop believing that integrity matters to people.

Take Clinton for example. It bothered me that Clinton had lied, but beside the fact that someone's sex life is none of our business, I could see past this failing because he did so much for our country. The family leave act alone rocked my world.

But in Dean's case, there is not enough in his background to see past a major failing. That failing being that he has lied about his positions in order to gain an advantage on his opponents.

Also, I admire that he was a voice in the wilderness for you, but he wasn't for me. For me Gore, Kerry and Clark did that. To some extent Byrd was too.

Who will make the best president is what matters to me. A man who lies for his own advantage and to the detriment of truly great men is not that person.

[BootinUp]

4. It was just a matter of time

but I admit I was worried for a awhile that nobody would examine this anti-war, anti-IWR thing.

[zulchzulu]

6. Dean's main log on the fire was how he was ALWAYS against the War

It turns out that he was lying. No surprise... But Dean will flail this lie until he is finally undone.

If you build your house of cards based on a lie, then you have only yourself to blame when it all comes tumbling down. Truth always prevails.

[mouse7]

10. Ewww...a few days that Dean might have considered a compromise

That means... Dean is... a statesman.

Spare me the theatrics... Dean tried to use the tiny bit of political capital he had built up as a candidate to try to influence the debate toward a better resolution, and the Gephardts and Kerry's of the world sold out that momentum by agreeing to support the IWR.

You've unearthed the fact that Dean is a reasonable man. DAMN HIM!

[blm]

18. No..this proves he lied when he attacked the others for IWR

and claimed he was always antiwar. Dean governed as a cautious, compromising centrist for 11 years. You really think he all of a sudden became an antiwar popuilist through an HONEST election year conversion?

[mouse7]

24. No.. it proves he considered a compromise for a week

Dean NEVER claimed he was always anti-war. You are building up a straw man to beat up on. Dean consistantly stated that he was for Persian Gulf I, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. He said that an imminent threat had never been proven by Bush in Iraq.

Everyone KNOWS Dean is a moderate but Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak. However, Dean is a moderate willing to stand up to right wing extremists. Kerry isn't even willing to stand up for his own votes in the 80's.

[blm]

27. No. I use the word always about THIS Iraq war.

I am well aware that Dean is a hawk in his real persona. He refused to stand against Reagan and Bush's illegal wars in Central America, even with all we have learned about them since then. He also said on hardball that Bush1 was "Excellent" on foreign policy. Bush1's foreign policy consisted of covert operations where war was encouraged and illegal arms were traded to prolong those wars.

Dean is a fraud.

[mouse7]

28. Kerry is the fraud in this race

Running around in a leather flight jacket when he served on a harbor boat. Distancing himself from a decade of his voting record. Calling himself anti-war when he voted for the IWR. Claiming he doesn't take special interest money, yet marrying into a 700 million dollar GOP dynasty. Missing way more than half his votes this Congress.

[blm]

31. Ridiculous. You have NO idea who Kerry is and what he has done for this

nation and the world.

When you can come back with just ONE name of another lawmaker who investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry, maybe you'll have a point. Good luck in your search.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. What a shameful litany of smears and personal attacks.

Let's see:

"Running around in a leather flight jacket when he served on a harbor boat."

Hey, the guy likes leather jackets:



that makes him a fraud? :eyes:

A harbor boat?

His ship returned to its Long Beach, Calif., port on June 6, 1968, the day that Robert F. Kennedy died from a gunshot wound he received on the previous night at a Los Angeles hotel. The antiwar protests were growing. But within five months Kerry was heading back to Vietnam, seeking to fulfill his officer commitment despite his growing misgivings about the war.

Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

" Distancing himself from a decade of his voting record. "

This is a real smear. Just what exactly are you accusing Kerry of doing and how does it make him 'a fraud'?



" Calling himself anti-war when he voted for the IWR."

Clearly false. You can disagree with Kerry about his vote, you can disagree with his opinion about how Bush has fucked up in Iraq, you can disagree with what he says we need to do now that we are there, but it is simply not true to say he is "Calling himself anti-war". Please show us where he "called himself anti-war".


"Claiming he doesn't take special interest money, yet marrying into a 700 million dollar GOP dynasty. "

Now Kerry is a fraud because he married his wife?


"Missing way more than half his votes this Congress. "

Kerry has been there for every vote that was close enough for his to matter. And he's been out spreading the word and rallying the faithful to beat Bush!

[blm]

47. Great response.

.

[HPLeft]

45. Here's My Favorite Quote from Howard

On Feb. 20 (a full 5 months after the IWR), Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Does Dean explain this one away like the athletes who claim that they were misquoted in their autobiographies?

The truth is that, all things being equal, Howard Dean was against an unnecessary unilateral attack against Iraq - as was John Kerry. But all things being real, Howard Dean was a candidate on the fence, willing to say or do anything to try and position himself on the "winning" side of this issue with regard to the Democratic Nomination. His transparency on this issue is shocking to me - but I guess you don't even need to be a good liar in America anymore. I guess if you just pump up the volume on your anger, you can fool those people who are already in a fit of rage.

[Clark4VotingRights]

11. When a candidate who's whole campaign is based on being anti war

It would help to have opposed the war.

Well, Dean still has fund raising. His other platform plank.

[mouse7]

25. He did oppose the Iraq war.

Dean opened the door to a compromise that was written but never introduced for a week.

[BootinUp]

26. Thats stretching it a bit

don't ya think?

There were many people advising against a rush to war. Problem they were in the minority.

[blm]

29. IWR adopted much of Biden-Lugar.

Dean's attacks on the others were completely disingenuous. If he had been in the Senate there is no doubt that the centrist Dean would have voted for the IWR. After all, he didn't tack left till AFTER the antiwar crowds grew.

[Fleshdancer]

19. This subject has been beaten to death here, but does anyone know...

what were the reports around that time regarding Biden-Lugar? I'm searching it myself and the first thing I've come across from that time period is this editorial from commondreams.org:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Mr. Gephardt -- who was joined by other centrist Democrats, including Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut -- claimed to have won important concessions from Mr. Bush, and waxed on about how "this should not be about politics." But the concessions he won were minor, and his actions appear to be driven by the political imperatives of the coming election.

The compromise language that Mr. Gephardt agreed to would authorize Mr. Bush to wage war for violation of any of the past United Nations' resolutions that Saddam Hussein is violating. Those resolutions include matters that do not justify war -- such as the requirement that Saddam pay reparations to Kuwait, and that he treat his citizens more democratically. A far better proposal by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., would limit the war authorization to enforcement of the resolutions requiring the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

(paragraphs omitted)

Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

[blm]

22. But that's where the Bushies get to hide behind Clinton's regime change

policy from 98. It was still in place and even Kucinich supported it as policy at the time. Of course, they were always hoping for diplomatic pressure resulting in regime change.

[John_H]

30. Somerby? That DLC shill!!

He's just like Carville, Phillips, O'Donnell. Why cant he be more like those fair journalists Tweety, Paula, and Russert and tell everyone that Dean is unstoppable?

[blm]

32. But Frank Luntz and Bill Bennett wouldn't lie to America would they?

Yep...add Howler to the list.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. In politics, "the company you keep" must be extended

to include "the media whores who give you good press."

If a candidate is getting good press from the media whores, you'd better be asking yourself "WHY?"


I sometimes disagree with Somerby (The Daily Howler) but I can't ever recall him being dishonest.

Dean has lied all along to get the anti-war vote.

[blm]

43. Thanks for the always clear head, DB DB.

.

[Karmadillo]

40. Bob Somerby is apparently one of the few journalists

to have ever read the Emperor's New Clothes.

[blm]

42. Same feeling I get.

;)

[Larkspur]

44. Sounds to me that Biden-Luger does fit into Dean's foreign policy views

Just how different was Biden-Lugar? David Firestone reported, then let you decide:
FIRESTONE (10/1/02): Instead of citing only the national security interests of the United States, as the White House resolution does, would emphasize the defense needs of the United States and its allies.

It would also require the administration to notify Congress within 30 days of an invasion of the degree of assistance from other countries and the status of plans to rebuild Iraq, with further reports required every 60 days. The White House had agreed to report every 90 days.
Every 60 days, not 90! To be honest, it doesn’t sound all that tough.

That looks a lot tougher than the IWR that Kerry vote for. No wonder Bush didn't want Biden-Luger. IWR only asked Bush to inform congress within 48 hours AFTER invasion, not 30 days BEFORE invasion.

And as Dean said, he supported Biden-Luger as a way to SLOW DOWN the rush to war. Even though Dean supported Biden Luger, he opposed Bush's rush to war.

[bread_and_roses]

50. "Within" in the sentence above

could be construed to mean before OR after. I have not read the full text of the B-L, so you may be speaking from a more informed perspective than the above quote, which does not state "before."

[lurk_no_more]

46. Biden-Lugar was not the IWR but it sure as hell wasn't against the war

To admit to supporting Biden-Lugar is to deny being against the war.

It is a lie.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”