Dean went negative on Kerry yesterday

[Zomby Woof]

Dean going negative is nothing new, but he attacked Kerry yesterday over Iraq. Now, what I find ironic here is that Dean just complained the other day that the media is who made him out as the anti-war candidate. Then I posted that Dean feeds the media that image. This story just vindicates me more:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0125dems25.html

"I would be deeply concerned about that kind of judgment in the White House," said Dean, a one-time front-runner struggling to overcome a reversal that has vaulted Kerry into first place in the New Hampshire polls.

Dean said Kerry opposed the first Persian Gulf War in Iraq in 1991 and supported the 2003 invasion, views contrary to his own. "I think my position has proven to be right twice," Dean added.

In rebuttal, a spokeswoman for Kerry predicted the remarks would backfire.

"When is Howard Dean going to realize that voters are tired of these same old angry attacks?" Stephanie Cutter asked. "Voters are looking for a steady hand, not a clenched fist."

[Terwilliger]

1. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark...

you're telling me there's a difference?

[Zomby Woof]

3. sure as hell is

[Terwilliger]

51. none of them are Kucinich?

Other than that, there's a basic sameness to all the other candidates (minus Sharpton)

[bearfartinthewoods]

37. Edwards has noot been negitive. he had to defend himself once

against a dean lie but i think that's been it.

[Meldread]

47. That's not true.

Edwards is just very, very, clever. Yesterday at the dinner he attacked Dean. I forget his exact words, but he didn't mention him -- but anyone who has watched Dean closely knew it was an attack against him. He said something like, "Unlike some who want to only speak to certain groups about racism I believe that we need to speak to all Americans."

It was a strike against Dean, but it was very clever how Edwards worded it. It's not an exact quote but it said about the same thing. Anyone who is following Dean closely and listening to him talk; he explains how he thinks the race thing should be handled. It makes sense and is comprehensive. The Edwards statement was misleading.

It's hard to classify it as an attack when it was indirect, even though it was obvious who he was talking about, and it the words in and of themselves weren't an attack per say -- it's what they imply. However, subconsciously any one who listens to Howard Dean after hearing that are going to remember Edward's speech.

[curse10]

2. Dean's been negative from the get-go

eom

[NashVegas]

7. I Guessed You Missed the Debate

One of the first ones, maybe back in November? When Kerry's campaign FAXED a negative Dean story & question so their candidate could stand up and say 'gotcha' on live TV.

Kerry's campaign can dish it out but loves to whine whine whine when it comes back at ya.

[cindyw]

11. Oh my God. I think that has been beat to death here.

ALL the campaign do what the Kerry camp did during the debates. CNN just decided to use one to damage Dean and Kerry. It was sensationalistic journalism. There was no reason for the Kerry camp to think that this would have been read in the debate. Just as no campaign could have expected it.

[creativelcro]

22. Kerry's been plagiarizing Dean for the last several weeks....

So, now, when Kerry is delivered some of his own medicine things are a problem?

[curse10]

63. Proof?

That's right! You don't have any!

[Melodybe]

29. I can remember not too long ago, Sen. Kerry being told the interview was

suppose to be about him not Gov. Dean. Hello, did you not watch half of those earlier debates where all Kerry did was go after Dean? How quickly we forget. Convenient.

Kerry and his supporters have no room to complain.

[curse10]

62. Yeah. Sure.

Except when Dean was calling Kerry bush-lite when he was in the hospital. Now THAT is some classy stuff. :eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. Here at DU, anything less than unabashed praise is called 'negative'.

It's not that way in the real world. Dr. Dean is drawing what he believes is a legitimate and substantive distinction between himself and Sen. Kerry. This is Democratic primary politics, y'all, not a Ladies Aid Society tea party.

Let's grow up, children.

:eyes:

[Zomby Woof]

13. lol

Few DUers know how nasty politics is as much as me, so I can be spared the lecture.

The point here is not that Kerry never goes negative, because he does, it's that the Dean supporters ALWAYS claim Dean is "just fighting back" or above the others. No, he OFTEN goes on the offensive. This story is proof.

THEY need your lecture, and THEY are the ones who get in a tizzy when you offer less than unabashed praise for him. I am a DKer, so I don't care, lol.

[Egnever]

55. So the point is

WAAAA Dean does it too?]

And this example isnt negative. Its truth

[HuckleB]

5. Exact quotes and context please.

The quotes noted are not negative. Even the paraphrase is hardly negative.

[HuckleB]

21. In fact, the Kerry spokesperson is far more negative, and, quite frankly,

dishonest. Where is this supposed angry attack?

[oasis]

6. A loose cannon making a statement about someone elses judgement.

:silly:

[Guaranteed]

10. I'm a loose cannon, then. KERRY AND EDWARDS WERE DEAD WRONG

to vote for the IWR resolution.

[oasis]

16. Loose cannons within the confines of a discussion board, fine. WH, no.

[chocolateeater]

20. Would you mind to tell me why his argument is wrong,

instead of just calling him a loose cannon.

[oasis]

30. My problem with Dean is that he's making someone's "judgement"

an issue when he has diplayed such a lack of it himself.

[chocolateeater]

49. Point taken.

But, can you tell me why his judgement in this case is wrong?

[WI_DEM]

8. I assume even though you support DK

that you must support Kerry's vote on Iraq? interesting. That vote is part of the record and legitimate to attack. Can't you find anything postive to post on your candidate?

[Zomby Woof]

18. I disagree with Kerry on that vote

But Dean never had to vote on it. He had the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, supporting Biden-Lugar (IWR-lite), making waffles on the build-up for war, and then waiting until AFTER it was waged to come out against it. NO accountability.

DK was well-known for his opposition to the war before, during, and after, and DID vote accordingly. He HAS accountability, and integrity. Dean has neither.

But DK is off-topic here. Just because I support him, and have his avatar, doesn't limit me to ONLY posting about him. My interest in the campaign is far and wide, and includes making sure Dean loses, and loses big. UNtil DU rules prohibit supporters of an unrelated candidate making posts about other candidates, I will post whatever I can to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dean is the most hypocritical, dishonest, lying, Nixonian, phony Democrat in the race.

[maxanne]

9. and Kerry's been so positive?

Gimme a break. Kerry - (and his wife, I might add) have both been quite negative about Dean. Kerry workers in a nearby town were calling Dean supporters and giving them crap. Let us not try to pretend that everyone is playing by the Marquis of Queensberry rules.

[chocolateeater]

12. So Howard Dean saying he supported the first Gulf War

feeds the Media message that he is anti-war? How does that work exactly?

[BeatleBoot]

14. He didn't scream in his ear, did he?

Ouch!

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Doesn't vindicate you at all, IMO.

Just because it's not unabashed praise for Sen. Kerry doesn't mean it's negative.

[Zomby Woof]

19. LOL

I am not concerned with praise for Kerry. I am concerned with the ugly truth about Dean getting out though. Thanks for playing. Next!

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. I'll 'play' any time.

I hope you're as jolly every time we play, however.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. I didn't 'miss' anything about your post.

I simply un-spun it. Nice crack at my post count, though. Thanks for playing.

[jonnyblitz]

25. what "ugly" truth is this?

tell us something we don't already know...

[adamrsilva]

17. Dean's exactly right

I don't trust Kerry to know when war is justified and when it is not.

[Zomby Woof]

24. Dean's opportunistic

His stance leading up to the war wasn't exactly consistent or unwavering. He has no accountability, since he never had to vote, right (As DK did) or wrong (as Kerry did). Dean isn't right, he's just an opportunistic slimebag.

[Nazgul35]

65. hahahaha...

opportunistic.....good one!

He was opportunistic when he came out against the war with over 70% of Americans, the majority of his own party, and anyone who stood out against this war was called a traitor.....real opportunistic!

I'll give you what I think is opportunistic:

How about opposing the use of force after a country has invaded another, its troops are raping it, the President has gone to the security council and gotten it to support a use of force, assembled a multi-national coalition to remove said troops...

And support the use of force (don't say it doesn't..the damn thing was called the Iraq War Resolution) when there was scanty evidence of an "imminent threat to the US," no authorization of force from the UN, no multinational coalition of forces, world opinion against it, it distracted from a far more important enemy who had just killed 3000 fellow citizens.....

Here's my theory: The GWR came after the election and the IWR came before....if that is not the definition of political opportunism, I don't know what is.....

[hellhathnofury]

26. Kerry supporting or opposing a war isn't fair game?

That's not even a negative attack, that's pointing out the facts.

[Zomby Woof]

31. you missed the point too!

Either that is on purpose, or reading comprehension is very low in America today.

The point is that Dean wasted so much energy this past week phonily reinventing himself, says he is getting back to the domestic issues, says the media painted him as the antiwar candidate, THEN he goes and makes a comment about the Kerry campaign on it.

Fair game, yes, but hypocritical of Dean, who just spent a week trying to disavow these tactics and gives the media yet MORE ammo about the war issue.

Check the polls - what is important to Americans is the economy and healthcare. The war ranks last. People trust Kerry more than Dean on domestic issues, and rightfully so.

Dean is clearly floundering here. It reeks of the desperation of a dying campaign.

[XanaDUer]

53. Let's look at some early stage Dean questionable behavior:

I always it funny that Dean tried tries to pat himself on the back about a vote he never had to vote on!

But he fairly much laid down the same terms for going to war in Iraq that George Bush ended up using. That is the irony of ironies, and I well remember Dr. Dean shouting out his "opposition" to the war in Iraq, many times, AND criticizing other candidates who had to vote. At least DK has the guts to put his butt on the line and be consistant in his opposition. That is very admirable.

On "Face The Nation":

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

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

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

********************************************************************

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html


"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that 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.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html


December 11, 2003

Exactly how anti-war was Howard Dean?

Posted December 11, 2003 02:17 PM

Of all the major Democratic presidential candidates, there's one thing that catapulted Howard Dean to the top -- opposition to war in Iraq."


"...A month later on Meet the Press, Dean said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Dean may have thought there was "no question" that Hussein was a threat before the war, but looking back now, his hindsight is telling him the opposite. Just this week, for example, Dean mentioned at the DNC's New Hampshire debate "that there was no serious threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein."

Similarly, the New York Times reported today that Dean said, plainly, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever." In light of the Face the Nation quote from 2002, we know that's just not correct."

[Egnever]

58. OK lets

From this story: Dean, Kerry Exchange Insults Over Iraq

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy," he said. "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."



Dean has made his policy clear throughout the campaign.

Here's his 7 point plan released April 9th this year


* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said. "That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."



And here are most of the relevent quotes I could find where Dean made comments about Iraq. It's a tad bit more than "no".

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.


August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.


September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.


September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."


September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."


October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."


December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."


January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"


January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."


January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"


February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''


February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.


February 27, 2003

Kerry is an idiot if he thinks the IRW was the only way to deal with Saddam. Otherwise he's just a liar. I don't think Kerry is an idiot.

[Nazgul35]

66. and when someone calls Kerry on his actual votes...

all we get are excuses that Senators can not really do anything...

So which is it?!

Either Kerry is capable of doing something in the Senate and the way he votes does matter...or his 20 years of service means nothing?

How many times do we have to look at decision after decision on votes in the last three years by this Senator being "wrong" and politically opportunistic before people begin to figure out that this guy has no other goal that to be President!

He's not on any nobel goal to save the Party...if he was he would have tried fighting much earlier than when he suddenly found himself trailing Dean in the polls! Suddenly now he's the candidate who cares, he's fighting the good fight.....

Well based on his staying power I am not betting on him being the guy who's gonna be there when we need him next fall!!! Rove will sweep the floor with him....

[candy331]

42. Plastered on the front page of the Tallahassee Democrat today

was "Powell Backs off US.Weapons Prewar Claim" The Rupubs backtracking on the weapons and what do Dems do? Democrats have shot themselves in the foot just as they did in 2000,( moving on). Rather than hold Bush and Cabal feet to the fire for outright lies the Dems are being duped again into moving on. Again they have let the repubs frame the debate on the war issue even though the repubs are back pedaling daily.

Was not the lead into war on weapons and imminent danger of their use? Isn't that why the Democrats who voted for IWR said they voted was because they were convinced by Bush Administration and especially Powell's speech at the UN that they had them and now they are letting the repubs just move on.........

Democrats are aiding and abetting the thief in chief to gloss this over. I have to say the Dem party has some serious problems when the election is being handed to them and they don't know to win so they hand it right back. Sad, Sad.

Remember while the repubs are glossing over their lying;
our men and women in Iraq are still dying. Or does that matter anymore?

[ozone_man]

28. What would Kucinich do?

I think he would probably attack Kerry for voting for the Iraq war, unless his sell out to Edwards has affected his judgement.

There is absolutely no excuse for voting for the IWR and that eliminates all but Dean and Kucinich from the list. DK soiled himself last week.

Kerry has flip flopped like a fish over his support for the Iraq war, sometimes for it, sometimes wishing he hadn't, blaming Dean for saying that OBL should get a trial or that the world isn't safer with SH caught. Kerry is no better than Bush. He's much, much richer than Bush (he's a Forbes, not that his new or old wife is poor) and his allegiance is to the power elite and a he's bonesman to boot.

[Zomby Woof]

33. DK sticks to the issues

He has made it clear he disagrees with the others about the IWR vote, but he doesn't DWELL on it or go negative as a result of ranking low in the polls. Dean is floundering here, because he IS dwelling on it, and getting away from the issues he pledged to run on earlier this week.

Again, this thread isn't about DK, and my support of him is irrelevant to the point here: I am exposing Dean as a desperate fraud devoid of a campaign direction.

[ozone_man]

48. I think Dean has been sticking to IRaq war as an issue.

Has he ever dropped it as an issue? This is a primary and Candidates need to expose hypocisies. Kerry has the most and the most dangerous in that he supported the Iraq war.

You must be conflicted by claiming to be a DK supporter, but also complaining that Dean is bringing up Kerry's two faced hypocrisy on his Iraq war positions.

I can't imagine someone further from Kucinich than Kerry (Edwards also), yet for some strange reason, there are DK supporters that seem protective of Kerry. Maybe you can help me understand that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Good!

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

He's a member of the Skull and Bones.

He voted FOR the IWR.

He voted for "The Patriot Act.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. telling the truth is not negative

negative is push polling that first asks someone if they "knew Howard Dean's wife is jewish" or "knew Dean had been diagnosed as a manic depressive" and then asking who they support in the race.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Desertrose]

41. that "r" word is not politically correct you know...

(I meant retard not republican...)

and I think you should change it cause frankly it is too good for what now occupies the WH...

*:crazy:

:hug:
DMom

[creativelcro]

43. Do you have the credentials for making such a clinical diagnosis ?

And even if you did, would it be based on what ? TV spots during a campaign cannot be used to diagnose somebody with a particular disorder. I mean, kerry could be diagnosed with suffering from depression, for instance.

[Name removed]

44. 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.

[Don Claybrook]

50. An alleged educator at that n/t

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Ripley]

36. Dean also told us to hate 12 year olds who write scathing articles.

Because Dean and his supporters hate children.

[HuckleB]

45. Link?

[salin]

38. Of course they are now at tit for tat in the negative campaigning

Kerry's folks have been doing the mudslinging behind the scenes for months. The "clean campaign" is a farce. Only difference between the two campaigns in terms of running negative is the degree to which it is overt vs covert.

Clark is running a much more positive campaign - and appears to be avoiding the behind the scenes ugly race marked by Kerry and (previously) Gephardt.

Edwards, when he goes negative (less often) - has been more like Dean .. overt. Kucinich is like Edwards in that the attacks, when there (again less often) are overt.

Personally I prefer overt attacks - lets other campaigns respond and lets the public decide how to react.

I think the Kerry campaign has gotten very atwater-ian. In a purely abb sense - looking ahead to the general election - this might not be all bad. But the rep of "clean campaign" is really unwarrented, imo.

[Desertrose]

40. NO NO NO NO NOoooo....

tell me it isn't sooooo.....


:evilgrin:

Peace y'all
DR

[funky_bug]

54. Aaargh!

"In rebuttal, a spokeswoman for Kerry predicted the remarks would backfire.

"When is Howard Dean going to realize that voters are tired of these same old angry attacks?" Stephanie Cutter asked. "Voters are looking for a steady hand, not a clenched fist."

Is this the same camp sending out those same old angry flyers?

Lord, the hypocrisy of politics never ceases to amaze me.

[maxanne]

56. nice makeup job

General! A little heavy on the pancake.

[funky_bug]

59. Ya think?

Maybe NH was out of Botox.

[Forkboy]

57. Kerry and Dean

two idjits perfectly suited to each other.

[Egnever]

60. Kerry has been pushing negativity for months remember this?

From this story: Dean, Kerry Exchange Insults Over Iraq

"Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy," he said. "I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."



Dean has made his policy clear throughout the campaign.

Here's his 7 point plan released April 9th this year


* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said. "That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."



And here are most of the relevent quotes I could find where Dean made comments about Iraq. It's a tad bit more than "no".

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.


August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.


September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.


September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."


September 18, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."


October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."


December 22, 2002

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."


January 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"


January 10, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."


January 29, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"


February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''


February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.


February 27, 2003

Kerry is an idiot if he thinks the IRW was the only way to deal with Saddam. Otherwise he's just a liar. I don't think Kerry is an idiot.

[RetroLounge]

61. Boo hoo

eom

[curse10]

64. Oh

that's nice :eyes:

[arewethereyet]

67. what else can he do ?

he can't make up his mind on taxes and since it's taxes taht pay for the rest of hos agenda, being anti war is the only drum he has to beat.

[HuckleB]

68. Huh?

Please explain how Dean can't make up his mind on taxes. And explain what you mean about taxes paying for the rest of his agenda. Also, if you think this is negative, please explain how it is negative.

[arewethereyet]

69. "you can't have it both ways" Howard Dean

regarding tax cuts.

Seems its mysteriously possible to actually have it both ways.

The negativity aspect is continued attempt to try and make the war some sort of albatross for Kerry and the others. Nobody is buying it but its all he has so he trys to juice it any way he can.

[HuckleB]

70. That doesn't answer my question.

You just made more claims. Dean's comments regarding the war are not negative. They are showing a distinction between the two. The claim that they are negative was clearly shown to be off base on this thread. As for your comment about tax cuts, it still doesn't make sense. Dean's statements and policy proposals have been quite clear and quite consistent. On the other hand, if we add up Kerry's proposals for spending and taxes, we'll find some very serious problems with the numbers. That's because he wants to have it every way he can during the campaign, when the numbers don't matter. Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that.