Compare these two press releases from Dean and Kerry.

[blm]

Kerry's statement is ALL against Bush and his serious lies to the American people.

Dean's statement is all about him and he deceptively portrays himself as if he NEVER supported a resolution for use of force as per Biden-Lugar bill while attacking the OTHER candidates.

Dean:

SPRINGFIELD -- "I've always said the President had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq. Most of my Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know - and the President needs to answer - why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary. Secretary O'Neill's comments only underscore the continuing importance that these outstanding questions be answered."

Kerry:

Des Moines, Iowa -- "These are very serious charges by a former high
ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration
failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We
already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work
through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a
coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O'Neill's revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those
promises.

It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since
almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American
people, Congress, and the world. It would mean that for purely
ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a
shooting gallery occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter their already damaged credibility as never before."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0110.html

[blm]

1. Dean on Biden-Lugar

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[Cocoa]

2. don't try to make sense of what he says

just look at the bat, and listen to the slogans.

[Padraig18]

3. Speaking of incomplete...

... I note that Sen. Kerry's omits any mention of his vote IN FAVOR of the IWR. Accidental omission, I'm sure. :eyes:

[blm]

6. Kerry's attacking BUSH'S lies and Dean attacks the other Dems.

THAT'S BULLSHIT!

THAT'S why not too many like him because he's always trying to glorify HIMSELF at the expense of others, even if he has to deceive to do so.

[Padraig18]

9. Uh huh.

The truth hurts.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. kerry doesn't attack the administrations lies

he say "if they did this it would mean.... blah blah blah" How about, they did it, I knew it, what are we going to do about it."?
Would it be so difficult for Kerry to just stop the weasel act?

[TLM]

18. Dean attacks the other dems for going along with those lies from Bush.

And for letting us down and not standing up to Bush when we needed them.


Kerry has to focus only on Bush because he fucked up so bad that he does not dare draw attention to himself and his actions with regard to the war issue.

Dean on the other hand did not cowaer like Kerry did, so he has every right to draw attention tot he fact that while Kerry was busy sticking his nose up W's ass, Dean was out there in the media saying Bush had not made the case for war.

[blm]

30. Dean HIDES behind the media lie that he's antiwar.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[Padraig18]

33. That nice distortion is just that--- a distortion

He's never said he's anti-war--- he's said he was anti THIS war.

[blm]

36. He wasn't anti THIS war and was not pro THIS war any more than

the others who voted for IWR which adopted much of the B-L guidelines.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[Padraig18]

39. Very wrong.

That little C+P SPAM piece still doesn't change reality. Dean OPPOSED the IWR, and your candidate didn't.

[blm]

41. The IWR that included B-L guidelines.

Dean supported a use of force measure,

Those who were anti THIS war, opposed even a resolution for use of force. Like Kucinich, Kennedy, and Wellstone.

You cannot honestly say that Dean opposed use of force measures. A letter to the speaker and pres pro tem of the Senate is NOT an obstacle worthy of an antiwar label.

[Padraig18]

46. Spin, spin, spin.

Bottom line: Sen. Kerry voted FOR the IWR w/o the B-L Amendment--- no way to 'nuance' that fact.

[dajabr]

32. Spoken like someone...

Who has not taken a look a Kerry's favorables in a while.

I'll save the trouble for NH:

Dean - good

Kerry - not good

[TLM]

12. Of course... Kerry can;t draw attention to the fact HE SUPPORTED BUSH!

Kery supported this war based on lies... lies that Kerry himself helped Bush to spead. Kerry attacked Dean for wanting UN support and flat out said Saddam had nukes.

So of course Kerry only focused on Bush here... he doesn't dare focus on his own war mongering support for Bush's oil war.


“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” Kerry - Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03


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."

[blm]

16. Your song is played out, as evidenced by Dean's own words:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[Padraig18]

19. Pot. Kettle. Black. n/t

[TLM]

24. Kerry's poll numbers prove otherwise.

Democrats... real Democrats, are pissed off at Kerry once again trying to play both sides of the issues and ride the fence. That's why his polls are dropping like a rock.


You can not defend those quotes from Kerry attacking Dean for wanting UN backing and claiming Saddam had nukes.

[jadesfire]

35. Actually this is what Kerry said in January of last year:

re: "lies that Kerry himself helped Bush to spead"

"I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.

We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world."
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

_________________________________________________
When the President of the United States comes to you and tells you that the intelligence department, of a country that you have spent your life serving, has collected information that proves there is a clear threat to your country; i hope you would initially trust him. if you cannot trust your president, that shows how sad our country has become. which, turned out to be reality.

the fact is that your candidate believed bush too. he even went so far as to say that he could imagine a unilateral action by the U.S. (see past threads for the link, i can't find it right now and it's been posted multiple times...) Something Kerry spoke against.

[Padraig18]

4. Dupe:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=97221

[revcarol]

7. Not a dupe.

This quotes both statements.

Alas, any other statements by the other candidates are not likely to be heard.

[Padraig18]

8. it IS a dupe.

Either present the new statement in a new thread all by itself, or continue in the Kerry statement thread already begun.

We'll see what the mods think.:)

[sandnsea]

5. Can we PLEASE take Bush down already

For the love of god, we can't take Bush down if we can't prove he lied to Congress. THAT'S what we have to do. The only way to do that is for members of Congress to be able to SAY SO. If they're beat over the head every time they open their mouths, nobody will listen to them. Can't people get that through their heads. This IS NOT about the goddamn mother fucking war vote. Bush lied everybody into a war and he did it AFTER the goddamn mother fucking war vote.

Now can we get together and hold George W. Bush responsible, just one time?

Or is worshipping Dean and beating the hell out of Kerry more important?

[Cheswick2.0]

17. I don't know can we?

How about all of you stop attacking the one major candidate who called bush a fraud and this war bullshit months ago when Kerry didn't have the guts?

[Lobo_13]

26. There's nothing stopping him

from going out and calling Bush a liar. He can do it every which way. It has nothing to do with him being the nominee. Unless he only cares that Bush is a liar if he can use it to advance his own political career.

[nightperson]

27. Most Americans can't even follow

the ins and out of the Dean vs. Kerry "divide' over the war vote. Many hardly see Bush as Satan yet, let alone Kerry. It hasn't been productive for us to endlessly haggle over this stuff. Dean is not Jesus, and Kerry is definitely not Attila. I think a lot of Kerry supporters are ready to go "ballistic" indeed if they hear more sofa diplomat/legislator comments hurled at them. Kerry is not some maniac bent on world conquest! He has never planned on making oil from small children. Can we finally stop demonizing Kerry? He is hardly your greatest enemy. With every day that passes fewer Americans can even remember the lead up to the War. Hammering Kerry all this time has certainly just destroyed Bush, hasn't it? Not. Mr. "Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace" "No Blood For Oil" Gore Vidal himself has said 90% of America doesn't care that they don't care about this argument that has hurt Kerry (and thus the entire party) so badly for so long.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. as usual

Kerry = baffle with bullshit and CYA

[blm]

13. as usual - Dean = Glorify himself at expense of Democratic party.

Mislead about your own support for a resolution for use of force while attacking others for theirs.

Attack other Democrats BEFORE you attack Bush.

[TLM]

28. So was Kerry misleading himself when he said...

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” Kerry - Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03


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."

[blm]

45. Thread is about comparing press releases.

Dean attacks others.

Kerry attacks Bush.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. dupe

[Karmadillo]

22. pupe

n/t

[Bombtrack]

15. Dean has capitalized on the ignorance of many lefties to the IWR

as well as various aspects of congress.

It wasn't a vote for invasion. Dean would never, ever, admit what he knows to his supporters, that the resolution increased the threat to the Saddam regime to comply with UN resolution 1441. And that although Bush didn't need it do invade Iraq, it was designed by the Rove team to devide democrats, with the help of the useful idiots like Nader and Moore and many on the modern Nation staff

you know the people who believe that only those that are either the most left-wing, or most dovish are "real democrats"

[Padraig18]

20. Why did 23 Democratic senators vote against it?

I'd be interested in hearing why they weren't suckered in...

[jcgadfly]

23. Increased the threat to comply with a resolution

that Saddam had been in compliance with for 12 years before?

The inspections were working. Bush wanted to be the anti-Clinton. The Senate (and the Presidential candidates therein) helped him do that.

Scott Ritter said it best - Bush just couldn't take yes for an answer.

[Bombtrack]

44. How do you know the inspections were working?

I know you'd like to believe that.

But Saddam was obstructing the already unrigorous inspections.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. nonsense

The IWR was wrong, it was not necessary to give bush that power to be able to threaten Saddam. They claim they trusted bush to do the right thing, well FUCK THAT. Thousands of people are dead. NOBODY trusted bush including kerry, and gephardt. NO GUTS, NO GLORY and tough shit for them. They gambled peoples lives and billions in tax payer dollars so they could run for President.
Kerry is non-committal as usual, if if if. It's pathetic.

[TLM]

29. Funny I trust the ACLU more than I trust any Kerry supporter...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[blm]

31. Yes, and parts of Biden-Lugar were incorporated in IWR since that release.

Or didn't you know that?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[windansea]

21. we all want to send chimpy home

I think what Dean supporters don't realize is that many people believe he started the divisive campaign tactics...many people such as myself believe that based on Dean's statements before the war and support for Biden Lugar...that had he been in congress and seen the faulty evidence, he would have voted for IWR.

We can debate that ad nauseum...but the fact remains that Dean drove a huge wedge between himself and washington dems and energized a base in doing so..What we see now is the other candidates fighting back...if I was Kerry or Gephart I would be furious too...these guys are not bush lite.

Even if all of the above never happened...the front runner is always attacked...thats politics.

[LuminousX]

34. Wow, are we returning to IWR... and it was a Kerry supporter's thread

Amazing.

This battle has already been fought. You can, like military strategist revisit Waterloo, setting up little tin soldiers and refighting it day after day to prove Napoleon should have won. Fact of the matter is he didn't.

Kerry has lost the war of perception regarding the IWR. Of course Dean attacked congressional Dems over it... just like a healthy handful of DUers did. Kerry wouldn't attack congress over it, Kerry couldn't attack anyone except Bush. Dean attacked both. Dean was basically saying that whole tangled hairball in Washington has caused a serious American problem.

And he was right.

[blm]

37. No. Dean said "president deserves presumption of right"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/07/nh_voters_eyeing_two_non_deans/
>>>>>
The only awkward moment for Dean came when Katheleen Belgard, a 17-year-old Concord High School student and Kerry supporter, asked how he could portray himself as so clearly antiwar when he had supported an alternative congressional resolution (known as Biden-Lugar) that would have given the president authority to wage war against Iraq after securing a UN Security Council resolution requiring disarmament or, failing that, upon his declaration that Iraq constituted a grave threat.

Dean replied that he had initially supported Biden-Lugar because "I think the president deserves the presumption of right on his side in foreign policy. I wanted to give this president as much leeway as we could." (Imagine what Dean would say if John Kerry or Dick Gephardt had made that statement.) But Dean also noted that he had made a speech on Sept. 21, 2002, setting out his opposition to the war. However, Dean was still expressing support for Biden-Lugar in early October; at about that time, the authors of the resolution decided not to press forward with it.
>>>>>

[LuminousX]

38. Dean didn't have access to any of the congressional briefings

and was making his statements based off of the press reports like the rest of America. Of course he is going to have to assume that the President is privvy to information he isn't.

Keep hounding on this all you want, but it is a dead issue. As I said, the battle of perception has been fought. Dean is clearly perceived as the anti-Iraq war candidate.

[blm]

43. Till his inconsistencies are played over and over again in RNC ads.

Then some of you will be honest to admit that you were warned.

[formactv]

40. The only awkward moment.

Just one moment!

[paulk]

42. But Dean isn't running just against Bush

He's running against the Democratic Party, too.