Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Dean Believe There Were WMDs?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:37 PM
Original message
Did Dean Believe There Were WMDs?
For some reason, I had thought that Dean had been saying recently that he knew the evidence was phony and no WMDs existed. Am I just imagining this? Because I distinctly recall Dean saying there were WMDs in Iraq.

"I don’t want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

"Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam’s weapons or the inspectors do."

"I think Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=594

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. When did Dean say he knew the evidence was phony?
Dean has said repeatedly that the evidence did not merit pulling out the inspectors. I haven't seen him claim he knew it was "phony," but if he did, it hypothetically would be in contradiction to his earlier statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. That Was His Position Then, Too
Maybe I am confusing Dean with Dean supporters here. I was just going through my old links and found these statements, and wondered about it.

He probably didn't say that he knew all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. This Seems To Suggest He Is Only Trying To Build A Coalition
Not stop the war in its tracks, which is how it seems now.

"I believe that we may need to go into Iraq at some point. There's no question that Saddam is a threat, the question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not made the case.

And so we have time to build a multilateral coalition. But I think we're much better off going in with our allies and the United Nations than we are going it alone."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. OMG! OMG! Dean said "I tend to believe the president!"
Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 06:46 PM by wyldwolf
Major scandal! Alert Matt Drudge!

nah... doesn't really matter, huh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The entire Dean campaign is focused on Kerry?
You have things backwards, and that is why Kerry can't get traction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. The Dean campaign isn't focused on Kerry.
Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 07:16 PM by poskonig
We're focused on things like New Mexico, Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan.

Was Dean right about saying that the evidence didn't merit an invasion last October? Yes. Was he right when he said that we would run into problems if we go in without international help, and that that the president should tell the truth about going in there for ten years?

Again, yes. Dean clearly has good judgment with international affairs, and as a Democratic-leaning voter, I respect this.

Kerry was saying pretty much was Dean was saying up to the war. But when it came time to vote, Kerry made a political miscalculation, especially since Bush stated Biden-Lugar would have "tied his hands." Given the soldier deaths and billions of dollars were paying, Kerry's vote is a lighting rod for those who aren't happy with the Iraq situation. I know Dean didn't have to vote, but politics isn't fair.

The Kerry campaign hasn't done much to recover from this, besides bash Dean, which is my point. Kerry bashes Dean, Dean bashes carry, and it all cancels out; no ground is gained. Kerry needs to get his Democratic credentials out or he will not survive this primary -- I've been saying this for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Looking at your sig, the supposed no personality Kerry has said some
pretty funny stuff. I was reading this one where he said refering to his prostate cancer and I will paraphrase some people wonder what it will be like to have a president with no prostate I say why not we have had plenty of republican presidents with no hearts. I got a kick of it at least. He can be funny not Sharpton funny but not a lame ass. Now on Biden-Lugar maybe I am wrong but it seems to me now more and more that Kerry and Dean's positions were simliar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Don't Be Misled
''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

There's a word for that, isn't there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. DAYUM! You NAILED it!
Should have titled this thread "Exposing the Dean Anti-war myth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
42. Two seperate issues here.
On is about whether Iraq constituted an imminent threat which justified unilateral invasion.

The other is about whether Iraq had any WMD at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I should have mentioned I was being sarcastic...
Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 06:51 PM by wyldwolf
I've been making this point all along to Dean supporters, they just spin out of it, call me a paid Clark operative, then put me on "ignore."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
janekat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. I know - it's scary isn't it.....
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. Looks obvious Dean believed Bush's hype...
Edited on Sun Oct-19-03 06:56 PM by wyldwolf
...like many in Congress did.

Thanks for reminding me of these quotes.

I believe had he been in Congress, he would have voted the same way Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. That Resolution Was The Best Legislation Democrats Could Get
He could have given an idealist "No" vote but instead, took the role of Legislator. That is an honorable position.

I am not a Kerry fan but would be proud to call him my President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm sorry, that wasn't a slam on Kerry...
...I like Kerry. In fact, I'm amused at that other thread where they're ranking the most liberal candidates and Kerry is always near the bottom.

Truth be known, he is most liberal behind Kucinich.

No, the point I was making is Dean supporters love to heap props on Dean for being anti-war, but his quotes say otherwise, and he probably would have voted for the action had he been in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Understood, AND I Give Dean NO CREDIT FOR A NON-VOTE
And find it very unsavory that Dean sent out an email celebrating the Anniversary of the Iraqi Resolution thereby using the Resolution much the same way that Junior uses 9/11.

VERY unsavory!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I Never Thought Of It That Way
It does seem pretty rank. The thing is - I support that he opposed the war, but I find his attempts to silence the other candidates pretty low down. The recent comparison of members of Congress to cockroaches has taken it into bizarre new lows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
14. I do not agree with Dean's pre-war position on Iraq !!!
i believe, prior to the IWR vote, that Dean indicated that if bush showed evidence of WMD (which of course he did ... it was just all lies), Dean would give Saddam 60 days to surrender the weapons after which he would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq WITH OR WITHOUT U.N. approval ...

In this statement, Dean seemed to assume that the standard of imminent threat would be met, or would not be relevant, if Saddam had WMDs ... I do not agree with Dean's pre-war position on Iraq !!!

We had no right to invade Iraq unless we could determine that Iraq posed an imminent threat ... Dean's statement showed he failed to understand this ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vikingking66 Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. here's some clarification
The Iraq resolution was approved Oct. 11 2002.

Dean had come out against the war in a speech at Drake University in Feb 2003:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5606&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

In this speech, Dean was operating under the assumption that there were WMD's, but he argued for disarmament rather than war. However, he made strong indications he doubted the accuracy of the evidence on WMD:

"Secretary Powell's recent presentation at the UN showed the extent to which we have Iraq under an audio and visual microscope. Given that, I was impressed not by the vastness of evidence presented by the Secretary, but rather by its sketchiness. He said there would be no smoking gun, and there was none.

At the same time, it seems to me we are in possession of information that would be very helpful to UN inspectors. For example, if we know Iraqi scientists are being detained at an Iraqi guesthouse, why not surround the building and knock on the door?

If we think a facility is being used for biological weapons, why not send the inspectors to check it out?

And if we believe terrorists - especially if they are terrorists linked to al Qaeda - have set up a poison and explosives training center in Northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein's control, why haven't we verified that information and destroyed that camp?"

That started his rise as the anti-war candidate, beginning with his address to the DNC winter meeting and his address to the California State Convention:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5134&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5135&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1321

In June, he gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, in which he challenged the Administration's evidence of WMD:
"

Today we face three critical problems, all connected with the manner in which we prosecuted the war: the first is accounting for the weapons of mass destruction, vital because of the implications for our own security as well as for the integrity and credibility of the United States and its leaders in the eyes of the world.

There are three possibilities. As the search continues, substantial stocks of these weapons may be found. In that case, we will still need to know why our intelligence failed and did not lead us to them more rapidly.

The other possibilities are that they will never be found because they no longer exist; or that they will never be found because they have already been stolen or transferred to others.

In any case, we need to know the truth.

Serious doubts about our integrity have been raised; not only in the streets of nations that do not know us well, but also in the parliaments and press rooms of countries that know us best. The checks and balances in the national security process in our Executive Branch have clearly broken down.

That's why it is imperative to have an independent, bipartisan, comprehensive and transparent investigation of how our intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was developed and selectively used to used justify war in Iraq. In other words, what did the President know and when did he know it?"

Media coverage on WMD and the war:
Nov2002:http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5090&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1001
January2003:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9030-2003Jan17¬Found=true
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5073&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1001
Feb 2003:http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c2229999/20422430.html
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20448207.html
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20559923.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
22. There is a huge difference between
thinking they were an immediate threat and thinking they had no weapons of mass distruction. I don't think even Dennis Kucinich believed they didn't have any. The simple, and inexcapable fact, is that Kerry voted to let this President take us to war. I know Kerry supporters wish he hadn't but he did. It is as simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Kucinich said something like the only weapons they have
are the ones we gave them. I dunno I forget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. He was crystal clear
get the proof and the allies first then go to war. Bush had neither when Kerry voted for that resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. Kucinich on WMDs: no evidence

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020912-avoidwar.htm
September 12, 2002
Kucinich: How to Avoid War With Iraq
* * *
Prior to 1998, the United Nations made much progress in weapons inspections and assured Iraq had no usable capacity for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or the ability to deliver such weapons. The UN did so despite a lack of cooperation from the United States in some cases and interference in others. The United States simultaneously pushed for inspections and advanced covert action to try to kill Saddam Hussein.

Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or has developed capabilities for delivery of such weapons.
* * *


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020919-kucinichstatement.htm
September 19, 2002
Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. The Administration has failed to make that case that Iraq poses an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al-Queda. Nor is there any credible evidence of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, their capability, or their intent to deliver such weapons.
* * *


http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-021219-showevidence.htm
December 19, 2002
Kucinich: Time For Administration To Show its Evidence

It is time for the Administration to end its war rhetoric and present evidence to justify their claims that Iraq has usable weapons of mass destruction, stated Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today.

Kucinich, Ranking Member of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations issued the following statement:

"Thus far, the Administration has failed to show any evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs to the U.S. Congress, to the inspectors at the United Nations (UN), or to the American people.

"Any information the Administration has that counters the Iraqi disclosure should be provided to the United Nations immediately. Iraq has made its disclosure and now is the appropriate time for the Administration to present its evidence.

"Any intelligence information that the Administration may have can only assist the United Nation Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in filling the 'gaps and omissions' that the Administration claims are in the Iraqi report to the UN. In doing so, the Administration can only assist the UN weapons inspectors disarm Iraq, which it claims it is committed to doing.

"If the Administration plans to preempt the UN weapons inspections process, and begin a war early next year, as recent news reports have indicated, then they owe it to the UN and the American people to present evidence to justify a war. Despite their recent increase in rhetoric and 'war talk', the fact remains that to this date they have not provided evidence for a war."


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030124iraq.html
Friday, January 24, 2003
Kucinich: War is a Failure of Diplomacy
Despite Lack of Evidence And International Opposition Administration Continues March To War

The Administration has continued its rush to war, even without producing any evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

“Currently in Iraq, UN weapon inspectors are conducting the most exhaustive and expansive weapons inspections in its history and have found no ‘smoking gun’ proof that the Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Administration’s accelerated rhetoric and massive troop build-up serves no purpose except to impede the work of UN weapons inspectors.

“If the Administration continues down the path to war without proof and without the support of the international community, our nation will have the historic burden of committing a violation of international law, marking the United States, a nation whose people have traditionally defended democracy, as aggressors. We would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.
* * *


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030127UNreport.html
Monday, January 27, 2003

Kucinich: No Case For War Against Iraq
Report To The United Nations Shows No ‘Smoking Gun’
Administration Must Stop Rush To War And Allow UN To Disarm Iraq
* * *
If the Administration has information that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the right thing to do would be to share information with the UN.
* * *


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030212Motion.html
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Kucinich Uses House Procedure To Demand Evidence of Iraqi Threat
Files Resolution of Inquiry To Demand Documents From The Administration On Iraq’s Alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Administration has marched the nation to the verge of a historic preemptive war, despite a lack of evidence that Iraq has useable weapons of mass destruction or proof that Iraq poses an imminent threat to our country. Today, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) filed a Resolution of Inquiry, in the House, to demand that the Administration give to Congress Iraq’s declaration to the United Nations of December 7, 2002.

“While this Administration is ready to send our nation, and the world, to war, it has refused to provide this Congress, or the American people, any proof of that Iraq is an imminent threat,” stated Kucinich, who leads opposition in the House to the war in Iraq. “Today’s resolution is the first of several that will be filed to obtain from this Administration any evidence it has about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It is indefensible that this Administration is pushing our nation to verge of war, putting our nation at greater risk of a terrorist attack, without providing proper evidence to the Congress or the American people.”

In the weeks to come, Kucinich is expected to offer more Resolutions of Inquiry to demand that the Administration lives up to its duty, to Congress and the American people, to fully disclose any or all information it has on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030311doc.html
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Kucinich Forces Administration To Disclose Iraq Document to Congress
Administration Forced To Turn Over Documentation On Iraq Due to Kucinich Resolution of Inquiry

The Administration was forced to turn over documentation to Congress about Iraq due to a Resolution of Inquiry filed by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH). The Administration finally released to Congress the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration made to the United Nations on December 7, 2002.

Kucinich, Ranking Member of the Government Reform Subcommittee National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, used a rare House procedure known as a Resolution of Inquiry, filed in the House on February 12, 2003, to pry the information out of the Administration.

“This is a small step forward in obtaining information that the Administration has deliberately withheld from the public and the Congress,” stated Kucinich. “This Administration has marched the nation, and the world, to the verge of war without revealing any evidence to this Congress or the American people to back up its war rhetoric. I will continue to oppose this unjustified war, and continue my efforts to ensure that this Administration reveals evidence, to the public, it may have before its sends the young men and women of the Armed Force into battle. I believe Congress, and the American people, deserve nothing less.”

In a concession by the Administration, the report will now be available for Members of Congress to view.

Kucinich plans to use the rules of the House to continue to push this Administration to lift its cloak of secrecy and allow the Congress, and the American people, see any evidence it may have to justify its preemptive attack against Iraq.


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030319untrue.html
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
On The Eve Of War: Kucinich Introduces A Bill To Nullify Use Of Force Resolution
Administration’s Case For War Based On Claims That Are ‘Untrue, Unfounded, Dubious or Disproven’

Today, as the President has forced our nation to the brink of war, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) offered a bill, H Con Res. 101, to nullify H.J. Res. 114, the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq.

The bill states:

“Whereas, on the eve of an unprovoked military attack by the United States against the country of Iraq, the public is learning that the Administration’s rationale for commencing hostilities is based on a series of claims that are untrue, unfounded, dubious or disproven…Whereas, as a nation, the United States does not have grounds for launching a war against a country that poses no imminent or direct threat to us or our allies; Now, therefore be it resolved, That it is the Sense of the Congress that the October 10, 2002 Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq (H.J.Res 114) is null and void.”

Time and time again, the statements and accusations that this Administration has based its case for war on have been false or disproven. Despite misleading claims by the Administration, Iraq is not a nuclear threat. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El Baradei has said that there is no evidence of resumed nuclear activates in Iraq. And, despite numerous claims by the Administration that Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda and the potential to share weapons of mass destruction with Iraq, its own CIA Director told Congress that this unlikely to happen.

“The President’s case for war is a sham,” stated Kucinich. “It is based on untrue, unfounded and disproven allegations. The Administration has repeated these untruths in order to whip sentiment to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq. The country has been misled and deceived.”


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030327iraqpressconf.html
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Kucinich: This War is Wrong And Must End

Today, at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the war in Iraq, issued the following statement:

“This Administration has never made its case for war against Iraq. It is an unjustified war, which the Administration continues to misrepresent and exaggerate. The most recent example is the Administration's characterization of international coalition support for this war.
* * *
“This war must end now. It was unjust when it started last week, and is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to save the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens. Most importantly, ending the war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United States, which has been deteriorating since the talk of war began. After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is terrorism, which is breeding from this war.”


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh10_kucinich/030501prez.html
Thursday, May 1, 2003
Kucinich: The Administration’s Military Victory Is a Foreign Policy Failure
US Must Bring Troops Home Now; Bring In International Community
Tonight, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, the President will address the nation and declare an end to the combat in Iraq. While the President will declare a military victory, it is clear that the war in Iraq is a diplomatic and foreign policy failure, stated Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today.

Kucinich, Ranking Member of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, issued the following statement today:

“Regardless of the outcome, the war in Iraq was wrong. While the United States has won a military victory in Iraq, the Administration never justified the war, rendering it a diplomatic and foreign policy failure.

“The Administration led America into a war based on false pretenses. Even today, as the President declares an end to combat, there is no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The main purpose of this war according to the Administration was to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, they said, posed an immediate and imminent threat to our nation and our allies, and could not be eliminated through international weapons inspectors. But now, the main justification for this Administration to go to war cannot be found.

“The Administration, with its policy in Iraq, has isolated the United States from the international community and threatens to make our country less safe not more safe.

“Bringing the troops home, and bring in the international community to assist with humanitarian reconstruction and security, must happen immediately. Rhetoric alone will not convince the world that United States is not occupying Iraq, especially since no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the U.S. has prioritized the rebuilding oil infrastructures instead of providing humanitarian assistance.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. Dean on Iraq War 9/4/02
Dean says Bush has not prepared U.S. for Iraq attack
September 4, 2002

By MIKE GLOVER The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa — President Bush has not justified attacking Iraq, nor has he steeled the American people for the cost of that attack, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday.

snip
“He needs to first make the case and he has not done that,” Dean said. “He has never come out and said Saddam (Hussein) has the atomic bomb and we need to deal with him.”

snip
Once Bush has verified that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, Dean said Bush needs to make his evidence public and then be clear about the consequences of an attack.

“He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means,” said Dean. “If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years.”

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

“Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent,” said Dean.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/52530.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Geez. Is that the way he talks? No wonder I can't listen to him for
very long.

Sorry to be critical on superficial stuff, but I just gotta laugh!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Geez, that's the way he talks? No wonder I can listen for hours.
I love the depth of intellect and the precise, elegant use of language.

The coarsened rhetoric promoted by the demagogues and Rush Limbaugh types is SO played out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dirk007 Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-19-03 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. Who didnt beleive it.....
Sadam admited it himself and used them on his own population. The question is, did he get rid of them before 2000...???


dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Hi dirk007!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speed8098 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Better read your history there Dirk
"Sadam admited it himself and used them on his own population."

It has not been proven that Saddam used weapons on his people. There is speculation that it was Iran that killed them.

The key word is "speculation".

Your post only focuses on the rw talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. I didn't
Based on the facts. And I was right. So was Scott Ritter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. This is why we keep coming back
Even though the US is on different trajectory than that of people on DU. Some times people post things that are little out of kilter or just plain wrong, it's not like we were going keep it down and out of here and even look at the possibility. Many saw this as an invasion way before it ever they ever let * pull it off.

I was thinking invasion to get a hold of the oil wells, others here (and other places too) said this was a war for power or both. And this was way before it ever went down. I was skimming my new off of DU at the time. So even me, ol little Mr Not the brightest guy in the world knew it. I was a big joke here when * came out with B.S. of Saddam having :nuke:'s but some or even many called correctly (that it was a big effin LIE).

For my last told you so, I posted long ago to another poster named mobuto a question asking (rhetorically maybe, he ignored and never answered back) that wouldn't just be cheaper to buy the oil from Iraq rather than try and steal it. I stand by my assumption that it would have been cheaper to buy it.

So it does seem like everybody was correct except the liars in the White House. Getting and keeping the power to steal everybody's money using the fear of scarcity (of OIL) and intimidation. Mr. Ritter and Mr. Pitt didn't back down, and neither did most here on DU. Thank you Mr. Pitt, I am glad we all stick together on things that we can agree on.

As for the politicians, most will tell you anything as long as it makes you feel good and you believe them.

If you want me to believe in your party politics, tell me why I should listen to any of it, when you got the California Attorney General who is a Democrat voting for a Republican for governor? Seems to me your beef should be with him not posters here on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sesquipedalian Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. I didn't..
Anyone in possession of such weapons who would allow an invading army to dig in south of it's borders and build up is pacifist to a fault.

This doesn't fit in with Hussein's profile so it was rather obvious there was no significant threat there. At the time noting this was a sort of heresy and a sign of "naitivity". A few thousand lives and counting later, it's cold comfort to look back at who really was naive about this whole misadventure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HPLeft Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
34. The larger issue is that...
...in spite of his obvious words, he's still trying to exploit the perception that he was somehow "against the war" in a way that was dramatically different than someone like Kerry. Exploiting that misconception is fundamentally dishonest. Howard Dean has a character problem. We can't have another character problem in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Dean didn't support the IWR
And he didn't support Bush's decision to invade.

Kerry did on both counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. He supported Biden-Lugar version of the IWR
and said invasion of Iraq was OK 30-60 days later. Kerry thought Bush should have waited.

Not that significant a difference from Kerry's positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Unbelievable
Character problem? For having a valid opinion? He was AGAINST THE WAR. And that's true. Wrong thing at the wrong time.

Perhaps you just imagine character flaws. I mean, if you wanted to at least come off as objective, you wouldn't have the kerry avatar.

You're right, we can't have another character problem in the white house. But you don't see me frothing about how Kerry voted FOR the resolution and now acts like war was a mistake. Note to Kerry: If the war was a mistake, what did you learn since you voted FOR it that leads you to believe that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thanks
*kick*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
38. Yes, he figured they had something.
And wanted them to be disarmed. He did not believe they were proven an imminent threat to the US or our allies, and so we were not justified in invading. He wanted to work through the UN, just like everybody else on the planet not on our payroll, and continue inspections. Dean wanted proof to back up the presidents assertions, and that was never given, so he did not support the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
43. I'm with Dean
My opposition to the war was not based on the belief that Iraq had no WMD. My opposition was the same as Dean's: Wrong thing to do at the wrong time. I was for giving inspectors more time, containing Saddam. The thing was that the inspectors gave us no reason to believe that Saddam was a threat, but honestly, I am a little surprised at how little we've found in the WMD department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upfront Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
45. Hey Doc
Give it up. Dean will win, get over it, and face the facts, for once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC