A Dean Supporter Tries A GOP Talking Point On Kerry

The GOP talking point:

In 1992, Kerry defended candidate for President Bill Clinton. Then, service in Vietnam didn’t matter, according to Kerry.

Now that Kerry’s running for President and is being relentlessly dogged by non-veteran Howard Dean, service does matter — it matters a lot.

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research081403-2.htm

The Dean supporter:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Kerry, you’ve been highly critical of Governor Dean’s lack of foreign policy experience. However, you were a supporter of the Clinton presidency and, in fact, you were on the short list for his vice president in 1992. How do you reconcile your criticism of his lack of experience when President Clinton had the exact same credentials in 1992?

KERRY: Well, I could make a joke out of it and tell you he was going to make me vice president and so that —- but I’m not going to do that because that wasn’t the reason. That-that was not the reason.

You know, President Clinton and I had a conversation maybe a couple of months ago in which he expressed to me that he thought that in this current climate, he might have had a lot harder time getting elected president than he did. And the reason is that the issue then was not post-September 11. It was not after we had all seen a very different world.

I wrote a book about six year ago now called “The New War.” And I drew that book on the experience I had as chairman of the Narcotics Terrorism Committee in which I learned about this international criminal activity and the interchangeability of all of these criminal activities — arms running, drug running, nuclear proliferation, regular proliferation, all interconnect. And so I set out a series of things we needed to do. That was 1996.

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0684846144.01._PE_PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

President Clinton was elected in 92. The major issue then was the economy. Today, another Bush has presented us with a twofer; the major issues are the economy and America’s relationship to the rest of the world. And I believe we need a president now, as George Bush has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, the presidency is not the place post-9/11 for on-the-job training. I think we need somebody who has experience.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983074.asp

<>

It's a valid question, is it not?

I'm sorry, but because Kerry fought in Vietnam doesn't mean he's 'solid' on foreign policy. If he was so solid and knew the true horrors of an unjust war, why did he continue to support the war in Iraq last year?

because it's the same exact argument that was posted on the BushTeamLeader campaign website.

and on edit: I see that it's also on rnc.org. I guess the talking points used by the GOP aren't "GOP talking points" anymore.

About how Dean shouldn't be president because he lacks the foreign policy needed in these 'terrible' times?

Weakness and/or inexperience in foriegn policy being a minus factor is widely acknowledged, as is the fact that since 9/11 military experience is more important than it once was.

Furthermore, lacking foreign policy experience was used by the Dems against Bush* in 2000. Does that make it sound like a GOP talking point?

It's not. It's an argument that has been made dozens of times by both parties. It belongs to neither.

It's still a talking point, whether you choose to accept it or not. It's a point that BOTH parties will use to slander a campaign. Right now it just happens to be that a Democrat is using it to slander another Democrat.

Trust me; it'll become a GOP talking point *if* Dean wins the nomination.

In that event, it still won't be a "GOP talking point". More like "a standard ploy"

Just like how they'll say the Democrats will RAISE YER TAXES! It'll be a ploy but also a point of MANY speeches and ads. Why do you think they're going to continue to beef up Bush's image as war hero?

I could see the ad now.

BLACK

Bush's voice sweeps across the screen - followed by the president standing on an aircraft carrier. ROARS of cheers lift from the military crowd.

Narrator
President Bush is a proven leader in foreign affairs. He secured America in wake of devastation. He brought freedom to both the Afghanistan and Iraqi people.

CUT to rural Vermont.

Narrator
Governor Dean has no foreign expierence.

The LUSH, green Vermont hills bask in the morning sun. Suddenly a missile falls from the ocean blue sky. A NUCLEAR cloud envelops the scene.

Narrator
Can you afford on the job training in such pressing times?

This November, make the wise choice - vote Bush/Cheney. A safer America is a better America.

It'll be the Dem nominee, John Kerry, talking about Bush*'s lack of military service.

Did FDR have military experience that prepared him for World War 2?

What is it about being in uniform at whatever level that better prepares someone to be President?

Why is someone who has never worn a uniform somehow less prepared to be President?

This makes no sense.

excellent point.

Military experience always has carried a lot of cachet in America, it's not a new thing that.

I think FDR makes a fine argument for why this is a bogus issue, having presided over a real war, not the contrived war that Bush has created.

Furthermore, the parallels that exist between the present economic period and the one that FDR presided over are striking. We are
heading into another depression period like 1930's and will need a governor like FDR, governor of NY for 4 years, to lead us through the dark period.

On the subject. I'd say that makes him a little more qualified than just being a Vietnam veteran (or even a 4-star General of a conventional army).

Interesting story of how he got that Chair:

Kerry Got Anti-Terrorism Chair After Fears He'd Impeach Reagan

Suddenly, Kerry's theories didn't seem so far-fetched. He hoped this would be his moment to help lead the investigation into this extraordinary episode. The Iran-contra scandal was the top story in town, and there was worried talk in the halls of Congress that the United States might suffer another failed presidency.

But when congressional leaders chose the members of the elite Iran-contra committee, Kerry was left off. Those selected were consensus-politicians, not bomb-throwers.

The feeling among a disappointed Kerry and his staff was that the committee members were chosen to put a lid on things. "He was told early on they were not going to put him on it," Winer recalls. "He was too junior and too controversial . . .. They were concerned about the survival of the republic."

Even some Democrats "thought John was a little hotter than they would like," says Rosenblith.

As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership gave Kerry chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and a charter to dig into the contra-drug connection.

While disappointed, Kerry stuck with his investigation and the subcommittee published a report in 1989 that concluded the CIA and other US agencies had turned a blind eye to drug trafficking occurring on the fringes of the contra network.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

<>

But to state that Dean could not lead a nation because he never 'served in a war' or because he wasn't in Congress is just foolish. It's like saying Kerry couldn't be a strong domestic leader because he never governed a body.

I don't know about it being a GOP talking point precisely, but I would say that this post 9/11, pre-9/11 stuff is a pandering to fear a la the standard GOP line.
Maybe I'm being dumb, but I just don't believe that the world changed after 9/11. Attitudes in the U.S. might have changed once a lot of people suddenly realized the world is a dangerous place and they couldn't hide on the other side of an ocean, but did the world really change?

Kerry using this line strikes me as suspect frankly. He generally does impress me, but statements like this current one of his are what keeps me in the Dean camp.

and blunders....

So maybe the World didn't change after 9/11 but America's capacity for either living in denial or reaching for enlightment became much more of an issue.

The PNAC'ers want chaos and fear... and have sown the seeds of terror. Like it or not, we have to face the harvest.

your way of putting it here, in particular-
"America's capacity for either living in denial or reaching for enlightment became much more of an issue"

Furthermore, I think that whoever follows b*sh, will find the rest of the world more than happy to welcome a return to sanity in American foreign policy. As long as he promotes good statesmanship and diplomacy, a post b*sh environment will work to Dean's advantage more than a post 9/11 environment will hinder him. Dean's staunch pragmatism, shrewd instincts, and humanist principles will all be positives in this regard. Also, if his campaign is any indicator, Dean has shown that he is capable of surrounding himself with, (and listening to), good and competent people. As such, I strongly disagree with Kerry's assessment.

It's amazing what happens when ya start thinking Outside the damn Box!

are nothing of the sort.

Of course, would you actually expect anything else in the rigged, fixed game that is Marcos' Phillipines, err, the Amerikan Empire?

Dr. Dean disqualified himself for national leadership, Mr. DeLay said, by suggesting that the decision to go to war should be made by the United Nations. "If he wants to be president of the United States, but subject the United States to decisions by the U.N., he lacks the sound judgment needed for responsible national leadership," Mr. DeLay said.

Source

Kerry’s campaign manager, Jim Jordan, fired back, “Governor 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.

Source

In a related story, Gephard accused Dean of siding with Hitler due to their agreement that "milk is yummy".

Just wondering. :evilgrin:

That's sure a cute attempt at a trick question, comparing Clinton's credentials in 1992 to Dean's credentials today. IMO Dean supporters should stick to their one-trick-pony about the Iraq War Resolution when they question Kerry about foreign policy, unless they want to be reminded of Kerry's heavyweight credentials AGAIN.

Nah.

Serve 19 years in the Senate? Serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Write books on the subject?

All respect to your father. But no.

Yet Clinton protected us from numerous terrorist attacks, and had a strong record in Foreign Relations.

I don't think one has to be a War Hero to Govern post 911, that's my point. In addition, I dont think 911 would have happened were Gore President (but that's another subject.)

Hey, Kerry has never turned around a budget deficit, but I won't hold that against him. ;)

In fact, he was one of a small group of Dem deficit hawks throughout his career.

Clinton, himself, said that he even he would have a hard time winning under the same circumstances post 9-11.

;) If Dean dropped out that is.

In all honesty, Kerry is my second choice, so I shant be to harsh.

Peace

in the land of imagination.

Dean '04...The New Democratic leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

Kerry is not talking about being a veteran. He's talking about his experiences dealing with the very nature of stateless terrorism - proliferation, money funneling, coalition building, trade agreements, etc. Kerry has said repeatedly that the "war" on terrorism is really much more international policing and intelligence gathering than conventional warfare. Kerry gets it.

remember, Bush served during Vietnam too.

awol bunny! and the military love him anyway!

Kerry needs to get over Vietnam, it's so old.

Everytime I hear Kerry speak, I count the seconds until
I hear "when I was in VietNam" frankly, he'd do much better
extolling his qualities.

We get it, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. enough already.

Kerry does NOT mention Vietnam in the original post!

I wrote a book about six year ago now called “The New War.” And I drew that book on the experience I had as chairman of the Narcotics Terrorism Committee in which I learned about this international criminal activity and the interchangeability of all of these criminal activities — arms running, drug running, nuclear proliferation, regular proliferation, all interconnect. And so I set out a series of things we needed to do. That was 1996.

Funny, I didn't see Vietnam anywhere in that paragraph.

Tell me, is it boring because it's not an angry man from Vermont critiquing Bush? Is it boring because it's actual nitty-gritty substance as opposed to rhetoric spouted from a safe distance?

Let's see, we have a GOP talking point from an UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE. Now this unidentified female is being called "The Dean supporter". So from this piece of profiling we're to draw the conclusion that service is more important today then it was in 1992, everything has changed as Bush would say. Well thankfully we have the Patriot Act which I guess can perhaps help now identify what candidate an unknown person supports. Otherwise how do we know that this is a Dean supporter?

Yup, nothing like experience...

Woman to Kerry: "you’ve been highly critical of Governor Dean’s lack of foreign policy experience"

Who wouldn't be highly critical of Governor Dean's lack of foreign policy experience?

GOP talking point: Now that Kerry’s running for President and is being relentlessly dogged by non-veteran Howard Dean, service does matter — it matters a lot.

People are dying for that magic moment when Kerry calls his shit out.

Tell me you wouldn't jump out your chair if he did that in a debate!

<>

How rude! (thanks)

:toast:

Today just happens to be my "coming out day" as a Kerry supporter. (I'd been drifting between Kerry, Clark and Dean, but very recently I docked!)

[

Kerry is the one stumping as Republican, making issue of his military experience as if it was the only measure of electibility. He claims that after 911 everything changed, and suggests that a military background from an idiot who enlisted in America's most notorious unjust war - which everyone else was trying to avoid, and who came home to protest the war when the political winds were advantageous, now brags of his status in another unjust...no downright fraud draining US credibility and finances.. Kerry arguments against raising foreign labor standards because they would impact negatively on the US economy is right out of the Republican playbook. Kerry's position on Israel and his condemnation of Dean's efforts on behalf of America's pursuit to peace in the Middle-East, in rhetoric, is to the right of Bush.

You boys are getting desperate and it ain't pretty.

You just used the same exact logic that lost Shannon the election to Kerry.

"He claims that after 911 everything changed, and suggests that a military background from an idiot who enlisted in America's most notorious unjust war - which everyone else was trying to avoid, and who came home to protest the war when the political winds were advantageous, now brags of his status in another unjust war."

Kerry signed up early even though he had reservations about US intervention out of sense of duty from the Kennedy era (and a father who served as well).

Kerry protested against "free-fire" zones as an officer in Vietnam because it had a very high civilian casualty rate. When he came home, he protested out of the same sense of duty and love of country that motivated him to enlist.

"Kerry arguments against raising foreign labor standards because they would impact negatively on the US economy is right out of the Republican playbook."

No, actually, Kerry is a believer in globalization as a long-term goal that will raise labor and environmental standards that must contend with its dark side directly (and has legislated against it) without losing sight of that goal. Public Citizen attacks his "fast track" vote, but praises his trade labor/enviro amendments to the sky.

"Kerry's position on Israel and his condemnation of Dean's efforts on behalf of America's pursuit to peace in the Middle-East, in rhetoric, is to the right of Bush."

Don't confuse Dean's words with his "efforts." Dean is a hardcore pro-Likud hawk using words to coo in progressive ears. Dean actually said he agrees with Bush's Mideast policy. Compare Kerry's statement:

"Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process."

And let's look at Dean:

"When they have bothered to state them, the Administration's guiding principles in the Middle East are the right ones. Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years."

--

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

Dean traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dean stated: “I do not think that as long as Yasser Arafat is president there will be peace." Before leaving, Sharon asked if Dean would support requests for new loan guarantees to Israel. Dean “promised him he would.”

http://www.aaiusa.org/countdown/c120602.htm

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Look I heard what he said on "Hardball" about protesting being the popular thing to do when he came back from Nam. And if he went to Nam as a supposedly intelligent, well-educated young man who knew the realities then, but went to participate anyway--I have more contempt for him then I would for the gullible, gung-ho kid who wasn't exposed to more than propaganda.

I heard what Kerry said repeatedly about labor standards during the debates--it isn't necessary to put any sugary icing on it. Kerry always wants to have it both ways--that is the most comprehensive thing that can be said of Kerry.

Your collection of quotes is old news, Dean has evolved in his views, and don't forget it was Kerry's lament to Dean over his stand for greater "even-handedness" in Israel. Who would've ever thought Dean was going out on a political limb by stating such a thing? Obviously, it took some courage, and yet you claim Kerry spews the talk but he don't do the walk, does he?

They are all prostrate in front of Israel, with all the tired babbling of peace while the US sides with Israel and vetoes every UN effort. Not even Kucinch votes against bills singing sweet praises to Israel-he just doesn't vote at all. The reality is, in this country to speak without complete and unquestioning allegiance to Israel is political suicide. And Kerry tried to paint Dean into that corner.

Hey, fuck him.

You're about as convincing as Senator Kerry, himself.