Dean attacks Kerry over Vietnam

Eleven years is a long time, and during that time a man can change his mind about a lot of things.

Is that what has happened to John Kerry?

No one disputes Kerry’s bravery as a decorated Vietnam veteran. But it appears that between 1992 and 2003, he changed his mind on the importance of service in Vietnam as a qualification for being President of the United States.

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.

In the final weeks of the ’92 New Hampshire primary campaign and for two weeks following it, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska contrasted his own record of U.S. Navy service in Vietnam to Clinton’s opposition to the war and alleged draft-dodging.

John Kerry, on the Senate floor on Feb. 27, 1992, lamented that Vietnam had been “inserted into the campaign.”

He told his fellow senators, “What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary. . .We do not need to divide America over who served and how. . .”

He said that neither those who served in Vietnam nor those who did not had “cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.”

In October 1992, with Clinton and President George H.W. Bush in a general election campaign, Kerry, again on the Senate floor, blasted Bush for criticizing Clinton as a draft-dodger and anti-war protester.

“Mr. President,” Kerry said, “you and I know that if support or opposition to the war were to become a litmus test for leadership, America would never have leaders or recover from the divisions created by that war.”

Now, though, times and the world have changed. Kerry is running for President and we’ve had a terrorist attack and a war on terrorism and on Iraq. And Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the litmus test he once shunned.

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

I have full respect for Vets, My Dad was also in Vietnam, but I would not even support my Dad to run for City Council, I love the guy but. Again I respect that about Kerry for fighting overthere, but that is not something that really swings me either way.

That said. *I* have no opinion in either direction on this. This looks to me like Dean is tossing some of the flip-flop charges back at Kerry because that's what Kerry's main allegation on Dean has been. It appears to me that both sides quoted in the article are being truthfull, however I didn't read it that closely.

Deans comments concern a flip flop in regard to something Kerry keeps boasting on and on about...not actually about his vietnam experience.

In between 1992 and 2003, Sept 11 and two wars occurred. I absolutely believe that a solid understanding of military issues is going to be important this year, where it was not in 1992.

God I hate Howard Dean. I'm so sick of him crying because somebody attacks his policies, then turning around and dumping out raw sewage like this. This war crap has already been hashed over once by the Dean campaign. Kerry clearly said he doesn't think whether somebody served, protested the war, got deferments, or 'whatever', should be an issue. There shouldn't be personal attacks based on what somebody did during Vietnam. This is a whole different thing than stating your military experience, and what you learned from it, as part of your qualifications.

He said directly the opposite about Dean. He cleary stated that Dean not serving did matter. Incidently I think it doesn't obviously. It clearly didn't to voters in most elections. But Kerry did say it did in regards to why voters should prefer him over Dean.

"He cleary stated that Dean not serving did matter."

Could you point us to a quote where Kerry attacked Dean for not serving?

because he didn't. Saying that your experience set is the best set for today's world is very different from calling someone a "chickenhawk" or something. Dean says that his experience as a governor makes him better suited for an executive positions. Kerry says that his exposure to war in VietNam makes him better suited. Neither is attacking. Is Dean saying that Kerry never having served as Governor to be considered an attack? Kerry did have the opportunity to pursue being gov, but went into the Senate instead.

It's an experience set, and the people will decide which has the better attributes, resume and policy positions.

Pointing out the differences isn't "an attack". That's just silly.

If Kerry started attacking Dean because he actually took his own medical records to the draft board BEFORE his number was even up in order to be sure and get his medical deferment, that would be a personal attack on Howard's character and willingness to serve.

Howard was a doctor and a governor, that's his experience; Kerry has military, prosecutorial, lt. governor and congressional experience. That's info voters need to make a decision. I'm sure Howard would just love it if everybody sat down and let him have his way; he seems to be used to that considering the temper tantrums he throws when it doesn't happen.

At this point, it wouldn't bother me if Kerry did go ahead and point out Howard's shading of his medical deferment story, because it is similar to what Howard's done with every other issue.

And if Dean had served in Vietnam, he'd be telling us about ALL the time.

So he sure as hell understands sacrifice resulting from war. You don't see him using that to win sympathy points and votes. Dean doesn't mention a lot of the things he could that would help him because they aren't what's important. As long as Democrats keep bogging themselves down in these dumb ass beauty pageant type campaigning, they are going to LOSE. In California, instead of talking about issues, it was all about Arnold's "sins" and how much "better" of a person the Democrats supposedly are. Voters care about issues, not image.

in california ALL but arnold talked of the issues. moron arnold only talked about how he is going to go after the politicians and other crap without giving specifics of issues. the others DID talk issues. they did town hall meetings, and debates unlike arnold.

yeah, howard dean doesn't talk about his brother, but neither does john kerry. john kerry talks about his own experience in vietnam.

Then how come I didn't hear diddly squat about Bush's policies contributing to CA's budget woes but I heard plenty about Arnold's gang bangs and ass grabbing? That is exactly why Democrats keep losing...they are NOT focusing on the right things.

it was the media which mostly focused on arnold's sex life. did you watch the debates ? did you watch the town hall meetings ? they were full of issues such as education, taxes, immigration, gay rights, etc. clinton and gore talked about issues . clinton talked about the budget mess being a national problem. how there was a blackout recently in the east coast. just because you only heard about arnold's gang bangs doesn't mean that's what democrats talked about. all it means is that is what the media focused on .

Since when is DU the media? Go back and look at all the threads on here about Arnold. I didn't see much of anything that highlighted the positions of the democrats. All I saw was a frenzy of how evil Arnold is.

so you are saying democrats lost in california because on democraticunderground.com there was a lot of posts on arnold's gang bangs ?

The point is that it wasn't just the media making a big deal over that stuff...it was going on here worse than in the media. It's not DU's fault, it's the fault of Democrats making a habit of latching on to things like this instead of hammering away at the issues. This has been a serious problem ever since the GOP tried to impeach Clinton. I don't know if it's bitterness, payback or a combination of the two...but it didn't work to get Clinton out of office and it's not going to work to keep anyone else out of office. It DOES hurt the Democratic party and needs to stop. Policy criticism is great, but all the irrelevent crap is just plain dumb.

in the earlier post was that democrats did not talk about the issues in california and that's why democrats lost. i showed that was not true. the candidates did talk issues , a lot, many times. there were debates, town hall meetings.they talked about immigration, education, taxes, gay rights, environment, etc. you say people care about the issues. if this was the case then they sure wouldn't have voted for arnold as he never talked of any issues. and now you say it wasn't discussed on du. du is a place for partisans mostly. these people are mostly decided. even the anti duers who are lurkers are mostly decideds and are right wingers. the du forums is not representative of what and how an agenda is put out by democratic candidates.

You, as a democrat are a representative of your party and it's policies. If all you, as a democrat (or any democrat, for that matter) want to do is talk about things like was posted on here, then it's no damn wonder that the issues get lost. If you want Democrats to win then democrats need to do a better job of getting what they stand for talked about with voters. That's the whole point.

du is a partisan site. i come here knowing it is and behave accordingly. i know i can trash right wing assholes like bush on here. that's what this is for. what i do on here does not represent how i would run a campaign. i will call bush a piece of shit on here but doesn't mean i will advise any democrat on running ads calling him that. this board represents partisanship and i come here for that. i know this place does not allow right wing assholes to spread their agenda. i was glad when du banned any posts which supported arnold and called on gray davis to resign.

I know that I say the same things when I discuss politics when I'm talking to people in person as I say right here. I think most people probably do. Placing the focus in the wrong place does have a negative impact, and that's the point I'm making.

i don't go out and try to get people to support a certain candidate by saying the other guy is an asshole as i do here with bush and other right wingers. i tell them about important things like abortion rights, and how the supreme court plays an important part in that right, and how we are close to losing it unless things change. unless i'm in a crowd of people who i know are like me then i say whatever i want about right wingers. but in speaking to those of opposing views, or those who aren't into politics like me i mostly keep out emotional language.

"Voters care about issues, not image."

Um, all you guys do is talk about Dean's "image" as a fire-breathing populist who understands the frustrations of the common man. Or you talk about how "he" is changing the nature of campaigning.

I almost never hear you guys talk about his platform. And I think we all know why.

PS - Understanding sacrifice is not the same as understanding courage, honor, and duty. And doing so through your brother is kind of like understanding minorities by ordering a couple of black people for roommates.

told about him by the Kerry and Gephardt campaigns. Dean supporters aren't focusing on image, they're focusing on what Dean does and says that speaks for them.

PS - one doesn't have to serve in Vietnam to understand courage, honor and duty. One might do something like sign a Civil Unions Bill, which certainly qualifies as courageous, honorable and fulfilling a sense of duty to the people and country. Dean certainly doesn't try to utilize the loss of his brother for any kind of political gain, that was my whole point...that he does NOT do that. Oh, and isn't it a little difficult for Kerry to really represent the average American taxpayer when he pursues tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and fails to report them as is required by law? And how can he claim to want to go after corporate crooks when his own wife hands the reins of an important environmental non profit over to Ken Lay?

I have more respect for a guy who requested to have a diverse dorm experience over a guy who chose to align himself with the elitists of Skull and Bones any day.

I only saw articles that pointed to him as a CIA operative, not a soldier. And it was the CIA that was pulling some nasty shit there that ensured the war's continuance.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086440/

Counterinsurgency: In 1974, while exploring Southeast Asia, Dean's brother Charlie was arrested by Communist rebels in Laos, evidently on suspicion of espionage. The rebels were backed by Vietnam and opposed by the United States, which listed Charlie as POW/MIA. The U.S. Embassy to Laos pledged to push for Charlie's release, but he was executed. The rebels won the war and became the current Laotian government. In 2002, Howard Dean said he thought "the North Vietnamese basically ordered (Charlie)killed." Dean said he didn't believe his brother had been spying, "but for all I know he was in the CIA." Dean added, "We were bombing the hell out of (Laos). We were denying we were bombing them while they were denying they were holding any American prisoners."

that almost always means "Yes."

If they knew that he was in the CIA it would make the loss easier to understand and would give the family a certain level of closure that they don't have. Dean carries around Charlie's POW file with him and it stayed on his desk in the governor's office during his entire time as Vermont governor. This is a very big part of the reason he is so upset with the Democrats who voted for the IWR. He knows the pain the families of those lost due to war first hand, and he doesn't believe putting people in that position should ever be done so carelessly.

use of force as laid out in the IWR with Biden-Lugar amendment.

He was FOR every war we were in the last 30 years. Did he not feel the pain of those deaths, too? Get real, why try to pull the wool over our eyes?

There was him and a friend from Australia who were taken, locked up, accused of being spies and were executed. You don't have to be a soldier to be a Prisoner of War. The Dean family doesn't know if he was CIA or not. I would think that if he was that after him being killed that the CIA would tell the family to give them closure. Charlie was far more politically active than Dean was, but I'm pretty sure I read that he opposed Vietnam, so I think it's unlikely he was CIA. I think it's much more likely that he was over there trying to get information to tell anti-war activists back home than being in the CIA. However, if Charlie Dean was in the CIA, he might have told the draft officials about Dean's back problems and had some kind of influence that Dean himself had no knowledge of, but I suspect that even that is unlikely.

When Clinton was running, there was no Iraq like there is no, no Afghanistan, no 9/11 had happened. In today's world, experiance in the military IS important. That is especially true when running against an encumbent who has an action figure of himself in a flight suit, pretending to be brave. Who better to challenge that popular image than a REAL war hero?

Peepers

dean should do this in the debates.

He's a sissy when it comes down to it. He wouldn't dare mention this in a debate. Kerry would rip him apart and Dean would be left looking like a moron. Oh wait, he already looks like a moron.

Cant imagine how he can live with himself loosing to a moron in the polls

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

Democrats are too busy talking about irrelevent crap trying to make Democrats look better morally and as people to actually talk about issues. Kerry's campaign is doing the same thing and it's why he's doing so shitty. But hey, he stood in front of a boat, rode a motorcycle without a helmet, was in Vietnam and windsurfs. Sorry, but voters aren't so dumb to elect someone based on these irrelevent issues...and yes, serving in Vietnam is irrelevent when it comes to being experienced to run the country. There are thousands of Vietnam Veterans who have PTSD so bad that they can't even run their own lives effectively, let alone the country. They are brave people who did a great service for this country, but that doesn't mean they should be president. Issues win elections, image doesn't.

the ones who voted for bush are the ignorant morons who don't care for issues. hahhahahah, it's sooooooo funny to hear one claim people voted for bush and arnold because it was democrats who were playing the morals or image crap. i guess you didn'tpay attention to california recall race. it was arnold who was the ONLY one to not talk issues. the rest all talked issues and were in debates talking issues. and bush's whole campaign was about how he was the moral guy who was going to come out and clean up washington and raise morals.

He didn't talk much about things, but he didn't turn it into a 3 ring circus, either...and THAT is why he won.

Democrats DO focus too much on bringing up things that they think will turn people off to their competition instead of sticking to what is good about themselves, and that is harmful to Democrats. It might be harder for you to step back and look at this honestly because you are probably too emotionally involved. I'm a bona-fide swing voter and this is exactly what I see. This seems to be some kind of fall out from the mess with Clinton. Maybe it's payback and bitterness over the crap the GOP pulled on Clinton, but whatever the cause, it's destructive and bad for the Democratic party, period.

hahahha, bill clinton's sex life wasn't irrelevant mud ?

also gathered outside of al gore's home while he was vp. gore had his family home and the vile bush supporters were screaming and yelling at them to "get out of cheney's house".

Yes, a lot of Bush supporters are ignorant boneheads. But then Democrats made it a point to call Bush a coke head, draft dodger, drunk driver, too. I wasn't really into paying that close attention to politics before Dean started running for president. I voted a lot of the time, but not always. To be perfectly honest with you, all I remember about the 2000 campaign about Bush wasn't anything wrong he did in politics, but rather his past cocaine use, drunk driving and dodging the draft. I didn't have any idea who stood for the things I believe in and who didn't because all the information I was hearing had nothing at all to do with policies, issues and things that matter to me and everything to do with who was a bigger fuck up in their personal life.

his ass went awol from a national gaurd unit that wasn't even going to vietnam because he used drugs. if the whore media had actually reported this rather than blow it off as just dirty campaigning it would have proved what a fraud bush was when he claims to be moral, or care about the military, or any of his other lies.

You are convinced that exposing the competition as doing things they shouldn't in their private lives as being more important than talking about actual issues relevent to people's lives. Do you know how many voters have tried cocaine or driven after drinking or skipped out on a commitment they made? A lot. People are human and make dumb mistakes all the time. When Democrats attack Republicans for being human and making mistakes voters tend to feel like you are also looking down on them, and it's a turn off.

Did his sex life matter in the end? Did all that mud slinging drive Clinton out of office? No, it didn't. It didn't prevent Arnold from becoming governor of CA, either. That's the whole point. The irrelevent mud slinging doesn't work in the end and is therefore a complete waste of time and energy.

and i'm saying he did and proved he did. bush is one of the most disgusting people out there. his campaingn against john mccain couldn't have been any worse. the whore media refuses to hold the right wing assholes accountable . they are held to low standards. this is why they are able to get away with crap.

And in the past, less people pay attention to those. I think more are this time because the country is just more interested in this stuff since 9/11.

In general elections it has a far more negative effect on things. It's not as partisan, I guess is the best way to put it. Primaries are more partisan.

he used clinton's private life to attack democrats. as if his own private life was so great. hahahhaha, the moron is an all around failure who made it where he is because of his name and money which he mostly got through corrupt means.

It sucked to be a democrat not long ago when our candidates were losing to a moron (the chimp) in the polls. You see, things change!

and he tries to do that in debates. And don't underestimate Dean. If he chose to do so, he'd chew Kerry up and spit him out, leaving Kerry totally humiliated on television. Dean won't lose his temper, but he will eventually take the gloves off and be a hell of a lot more harsh than he has so far. He's actually been pretty damn mild considering the level of disgust he has for the behavior he's been witnessing.

You need to learn what a moron is. Let's examine this, shall we?

A moron is someone who votes for an unnecessary, unjust and illegal war that puts the country deeper in debt than any country has ever been in the history of the world.

A moron is someone who gathers supporters together to talk about what another candidate is doing while the other candidate is busy collecting food for striking workers.

A moron is someone who sends someone out in public wearing a waffle costume to poke fun at hundreds of Democratic activists.

A moron is someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet.

I don't think I need to go you, you get the point.

that feature Kerry in Vietnam, so he's trying to get his minions all worked up even further against Kerry.

>>>>>
As a movie star enters the political arena on the West Coast, a presidential candidate from the East Coast finds himself on the big screen. Three documentaries focusing on the life of Senator John F. Kerry and his years as a Vietnam soldier are being produced this year.

"Brothers in Arms," a 68-minute documentary film featuring Kerry and five of his crewmates during the Vietnam War was finished in New York on Tuesday night and was being screened yesterday in New York for reporters. A film about the death of one of Kerry's good friends on a swift boat during the Vietnam War is being played in film festivals across the country and will air on public television stations on Nov. 11. And the documentary filmmaker George Butler, a close friend of Kerry, is making a film about the Democratic presidential campaign.

Two books are also in the works. Douglas Brinkley, a historian, is finishing a biography on Kerry that is scheduled to be released in January. The Massachusetts Democrat is writing a book on policy that is due out Oct. 27.
Will the extra exposure coming from a flurry of multimedia ventures centering around Kerry's life aid him in his presidential bid?

"That remains to be seen," said Kelley Benander, a spokesperson for the Kerry campaign.
Paul Alexander, the director of "Brothers in Arms," said Kerry's life in Vietnam is so visual and dramatic that it's perfect for film.
Brinkley, the author of "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and The Vietnam War," said Kerry's story of a war hero turned antiwar spokesman has the threads of a fascinating narrative.

"For me, I was trying to tell a story of Vietnam, and Kerry's story is a great vehicle," said Brinkley.
What makes Kerry's story especially interesting, Brinkley said, is that the young, Vietnam hero from Massachusetts became a dynamic spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which Brinkley claims had a profound impact on US disengagement of Southeast Asia.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/kerry_emerges_on_big_screen?mode=PF

Are slightly more different. Don't you think an event like 9/11 has the right to change a man's mind? Yes, I know it's insignificant if put next to the Russian casualties in WW II or the Africans slaughtered in today's tribal wars, but 9/11 WAS the most disastrous foreign attack on American soil ever, so in that context, don't you think it has power to sway one's mind?

For better or worse it is true and Dean has to face up to that fact.

unlike Clark of course.

But Kerry has a wealth of domestic and foriegn policy experience he highlights as well as his veteran status which he usually hints at through experiences and examples. I don't remember him flat out stating he should be president because he faught in Vietnam.

I don't know what Dean's people are talking about.

Vietnam II last year.

Kerry's military background certainly didn' help his decision making ability with voting for Gulf of Tonkin Resolution II, otherwise known as the 2002 IWR.

Kerry can stress his military background all he wants, but the Iraq debacle that he voted for tells people that he makes bad decisions regarding whether or not to go to war.

very young and, in retro, it should have never happened. The blood for the Viet Nam disaster is attributable to the ignorant inaction of the politicians of that era as the current deaths in Iraq are a result of our current representation.

Dean...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

He brought his own x-rays to the physical, got an exemption for his back and then hit the ski slopes. I wonder what poor guy had to take Dean's place in the draft.

"Deanie Weenie" is already being drawn in a hotdog suit. <http://www.brianpetty.com/show_topics.php?id=14>. If Dean is the nominee Bush will win in the biggest landslide in history.

Dean '04...Didn't Kill Vietnamese...That's Great!!!!!!!!

But in Ho-Ho's case, he did all he could to stay the heck out of Vietnam. So what? In all the years since, he hasn't done anything to get to know what one needs to know to be Commander-in-Chief.

Those are battles he practiced for throughout his career as governor. No wonder he's so good at it.

his ignorance. Neither qualifies him to run a snowball stand.

Dean '04...

Dean '04...

I'm not laughing.