portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government selection 2004

Dean attacks Kerry from the Right

Dean criticizes Kerry for voting against the 1991 bloodbath in Iraq.
In his campaigning today Dean said, " he voted not to go to war when the oil wells were on fire and the troops were in Kuwait". First of all the oil well were on fire after, not before the invasion...as a direct result of the invasion. 2nd Kerry should be commended against voting against the Bush Senior 1991 genocidal Oil War. I hope you Dean supporters can see through your candidate. Dean is progun, pro- Confederate flag, pro-1991 Gulf War. No, Kerry's no Kucinich, but he's a progressive and he won't freak out in his speeches either. I think the choice is clear for those who want a substantial opponent to Bush.
which John Kerry? 26.Jan.2004 00:28


Do you mean the same John Kerry that supported the uniliteral pre-emptive attack on Iraq, the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, No Child Left Behind, and was a member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale? Yes, the choice is clear - I will never support John Kerry.

how to make friends and influence people... 26.Jan.2004 00:28

ditch the sane/insane dichotomy

please... refer to yourself as just about anything but "the sane left".

then again, maybe this is just some sort of ruse to divert our energy towards
the dead end of electoral wool-pulling.

one more thing 26.Jan.2004 00:29


Yes, Howard Dean looooves the confederate flag. "The Sane Left" seems like a brainwashed ignorant tool of the media.

Watch The Democraps Eat Themselves 26.Jan.2004 06:52

FUCK 'The Sane Left'

"Kerry's no Kucinich, but he's a progressive and he won't freak out in his speeches either . . ."

hey 'The Sane Left' you clueless shitbag idiot (yeah, **you**) TROLL:

choke on it. and have fun endorsing your Skull & Bones butt-buddy Kerry -

Even moderates appear to be anti-war compared to the Bonesman 26.Jan.2004 06:56


Kerry's early support for Bush in Iraq --- (Both of them, Bush-41 & Bush-43) will make a debate be a true
Bonesman vs. Bonesman Point/Counterpoint: "I disagree but here's where I support you"
Even Kerry's independent backers have a webpage which reveals their candidates support of Bush's Iraq adventure: "John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War
October 9, 2002"

prairie falcon's suspicions are valid: If Kucinich or Nader become viable threats they'll quickly be marked for elimination. The true powers had this working in '68 in taking candidate Robert F. Kennedy out.

Thomas Friedman Wants a Democrat Who Can Win World War III 26.Jan.2004 07:34

Ira Chernus

In his last column on World War III, Tom Friedman breathed a great sigh of relief that the voters of Iowa understand it, too. That's why they derailed Howard Dean's train to the White House. And a good thing too, Tom says. A candidate who won't applaud smashing Iraq in the face just isn't "credible." In other words, he's not a good guy with good ideas. Now we can rest assured that we'll have a Democratic candidate who is ready to do some mouth-smashing when the time comes. Of course, a good guy can have bad ideas about how to fight World War III. Friedman criticizes the Bush administration, not for going to war, but for being "sloppy and unprepared for postwar Iraq." He wants a decent, moderate Democratic president to bring "stability" to Iraq. Oh, and democracy.

Kerry Still Needs to Explain War Vote 26.Jan.2004 07:36

Derrick Z. Jackson

Kerry fell for the patriotic lecture in October of 2002 when he voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said the White House "systematically misrepresented" the actual threat posed by Iraq. But Kerry, either being an inattentive sucker or simply gutless, said he voted for authorization because "the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option."

Boston Globe via Common Dreams NewsCenter

kerry vote 26.Jan.2004 09:40


After watching Kerry on 60 minutes, I understand even less why he voted to allow the war in Iraq. He seems like a changling...he will vote for what gets him the most. But I CANNOT at ALL vote for bush, so if Kerry gets the nomination, he gets my vote if only to get rid of bush. Convoluted voting. This is what it has come down to.

Anybody but Bush 26.Jan.2004 09:57

not an idiot

"I'll never support Kerry". Great thanks. I seriously hope that most the left does not take this same tone. Lazy left, there is no one else to vote for and we do a horrible job running canditates through the ranks, me included. Nader and the greens should have started to develop some experience.

Message For "not an idiot" - 26.Jan.2004 10:24

"I'll never support Kerry".


you may never support him, but Skull & Bones sure does - and he them.

A good Kerry source 26.Jan.2004 10:58

Lars the Infidel

Here's a recent profile of Kerry in the New Yorker:


Boner vs. Boner 26.Jan.2004 12:01


Oh, boy, the voters are gonna have a great choice this year. Boner vs. Boner, the swordfight of the century. Personally, I don't want to watch Bush and Kerry whack thier dicks together and then have to choose one of them to be president.

Kerry's law 26.Jan.2004 16:46


Kerry's law of voting is simple, 1. Whatever is good for Kerry is the way to vote. 2. I can always claim enlightenment later, 3. When in a jam and have to think on the spot I can mumble something about honor and Vets.

Given the American political ambient, a candidate with a wife with half a billion dollars can not possible understand what needs to be fixed. My mind is not made up yet on Kerry he could get my vote by declaring that if elected (I know but I mean the American version of an election) he would demand the arrest and convict of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and a few others. Using the 'laws' on hand send these Enemy Combatants to Gitmo. Also if failing this he would resign from office in thirty days. This would of course make the choice of VP interesting.

I have a question 26.Jan.2004 18:33


Why is Kerry's vote on the Iraq war resolution an issue here? Am I the only person who noticed that THE WAR ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENED?
Why are we picking our candidates based on their opinions regarding a past event that can't be changed, (absent some kind of device that could send Arnold Schwarzenegger back in time to kill Bush and most of Congress)? If withdrawal of American forces from Iraq now is your goal, (and the sanity of a goal like that is another discussion entirely) then voting for Dean is not going to do you any more good than voting for Kerry. Given the information that's come to light about how Bush manipulated evidence about Iraqi weapons programs, perhaps we should be careful in how we interpret an officeholder/candidate's actions in the situation at the time.

I mean, what's so amazing about Dean's stance here? It doesn't take a whole lot of integrity or courage to state your opposition after the fact to a decision you had no part in making. I don't recall hearing much from Dean about the war before it happened, and certainly not before a large body of the electorate became vocal about the issue and opposition to it became a potential selling point to attract voters. And it's not like he's a pacifist; at one he was advocating military action against North Korea, which is one of the few proposals I've ever heard from a politician stupider than the proposal to invade Iraq. We have every reason to expect Dean to be as gung-ho about throwing American bombs around as anyone else, but because he criticized one particular policy move that lots of other people opposed, he's magically transformed himself into a miracle peace candidate?

Are we forgetting that Kerry's early political history includes leadership in Vietnam Veterans Against the War? Dean has become the darling of the peace movement because of his essentially irrelevant personal opinion of one particular war, while Kerry's actual history as an anti-war activist is never mentioned.

So, if I understand things correctly:
1. kerry isn now saying that supporting this most recent attack on Iraq was a bad idea, as is Dean.
2. Kerry opposed the first attack on Iraq in a congressional vote, an action Dean seems from his comments to have agreed with
3. Kerry is not only a former leader in one of the most influential and well-known anti-war organizations in the United States, but also himself a combat veteran, which suggests that he has a certain personal connection the issue of frivolous military adventures, neither of which is true of Dean
4. However, Dean built his candidacy early in the process by appealing to the emergent 'peace vote', so therefore:
5. Dean is an unstoppable force for peace on earth, while Kerry is a warmongering Republicrat.

Is that about right, or did I miss something?

that's about right. 26.Jan.2004 18:46


dump your stocks and grow your crops, ain't nobody gonna do it for you.

the kerry bone connects to the bush bone 26.Jan.2004 18:56


Skull and Bones is behind the latest "coming from behind" tactics with Kerry. This tactic makes Kerry look like the populist underdog. It is all a game--Oz manipulating the show behind our backs. Tim Russert at least asked Kerry about his association with Skull and Bones, and he just said it's a secret. No kidding! But the secrets are coming out. For anymore who wants to know more, I recommend this book, edited by Eugene author Kris Millegan: Fleshing Out Skull and Bones, Investigations into America's Most Powerful Secret Society. www.Boodleboys.com. Kris' father was in the CIA, left due to the fact that he had a conscience, and was able to guide his son to the truth about the real power brokers. Also, Votescam, a book by the Collier brothers, exposes the rigging of our elections for many years now. It is way beyond the Florida vote scandals and makes me question just who won the mid term elections, how many votes Nader really got, etc etc.

Edwards is the best choice 26.Jan.2004 20:05

Bright Eye

Is he the best choice?

Heimdallr thanks for your Sane comments 26.Jan.2004 20:12

The Sane Left

Heimdallr, most of those on PIM are so far gone they can't even think. I'm glad you are one of the few on these boards that can. I think many here are like that "anarchist" kid who was interviewed at the Seattle WTO thing. He screamed "We need total chaos!!!" The reporter asked, "So do you know what the WTO is?" "I don't give a rat's ass!!!!" "That's what I thought...have a nice day."
Bottom line is don't confuse these 911/Skull and Bones conspiracy theorists with facts. For they too, I would venture to guess, don't "give a rat's ass" either.

WTO thing 26.Jan.2004 21:08


>> I think many here are like that "anarchist" kid who was interviewed at the Seattle WTO thing. He screamed "We need total chaos!!!" The reporter asked, "So do you know what the WTO is?" "I don't give a rat's ass!!!!" "That's what I thought...have a nice day."

You are easily led.

The reporter you referred to was working for which news channel? You didn't say. And of all the people that "reporter" chose to interview, don't you find it interesting they selected a teen stoner who articulated his formless opinion in gibberish and cliche?

No, I'm sure that thought hadn't crossed your mind since skepticism is clearly the domain of the conspiracy crackpots. How exactly would that reporter have shoe-horned a reasoned response to an informed inquiry into the four seconds alloted for that clip? Answer: not possible. So the reporter trolls until he finds someone who will scream and act the fool (Dean's "yeaargh") and then they call it news, sandwiched in between the 4-second Blazers highlight reel and the 4-second wiener-eating contest at Coney Island.

And guys like you who are used to nibbling their info-chow in tiny vole-like servings eat it up and whimper: "more please, sir."

You will never see a detailed, cogent, and intelligent justification for "the Seattle WTO thing" on corporate "news" because there is no such thing as corporate news. Only info-tainment and propaganda. And also because viewers like you would not stand for it. Why dwell on a lengthy discussion on "the Seattle WTO thing" when Paris Hilton beckons just three or four channels over?

You want to call out posters on this site as half-baked, where are your links for your WTO citation? Where might I find the transcript of that interview? I see zero substance in your remarks, whereas most posters on this site are careful to post links and back up their assertions with hard data which can be contested on their merits.

Bring your A-game or go home.

I'm done.

WRONG. 26.Jan.2004 22:59


"Kerry's actual history as an anti-war activist is never mentioned."

--you're WRONG, 'heimdallr'.

almost every mainstream media report on John Kerry has mentioned or alluded to his history of Vietnam war opposition. (search Internet articles on Kerry from the past two years for proof). But that history in itself is rather questionable, considering Kerry's own elite standing among war veterans themselves, and the manner in which he was rapidly appointed 'figurehead' of that particular movement (VVAW) at that particular time. go research it yourself . . .

in any case, the current US corporate media's assessment of Kerry's anti-war antics all those decades ago is mostly with mild bemusement (echoing the way they treat all dissent of any sort from any period of history) -

for as everyone here knows:


p.s. in case 'The Sane Left' didn't receive the message loud 'n' clear: FUCK YOU, DISINFORMATIONALIST TROLL.

Kerry & Dean 27.Jan.2004 00:40

George Bender

Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman all voted for this war, an unprovoked, preemptive war, an invasion of another country in order to control their oil. (So did Gephardt, but he's out.) If they did it once they will do it again. That is why it is still relevant, even though we're in the war. If we vote for them that means they got away with it. Dean seems to have talked out of both sides of his mouth about the war, but he is against it now, and he represents political opposition to the war. If he gets the nomination that sends a message to the Democratic party "leaders" that if they keep going along with pointless wars they will be out of power.

Dean also represents a larger revolt against the Democratic "leadership" and its gutless accommodating do-nothing ways. The Democratic party is trying to reform itself. I doubt that it will succeed, but if I were a progressive Democrat I would be supporting the revolt. Since I'm a Green, I'm waiting for the dust to settle. It looks right now, with big media jumping all over Dean for stupid reasons, that the corporates are still in power. They clearly want to take Dean down. Possibly the enemy of our enemy is our friend?

By the way, I read that Kerry also voted for the socalled welfare reform act of 1996. That should give you some idea how progressive he is. Also I understand he voted for the Patriot Act. What has he actually ever done that would put him on our side, besides opposing the Vietnam War a long time ago?

Kerry's Recent Actions 27.Jan.2004 08:16


I admired Kerry back when he was a strongly against the Vietnam War, but his recent actions find him moderating almost to the point of intentionally appeasing the moderates to win an election. He says he doesn't want to be pigeonholed, that's nice, but his voting record suggests that he can not be trusted. Voting for this illegal war? What's that all about. You could argue more in favor of the Vietnam War than you could in the case of Iraq. At least in Vietnam there was the belief, albeit misinformed, that the communists would take over the entire region and be a larger force in the world. With the invasion of Iraq, thanks to the Kerrys of the world, we now live in a very frightful world. We have so polarized this planet that it may be too late to rectify the situation. Bush, Clinton et al have also polarized the US so we have more and more two distinct classes - them and us.