Reply #13: I guess that it would a waste of time... [View All]

[HPLeft]

...to point out that the vote in the Senate was to authorize the potential use of force, in order to strengthen Bush's hands in negotiations with the United Nations.

I guess it would be a waste of time to point out that Dean told Ron Brownstein of the LA Times, in January of 2003 (3 full months after that Iraq vote), that that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

But, facts don't seem to matter here. Dean's actual words don't seem to matter. Or that the Senate and House votes gave Bush the leverage to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq - which would be the only way that such "persuasive evidence" might be produced. The only thing that seems to matter is the perceptions of people who want to believe that they've found the last honest man - even if he is spinning faster than a top.

For instance, on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Now, that position is actually much more pro-war that John Kerry's position that he would support a unilateral attack only if Hussein represented an imminent threat.

It doesn't seem to matter that Dean says one thing on the podium in front of his idealistic supporters and something completely different to various media outlets when he wants to be taken seriously.

I think The Who song, "Won't get fooled again" should be required listening for primary voters in 2004.