"Dean's negative tilt in Iowa"

[sandnsea]

Thomas Oliphant on Dean, Iraq and Iowa.

"HOWARD DEAN is dropping about $300,000 of his gazillions in Iowa these days on two preposterous assertions about the presidential candidate who is leading him there. One is flat-out false about Iraq, and the other sets up an assertion by Dean about himself and the postwar mess that takes the term "misleading" to new depths." ~snip

"After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat." ~snip

#As for the $87 billion, the ad misstates Dean's position. In debates and statements he has said the United States has no choice but to fund the occupation. He told Iowa reporters last month, "We can't cut and run from Iraq." ~snip

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

[OKNancy]

1. You have enough time to edit the title....

n/t

[sandnsea]

4. Thanks

I need some glasses or something!!

[JNelson6563]

2. Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!

Why not share some positive developments of your candidate's campaign? Oh wait, nevermind.... ;-)

Julie

[sandnsea]

5. Yes we know, just shut up

Don't talk about anything that might force people to see the truth about Dean.

[Skwmom]

11. They only want the truth about Dean to come out before it is to late

to do anything about it. What is going to happening to the so-called energized base when they find out they've been played for fools?

[JNelson6563]

55. let's talk obsession

shall we? I'm sure glad I don't hate any of my fellow Dems the way you do. But then again, I'm out to help the greater good, not get my way and only my way come hell or high water.

But you keep spewing your poison and displaying your psychological issues for all to see, you and your little club of counter-productive posters. I have a feeling there will be another night of long knives around here after the primaries and we should start taking bets on who's going to become intimate with those well deserved, well place blades.

Run along now, go spread some negativity to help the cause. :eyes:

Julie

[paulk]

69. If you want to talk about obsession

First go stand in front of a mirror.

Why don't you address the subject of this thread? You immediately attack anyone who DARES question Howard Dean. Long knives? You've got one of the longest knives here on DU! I've NEVER seen a post from you that isn't an attack on a "Dean Basher" or "Dean Hater" or whatever the approved slur of the day is.

[JNelson6563]

108. Then you don't get around much do you?

Check out LBN sometimes, it's not as gory, give it a try.

Julie

[sandnsea]

89. Did I attack you, personally?

I have only had personal attacks from Deanie's, nobody else. Many personal attacks. I've never alerted on them, but many have been deleted. How can you have the audacity to talk about my negativity when you're suggesting I have 'psychological issues'? I'm talking about Dean, his character, his ever-changing positions, his poor policies in Vermont, his campaign of emotion over subtance and how manipulating people's emotions is the same as Pat Robertson manipulating emotion and making millions with his 700 Club. I'm not personally attacking anybody. So I have to wonder who is really spewing the poison and being hateful of fellow Dems.

[JNelson6563]

111. Dean<equals>Pat Robertson

Oh yes, you're just all about facts. Do a search on your posts and see how many Dean bash threads you're in. I see you doin' your thing again and again and the minute you're called on it, like another Kerry supporter I know you claim you are merely stating unpleasant facts that Deanies don't like to hear. Then, in the same post you liken Dean's supporters to cultist/lunatic Pat Robertson's devotee's. It's not just dishonest it's cowardly.

Sanctimonious hypocrisy seems to be rife these days and it ain't just on the "other side of the aisle".

Julie

[Hep]

68. Snip snip!

Oliphant can't even get it right.

[boilerbabe]

66. I' m with you on that one! Dean doesn't have GAZILLIONS, either...

I am a Dean supporter, and I have a reason to be a Dean supporter. And when he says that we can't just cut and run from Iraq (I mean, how can we, now that our fearless leader has gotten us in such a mess) and he gets criticised...It boggles my little mind.

When they all stop acting like 5th graders, then maybe we can have a dialogue here?? As far as Dean's GAZILLIONS go...well, I may have had a hand in that ... how about you?? (my ga with your zillion...)
well....I was told that people on this discussion board were really reaming Howard Dean, but thus far I have been blissfully ingorant of it...apparently the veil is being lifted off my innocent eyes!

I have had enough of the evisceration of Howard Dean, when these people have been screwed over by the next Republican administration, don't let them come crying to me. It's just another gambit by the other side to divide the Dems and many just don't see it. I am hoping that the Democratic party will stop flaying each other before it's too late. They are all good candidates, but we need to unite behind the strongest one. Because we have Bush to beat. I think Howard Dean is just the guy to do all that.

[OKNancy]

3. That was pretty scathing

Except in the right-wing press, that's the most negative editorial I've seen. Oliphant uses words like baloney, unworthy, junk, silly, wrong, unjustified and mean-spirited.

I can't quite wrap my brain around this yet. Even though I don't support Dean, I'm thinking that it was unduly harsh.

[Skwmom]

12. I think those words aptly describe Bush

and if you take a good hard look at Dean, you'll see the similarities.

[Zomby Woof]

29. right down to the nasty smirk! nt

[janx]

60. When journalists use words like that...it's just BAD WRITING

I don't know who teaches those guys how to write. Ann Coulter is probably the worst of the bunch when it comes to excruciatingly bad writing. If they're going to resort to lazy-assed mud slinging, couldn't they at least use a thesaurus? It wouldn't help much, but at least it would be an improvement.

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. The article's conclusion:

Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution {which Dean and Gephardt supported}. It is no more Gephardt's fault than it is Dean's fault that Bush decided to invade the country on March 20 with only Britain as a serious ally and without a clear plan for the aftermath. The ad's implication to the contrary is false.

As for the $87 billion, the ad misstates Dean's position. In debates and statements he has said the United States has no choice but to fund the occupation. He told Iowa reporters last month, "We can't cut and run from Iraq."

In addition, Dean has said that he supports spending $87 billion but would not have voted for the bill in Congress unless previously enacted tax cuts were repealed to pay for it. Contrary to the ad, however, he supported funding the occupation and added that he was not going to raise the issue in the campaign against people who supported it without the tax proviso.

The best summary of the real political test posed by Iraq in the campaign was offered by Dean himself recently: "Trying to have it both ways demonstrates neither strong leadership nor good judgment."

Now that Gephardt is up on the air with a response to Dean's baloney, I have a suspicion that Iowans who have a record of disliking this kind of campaigning will take Dean up on this point.

[virtualobserver]

9. Oliphant's conclusion is totally false

Not only did Gephardt cave, he undermined Daschle's attempt to improve the resolution, and grabbed the quick photo op next to Bush. He betrayed the other Democrats and moderate Republicans who were trying to put more restrictions on Bush. I've criticized Kerry for his IWR vote, but Kerry would NEVER have done THIS.

I believe that Kerry felt forced to vote for IWR, but Gephardt gleefully embraced Bush unnecessarily for purely political reasons, and is much more responsible for our presence in Iraq than any other Democrat.

[sandnsea]

14. Dean takes no stands

That's the whole point of this article.

Dean says repeatedly we can't cut and run from Iraq, we have to stay. That takes money. Then he's asked point blank about the $87 billion and says only if ALL the Bush tax cuts are repealed. That's not an answer, that isn't going to happen and he knows it. No real stance.

THEN he comes along in the ad against Gephardt and pretends that he actually took a stance. "I was against another $87 billion" What complete bullshit.

Same thing he did with the IWR vote. Making all kinds of comments about Saddam and his weapons and holding him accountable and supporting Biden-Lugar. Then MONTHS later, pretends he was always anti-war. He NEVER took a stand when it mattered.

[virtualobserver]

15. before we went to war........

Dean said "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?" Dean said.

at the California Democratic Party State Convention in Sacramento.
on 3/16/2003, on the same stage where Gephardt said , "We must disarm Saddam Hussein," and he said he was proud to sponsor a congressional resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to use force, if necessary.

Dean was called a traitor by Republicans, and Americans overwhelmingly supported the war.

This was an act of courage by Dean. Dean didn;t pretend....when people like Gephardt were kissing Bush's ass, Dean was kicking ass.

[sandnsea]

17. That's not the vote

That was months later. The whole point, Dean didn't take a stand when it was important and then pretended to be the anti-war candidate later.

And I have no idea what was in the rest of that speech by Gephardt. I don't know whether he challenged what Bush was doing or not. I do know Kerry did, in January. But nobody ever wants to look at that piece of reality. Gephardt said he supported his vote. There's nothing wrong with supporting confronting Saddam and getting inspectors in Iraq, and even going in unilaterally if those inspectors found real weapons programs. Even Howard Dean said that before the vote. We must disarm Saddam can mean a whole lot of things, I'd need to see it in context to understand what he was saying.

[virtualobserver]

27. Dean was standing up to Bush at that moment.

and we had not yet gone to War. There was no reason for us to go to war. All of the provided reasons were nonsense and there we were on the eve of war with a Democratic party filled with many that were afraid to look unpatriotic.

I am drawing a clear distinction between the behavior of Kerry vs. the behavior of Gephardt. I disagreed with Kerry's decision to vote for IWR, but I know that Kerry had very serious questions and was extremely vocal about them. Gephardt undermined a serious bi-partisan Senate effort to guide the US away from unilateral action. He undercut Daschle and grabbed a photo-op with Bush.

This action showed me that Gephardt was willing to do anyting to win the Presidency, even though he is totally clueless in that regard.

[sandnsea]

56. What does that speech say?

I have no idea and can't make a judgment on it. I just don't know.

Regardless, Dean's support of Biden-Lugar would have ended up in a war too. And he would have been standing around in March trying to get Bush to stop and Kucincih would have been calling him a hypocrite for voting for the war.

Now Dean does the same thing with the $87 billion. Doesn't take a stand, the vote happens, then he pretends he took a stand.

If Dean can't stir up Iraq war friction, Dean doesn't have a campaign.

[virtualobserver]

84. whereas the Democratic Senators who avoided a recorded vote.....

took a "stand"? Right.

[sandnsea]

88. There's a recorded vote

Two no votes. And a recorded yes vote for Lieberman and Gephardt. The final vote wasn't recorded, but that doesn't mean the other votes Kerry and Edwards made aren't. Only Howard Dean didn't take a clear stand on that vote.

[AP]

34. This was after the marches and protests, right?

It didn't take a ton of courage. The media had spent the previous couple months encouraging animosity towards bush and building up enthusiasm for protests. I believe that it was in recognition of this growing segment of the population -- people totally focussed on hating Bush because of Iraq -- (probably up to 35-40% of the population, and an even higher percentage of Democrats, by mid-April) that led Dean to switch from being a moderate to being anti-war.

In fact, a majority of likely Democratic primary voters probably agreed with Dean by mid April, thus making it not such a courageous stance to take within the party, and, perhaps, a reckless stance to take if you wanted to see a Democrat with the general election.

[Upfront]

18. Real Stance

You should get real. If you think it was wrong to try to get B**** to fund his war by stopping the tax cuts, say so. Can't happen you say, well it is about going to the American people and explaining why the credit cart goverment will be passing on the costs of this war to your grand kids. Dean is trying to do what is right for America and win an election. The goal is get rid of B****. or have you forgot. Your all out hate for Dean shines through like a beacon. So you support the B*******tax plan??????????

[sandnsea]

21. There's no reality in it

That's not a position at all. I'll tell you what, if the sky turns purple today, I'll vote for Dean.

If I come back and try and tell you I was against voting for Dean because the sky didn't turn purple, does that make any sense?

That's what he's doing on this vote.

And when Dean stops attacking Democrats, like in this Gephardt ad, then you deanie's can talk about the only goal being to get rid of Bush.

Yes, I really don't like him. I've said it numerous times. The argument that nobody should say anything bad about Dean because we should all be going after Bush, and then ignoring Dean's attacks on other Democrats, only adds to my anger.

[Upfront]

74. Concerns

Do you have any concern or concept how bad it would be if all the Dean supporters went on the attack against the other candidates? It would not help elect a Democrat President that is for sure. You mention Gephardt. I once drove 40 miles to vote for him in a snow storm in a Michigan primary. He lost. I know Gep., and he could be ripped for things I doubt most people know about, but I try not to attack our candidates because it is stupid. Sorry, but true. It seems we have to be on constent defense for Dean because of a few people of which you are a grand example. I say it is about beatng B** and your not helping. I fear people are becoming so polarized against our candidates, because of attack dogs like you, that they won't vote. Try to say something good about your candidate and quit the crap. I am well aware of Deans faults and still see him as the best man running. This is my last comment on this issue as it seems hopeless and I can better spend my time working for Dean.

[sandnsea]

79. When Dean stops

I'll stop.

[AP]

30. The 87 bil thing is very disturbing.

When I watched the debate, I was left with the impression that he supported it unequivocally. It was in the mannerism and the tone, and the way he threw in "if the tax changes are repealed" as an afterthought -- that part was easy to miss. I believe -- but could be imagning this -- that the question was asked to more than one candidate. The candidates against it took the same tone and had the same timbre in their voices. The candidates for it all had a different, common timbre. Dean used the tone and timbre of the people for it (ie, concession, patriotism, resignation and cooperation), not the one of defiance and disagreement and questioning used by the people against it.

This was so shocking to me that, later, I had to check the transcript just to confirm that I hadn't misheard him. It is such a stark contrast to some of his other attitudes towards Iraq. Without the tone, and the inflection, the transcript reads like he was setting a condition so that he could say he was on both sides of this issue. he was totally hedging his bets.

But the logic he uses is much more incriminating. He is for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. So, when you look at the sum of the parts, you have to drop out his condition. You're left with a candidate who would repeal the tax cuts and spend the money in Iraq without any concern for how it's being spent.

Isn't this the reason we criticize Bush for going into Iraq? Don't we accept that SH is bad, but we don't agree with foreign policy that's just designed to make a buck for Bush's cronies? And what is Dean's position? Saddam isn't so bad, but he's all for passing the money to the cronies?

[virtualobserver]

44. This was an $87 billion dollar expense that was before the current Congres

This was not merely a hypothetical.

Obviously, Dean knew that the tax bill would not repealed by a Republican Congress and that we could not afford to add to the deficit.

But also it was not reasonable to avoid funding IRAQ either. We are there and are responsible for that situation now. Dean is not a Senator. Democrats had the leverage to force a reasonable bill in the Senate, and instead this was passed on a voice vote with 5 people in the Senate chamber, with only Byrd loudly protesting.

You can pick apart Dean's words if you like, but if Gephardt and the Democrats in the Senate don't have the courage to actually stand against Bush when they actually have the power to stop him, then I am not moved by their criticisms of Dean for his words.

[AP]

47. Since Dean didn't have a vote in congress, it's a hypothetical that tells

you what Dean stands for. He didn't need to throw the tax comment in at all, since there was no chance that tax bill was going to be repealed in the next five days.

If he wanted to pretend it wasn't a hypothetical, he should have put himself in the shoes of the people on that stage who were going to vote on that bill imminently. Since there was no tax repeal bill forthcoming, the answer was either, yes or no.

He used the question instead to tell us who he was, hypotheticaly. And that was a tax raiser who would then give the money to Halliburton in Iraq, essentially.

[virtualobserver]

63. If he disagreed with adding it to the deficit.....

then he had to add the tax comment. He is a fiscal conservative.

[AP]

76. But what was he going to do, if confronted with the choices the

congressional candidates were going to be facing within days?

If he would have voted no, he should have said, "I'll vote no, but only because we haven't repealed the tax breaks yet."

You know why he didn't say that? Because no American is going to vote for a guy who is going to hold the security of American soldiers hostage to a tax bill, if he believes that the 87 bil is generally a good thing.

Is dean really going to sacrifice American lives on the altar of a balanced budget? He did say this bill was about taking care of the soldiers, right?

Instead, he said "I'd vote yes, because we have to support our troops. (Beat) But only if the tax breaks are repealed." That makes it sound like he supports the troops, right?

Dean's answer was lame beyond belief, and to now attack Gep on this issue is crazy.

[virtualobserver]

81. Gephardt wrote a blank check to Bush

and then he signed an additional $87 billion dollar check, even though we don't have any money in the bank.

Gephardt was crazy to sell us all out.

[flpoljunkie]

52. The voice vote on the $87B was GOP's doing to protect their own ...

against this unpopular vote. A majority of the country did not support spending $87 billion more on the Iraq quagmire.

Even a majority of the American people, as uninformed as they are, questioned spending more money on this unilateral, unwinnable war. Iraq expenditures now total over $170 billion--with no end in sight.

[virtualobserver]

57. If Dems wanted a real vote they could have had one.

How nice of them to help the Repubs out! Don't kid yourself, nobody wanted to go on record, and that is why the voice vote occurred.

[flpoljunkie]

72. Vote for $87B insisted on by Bush who feared he could NOT get it in '04

Congressional GOP members did NOT want this vote; it was forced on them by the Bush administration.

Bush feared having to go to Congress next year for more money--to pour down the Iraq rat hole, during the runup to the Presidential election--because he feared it would not pass.

Hell, this money cannot even be spent this year, according to various newspaper reports.

[virtualobserver]

82. 'Insisted on" by Bush?

Do you know how easy it is to request a recorded vote?

Nobody wanted to take responsibility for it.

[flpoljunkie]

90. My point exactly.

Bill was a turkey for the GOP. They gave up their right to a roll call to protect themselves, as they knew pinning themselves down would be politically unpalatable.

With no recorded vote, it is more difficult for your opponent to use against you in a campaign ad.

They gave up an attempt to "embarrass" Democrats because they felt an overwhelming need to protect their own asses.

[w4rma]

35. Days before the vote, Dean said

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[sandnsea]

62. Everybody expressed concerns

I bet I can go out and find Republicans who expressed the same things. That doesn't make a candidate anti-war and it doesn't say a thing about how he would have voted. We do know he would have voted for Biden-Lugar; so he agreed with at least one Republican on the war.

[AP]

73. Notice that Dean's trying to tap into isolationism,

which is a conservative impulse. He was trying to lay an anti-engagement on top of the position on war. He said that engagement was his "greater" fear.

[onebigbadwulf]

7. I still dont see the contradiction

can anyone tell me what the big deal is? I just don't see it.

[robbedvoter]

8. I made the very same point here when the adds were discussed

I said then that angry as I still am for Gephardt's betrayal, these purity tests will not play well with voters. The question now is not "how did we get here?" but who can get us out of it" (much like parents, stopping sibling fights say: "I don't care who started it - just stop!").
Dean is playing to his core supporters - not reaching out. Won't work - Olliphant is right.

[CWebster]

10. Now, witness the pattern

Supporters of other candidates will likely post Dean bashing threads as opposed to threads in support of their own candidate.

Who needs Republicans, they appreciate the service the Democrats provide in destroying themselves.

[Skwmom]

13. Do you think the Republicans need Democrats

to point out the obvious about Howard Dean? If this bozo is nominated, once he is exposed there is going to be a serious backlash from Democrats disgusted with the fact that this is the best the Democratic party had to offer when our country was in crisis.

[RetroLounge]

38. Do you think the Republicans need Democrats?

Not when they have you...

[flpoljunkie]

16. Dean supporters need to read the real skinny about Biden-Lugar vs. IWR

"One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat. This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and EACH authorized war, including UNILATERAL war. After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience. At that point the world was essentially united and so was the United States.

Against that background, Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution. It is no more Gephardt's fault than it is Dean's fault that Bush decided to invade the country on March 20 with only Britain as a serious ally and without a clear plan for the aftermath. The ad's implication to the contrary is false.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

[Karmadillo]

19. I'm alerting the mods

You're appealing to the factual record when we all know we're supposed to pretend Biden-Lugar would have prevented the gangster regime squatting in the White House from going to war in Iraq. I hope you're not tombstoned, but if you are, you have only yourself to blame.

Seriously, the only people who think the Biden-Lugar resolution would have stopped Bush haven't read it.

[AP]

41. I'm telling mom.

I don't understand this post. The post to which you're responding is a quote of an article. How is that supposed to result in a tombstone?

[Karmadillo]

50. Sorry. It was a joke.

I guess I need to remember to use emoticons.

[AP]

51. Sorry, my falut.

[virtualobserver]

20. if they were really the same.....

why did Bush object.

http://www.tnr.com/iraq/iraq_dissenters.mhtml

-snip
The Lugar-Biden proposal calls for a two-step process: First, the United States should try to secure a tough resolution from the United Nations, calling for thorough inspections and authorizing enforcement of said inspections. Failing that, President Bush would then have to demonstrate to Congress that the danger posed by Iraq's WMD programs is such that only military action is adequate to the task of containing it--far steeper hurdles than the president's resolution, hurdles which would inevitably tie the president's hands. It's a proposal that reflects Vietnam-era concerns about the "imperial presidency": Just under the surface of the debate over President Bush's proposed language is the fear that it's a twenty-first century Gulf of Tonkin resolution that would grant the president essentially unlimited power. And Bush ain't havin' it: "My question is, what's changed?" the president recently wondered aloud. "Why would Congress want to weaken a resolution? Â… I don't want to get a resolution which ties my hands."

[sandnsea]

22. It's not anti-war, is it?

That's the point really. How can Dean say he was anti-war when he supported an amendment to go to war?

Bush got a resolution from the UN, by the way, 1441. So he met that portion of Biden-Lugar. He then 'demonstrated' that Iraq's WMD's were a danger. Same results. Dean would have voted for a war.

[RetroLounge]

39. "How can Dean say he was anti-war?"

He doesn't, you do. He said he was anti-Iraq war.

But don't let that get in the way of your hatred.

[AP]

42. He supported B-L which would have resulted in an IRAQ war.

So, again, how can he be anti-war?

[RetroLounge]

109. Did he vote for it?

wait that was Geppy in the rose garden...

[sandnsea]

64. But when?

And how can he be anti-war and pro Biden-Lugar? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Karmadillo]

23. Bush's words are not exactly a reliable guide to reality

In what ways would Biden-Lugar have tied his hands? If you read the resolution, you'll find he would have been free to act exactly as it did under the IWR.

This Administration, full of seekers of absolute power, simply wanted their resolution to win without allowing the illusion of their opponents having real input. Their lies about Biden-Lugar have no more relation to the truth than the ever shifting rationales for the war itself or their tax cuts for the rich.

[flpoljunkie]

28. Bush abused IWR resolutions just as he would have abused Biden-Lugar

Bush was determined to go war in Iraq--no matter how you slice it. He acted in bad faith with Congress, the American people, the United Nations, and the world.

War was not his "last resort" as he kept repeating in the runup to the war in Iraq. He used trumped up intelligence threats to take us to war. He lied both to Congress and the America people.

Bush acted dishonorably. Democrats need to restore honor and integrity to the Presidency. Dean's disingenuous ads against Gephardt lack both of these attributes.

[retyred]

24. I've lost count at the dean Flip-Flops

While I'll admit, there is a chance that dean could get the nomination, (we've seen what bush did to his opponents to get his in 2000) there is so much inconsistancy in deans words and actions alone that bush can use, that dean could be beaten without the use of lies, add the lies and it will be a bush landslide without theft this time.

Given dean's myopic view of having to refute any accusation against him "before" making his case for being the chosen one will leave little room to advance his claim to fame once the accusations are thrown by bush. Bush will come on hit after hit with dean playing defence to bush's offence. It happened time and again in 2000, all of bush's opponents were debating attack ads deminishing their message while bush advanced his.

Given the view of bush's America today bush can be beaten, "IF the voters come out to vote" I just don't think dean's anger is enough to make that happen, dean says all the right things "NOW", but once the ads dredge up his views from the past it won't matter what he claims now.


retyred in fla
so i read this book

[unfrigginreal]

25. A Gephardt supporter with a megaphone

Big deal.

[phirili]

26. Dean on record supporting unilateral action against Iraq

Snip:
On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times 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

Snip:
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.

[virtualobserver]

32. but since the resolutions called for inspections

which both the UN and IRAQ were happy with, that would not have led to war.

Since clearly we have found no WMD's in IRAQ, the inspectors would not have found any either, and their would have been no need for unilateral war.

If we had followed the path that Dean laid out in those two statements, there would have been no war.

[blm]

37. BushInc. would have met minimum requirement on ANY resolution.

The IWR that passed had Bush going to the UN with evidence (yes, it was trumped up, but the good news in that was that it forced Bush to over reach on the evidence and Bush's credibility has now dropped considerably)

IWR had inspectors back in, and Iran And Syria were taken off the list for invasion. Not such a small concession to ignore.

[AP]

45. This is really the bottom line, which every elected Democrat must have...

...known.

The Bushistas planned this war in 1991. There was so much money to be made, and so much power to be retained by creating chaos in Iraq. There was nothing anyone was going to do stop this steamroller, except at the cost of their professional careers, and, in some cases, perhaps their lives.

At what point do you think Bush would have said, "OK, democracy wins -- I'm not going in."?

Biden-Lugar? Hunger strikes? Mass resignations by Democrats? Ritual suicide?

[flpoljunkie]

43. No. In either case Bush would have declared an end to UN inspections

declared them worthless, issued the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country in 48 hours, and then pulled the trigger.

I think it was becoming clear to Bush that the inspectors would find no weapons of mass destruction, so he abruptly denounced and marginalized the inspectors, and took us to unilateral, pre-emptive war in Iraq--with no plan after the bombing ceased.

There is no reason Bush why could not have waited for the inspectors to complete their work. Bush thumbed his nose at the entire world and sent our nation to an unnecessary, unwise war--making us far less safe.

As my Senator Bob Graham has so often said, "Where's Osama bin Forgotten?" The war in Iraq has been a tragic diversion in the war on terror.

Kerry was right going to war in Iraq is like "whacking the hornet's nest"--exacerbating terrorism, not lessening it.

[phirili]

46. Inspections were ongoing and Bush called it off, using lies and more lies

[w4rma]

31. Oliphant is rewriting history. Gep undercut the Democratic Party at the

rose garden ceremony. Kerry and Daschle were still working on building support for the Biden-Lugar bill.

[virtualobserver]

33. at that moment, I wrote Gephardt off completely.....

and I was ecstatic when he stepped down as minority leader.

[tjdee]

36. Dean's was the only negative (AGAINST DEMOCRATS) ad they showed.

This morning on C-SPAN they showed some of the candidate ads, and there was only one attack ad. Guess whose it was.

The others' ads were about Bush/themselves.

Way to go, Dean.

[dsc]

40. If Mr. Oliphant is going to criticise alledged dishonesty

He should try being honest.

He says this:

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience. At that point the world was essentially united and so was the United States.

The reality is this:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Note what happens before we get to the serious consequences. The Security Council meets again. Mr. Oliphant didn't tell you that. I just did.

It would be nice if just one a journalist who decides a politician is dishonest would make that case without being dishonest him or her self.

[AP]

48. I presume I speak for more people than myself: I'm not clear on what

you're saying.

Could you explain that again?

[dsc]

53. Mr. Oliphant claims, like Bush did,

that Resolution 1441 authorized serious consequences if Iraq breached it. But what it actually did was authorize the Security Council to meet to decide what, if any, consequences would accrue. In short, Mr. Oliphant, while decrying 'liar' Dean is himself being dishonest.

[flpoljunkie]

59. Nope. Bush & his minions insisted that "serious consequences"= war

And the press pretended not to notice as they cheerled for WAR IN IRAQ--ratings, money, you know--corporate greed trumps journalistic integrity.

[dsc]

61. that part of Bush's arguement

actually was accurate. Serious consequences is diplomatic code word for war. What was inaccurate was the idea that the serious consequences immediately flowed.

[flpoljunkie]

65. Nope. UN said "serious consequences" does not equal war, and in past

resolutions, this language had never been used to imply that serious consequences equaled war. Permission for war language in prior resolutions had used the war "use all means necessary", as I recall.

"Serious consequences" was the language agreed to the United Nations AND Bush promised the United Nations he would come back for a resolution which declared war.

Bush lied. He did not--instead he pulled the resolution and gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of Iraq.

[phirili]

49. What's your point dsc? You want Oliphant to cross the T's for U

[dsc]

54. No I want him to tell the truth

while he is busy decrying others for alledgedly not doing so.

[sandnsea]

67. Gasp, Bush abused his powers!!!!

Gads no! That's what we've been saying all along. He would have gotten the same UN resolution under Biden-Lugar and abused his powers. The result would have been the exact same war.

[dsc]

75. according to Oliphant he did no such thing

which is my point. If the resolution had done what Mr. Oliphant said it did, Bush would have had every right to do what he did. It didn't, and he didn't.

[sandnsea]

80. I disagree

I don't think what Bush did or didn't do is the point. If someone doesn't think Bush abused his powers, then they aren't going to think that he did with either resolution. The point is that either resolution would have given Bush the same powers and Dean supported Biden-Lugar which means he supported a war.

[dsc]

83. What Bush did is irrelevent?

Wow. Under Biden Lugar, Bush had to go to the UN and actually abide by what they did. That is a big difference. I will give the IWR this, it limited the war to Iraq which is a good thing. But it didn't force Bush to do anything else.

[sandnsea]

87. No he didn't, how do you figure?

He had to try and get a resolution from the UN and if that didn't work, demonstrate that Iraq had weapons and needed to be disarmed. I know he didn't really do that, but in the context of these two Authorizations he did.

The point of the article isn't whether Bush adhered to either resolution, rather that the result would have been the same, war. And more importantly, that just like on the $87 billion, Howard Dean never took a real stance. He just pretends he did on TV.

[killbotfactory]

107. Dean quite clearly stood against the war

Just because you can find one or two quotes where he laid out conditions on which he would support the war (conditions which were NEVER met) does not refute that.

Neither does Dean saying he would support Biden Lugar, which was DIFFERENT than the final IWR. Sure, Bush could probably weasel around it somehow, but then he would be open for attacks that he violated the resolution and whoever supported that resolution could STILL BE AGAINST THE WAR.

If someone voted for the IWR, there were months leading up to the final invasion where they could renounce their vote and come out against the war, after it became quite obvious (if it wasn't already) that Bush had no interest in any other conclusion but an invasion of Iraq.

[tsipple]

58. Let's Talk About the Iraq Vote MORE

I'd like nothing better than to have every Democratic caucus and primary be a debate about Dean's Iraq position and what the other major candidates did.

Please, go on.

[phirili]

70. Flip flopping on the war to suit the audience or the time of the day

seems to be Howard Dean's style of leadership.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times 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

Snip:
And then 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.

Snip:
He likewise tried to claim Bush lied on Saddam, even when Russert quoted Dean from January: "I would be surprised if he didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”

Snip:
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, another Democratic contender, followed Mr. Kerry's lead yesterday with a similar accusation on NBC's "Meet the Press in June."
"We were misled," Mr. Dean said. "The question is, did the president do that on purpose or was he misled by his own intelligence people?"

Now Dean runs ads saying he is against the war on Iraq and attacking the very same Democratic candidates who made it very difficult for Bush invade Iraq without providing evidence to the UN. The lies which Bush used to justify the invasion is providing Democrats with a major platform against Bushco.

[tsipple]

71. Oh, I Love It!

More, more, MORE! Let's talk about nothing but Iraq in Iowa, New Hampshire, and every other primary and caucus state. Please. I'm begging you. I want the Democratic nomination debate to be all about Iraq.

[AP]

78. It's in Dean's ad which he's running in IA right now. Don't complain to DU

Complain to Dean. We wouldn't be talking about this if he weren't running that ad criticizing Gephardt on this issue.

[virtualobserver]

86. I don't think that tsipple is complaining n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

85. Typical Non-Response To Undeniable Evidence

Personally, I would love for a series of ads showing clips of Dean's words flopping like a fish. All about Iraq. Use of force, troop levels, being misled by Bush, saying he actually voted "no"...

Not only has Dean been nasty towards the other candidates since Day 1, but he also has a huge credibility gap. Not only from statement to statement, but also enormous shifts from the positions he's held all his life.

I know, I know...He's "evolving."

PS - I know you'd love to peg me as a "Dean hater" because it works better in your polarized worldview, but the fact of the matter is that I just don't like him, and more importantly, I just don't think he'd make a good President. Four years of not-Bush doesn't particularly appeal to me, especially when it is clear that Bush matches up particularly well against a tax-raising, gay marriage, re-regulating, protectionist, Governor of 564,964 Northeastern liberals (their terms, not mine).

[Julien Sorel]

100. Better Iraq than Dean's lack of integrity, eh?

[killbotfactory]

106. Dean is attacking Bush for lying

He even has a list of quotes from the Bush admin on his site.

Oh heavens! What a jerk!

Dean said he thought Iraq had WMD but did not pose an imminent threat, and therefor didn't support the invasion.

Oh heavens! What a monster!

Dean said he would support unilateral action (not necessarily invasion, mind you) under certain conditions which were never met.

Oh heaven! What a hypocrit!

[Octafish]

77. Dean talks so much, he doesn't know what he's already said.

I thought smarts were a prerequisite for being a good liar?

[flpoljunkie]

91. Dean, like Bush, has been the "unexamined" candidate as the corporate

media pushes Dean as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Dean continues in the latest CNN/Time poll to do worse in head-to-head matchups with Bush as compared to Clark and Kerry.

Democrats ignore this at their peril!

[dsc]

92. If he is so unexamined

where are you getting these articles? If we can't trust you on such a simple claim why should we believe anything you say?

[flpoljunkie]

93. Print articles coming only recently; CNN, MSNBC, still pumping for Dean...

CNN et all cover only process. They are the worst when it comes to examining the record of Presidential candidates--which played a large part in how we got Bush.

I suspect Sandnsea got the article from the same place I read it--the Boston Globe web site. Actually, I was alerted to it by Bush Headlines, a great source for those of us who read.

[dsc]

94. Maybe I am hallucinating

but I recall a ton of anti Dean heat pieces being post here for months on end. Do I really need to do a search?

[flpoljunkie]

95. Perhaps one article critical of Dean would seem like a lot to you.

When you are the presumptive favorite, you will be examined--hopefully.

[dsc]

97. Off the top of my head

There was a negative Washington Post piece in regards to Medicare, there have been three negative Saletin pieces, there have been at least four counterpunch pieces, there was the Socialist piece, there have been National Review, Weekly Standard, and others. This is without a search. I would be willing to bet I could find no fewer than 50 negative pieces on Dean posted within the last few months.

[blm]

102. The Weekly Standard piece was PRAISING Dean.

Only liberals like me would be made uncomfortable by the CATO Institute's lovefest for Dean.

[hedda_foil]

96. You folks do understand what Oliphant's up to, don't you?

He's been backing hometown boy Kerry who isn't doing well anywhere, and is now losing (marginally) to Dean in Massachusetts (Boston Globe .... Massachusetts ... Kerry). He's bashing Dean with the Kerry campaign's VERY weak attempt to confabulate the IWR and the Biden-Lugar amendment. The B-L never got out of committee thanks to * because it would have required him to come back to Congress for a war resolution. It wasn't the absolutely strongest amendment that got shot down (that was Byrd's) but it was bipartisan, backed by the heads of the FR committee, and looked doable at the time. Kerry was for it as was Dean because it made sense. When the amendment was withdrawn, Dean refused to support the IWR blank check and spoke against it publicly ... as did 24 Dems, including some of the most senior and most informed Dems. Kerry voted for it.

Oliphant (unless he's just totally uniformed, which is the case with a lot of pundits) knows that. But, of course, very few people have any idea what the intricacies of the debate were at the time, so some of this might stick. I doubt it though. It's as abstract as Quemoi and Matsu. Just too inside-inside-baseball an argument to have any sticking power (which is why it hasn't worked despite the fact that the Kerry team has been using it for months).

Geez, give us a little credit here.

[blm]

98. You do know what the media's been up to for 11 months, don't you?

Pushing Dean as the antiwar liberal when he was neither antiwar OR liberal? In fact, few journalists have changed that story to note that Dean's actual record of governing as a compromising centrist does not match his populist reformer rhetoric.

[hedda_foil]

103. Suhweetie ... they did that to take him down, not push him up!

The idea was to make him look like another unelectable McGovern by pushing the antiwar far-left liberal meme. Remember that? Remember From and the DLC saying the same thing even though they knew for a fact it was untrue? Do you really think the media thought it would pump up Dean's numbers to make him look as left as Kucinich when Kucinich was better known (which isn't saying a lot) and neither had any money? The only publicity Dean got for an incredibly long time was negatively slanted and aimed at taking him down.

I know it gives you great comfort to think that there's a media conspiracy against Kerry but his crappy campaigning is what's hurt him. Not Dean, Dean, Dean ... and the media for the most part has been easier on him than they've ever been on Dean. (Not that you'll believe that, but it's true.)

[blm]

105. Only true in the general, but it's a dividing tactic for Dem primaries.

Saying Dean is an antiwar liberal BROUGHT Dean support. Look at the graph in P&C. He and Kucinich were the same until the mEDIA lavished attention on DEAN as the antiwar liberal and NOT on Kucinich.

Kerry was always presented as a waffler when he never waffled, just demanded that Bush do the right thing diplomatically first and use war as intended in the IWR, as a last resort.

To say Dean had it bad from the press is a COLOSSAL joke that the supporters of EVERY other candidate would find laughable if it wasn't so damned infuriating that he has enjoyed as much teflon as Bush did in 2000.

[AP]

113. Obviously, I agree with you.

I think the media has already won two battles for Bush so far, and maybe three or four. Kerry should be the the favorite right now, with Clark in second. The media has MADE Dean what he is today. NPR know who its audience is, and, beginning with a Mara Liasson piece last March or April, they have built Dean into what he is today, along with all the major media outlets. The media has managed to spin Kerry so that if he doesn't win NH, he could be gone soon, and they've made all Clark's great qualities (intelligence, accomplishment, etc) seem like liabilities (cold, unliked, over-ambtious). The media has put Clark and Kerry where they are today. The media has also totally ignored Edwards, and then defines him according to the fact that he's ignored.

If, 18 months ago, you listed all the various strategies that Bush could use to win next fall, and the scenario being played out today were one that was suggested, 9 out of 10 of use would have said, yes, that's the route to a Bush vicotry.

[blm]

101. The truth is that Kerry is not prowar and Dean is not antiwar.

They were much closer on the issue and many have failed to understand that.

btw...Oliphant finally went through everything Kerry said back during that time and realized that he and other journalists were wrong in smearing Kerry for trying to have it both ways. He realized that Kerry's warnings at the time were prescient and not just dodges as the media portrayed them.

Kerry studied the issues in Iraq for Bill Clinton back in 98 and worked with him on a military plan at that time. Of course Kerry knew what the problems would be.


Pride, truth and war according to Kerry

July  13,  2003

Boston Globe


by Thomas Oliphant
Washington -

JOHN KERRY helped bring a war home last week, not unlike the way he helped bring another war home more than three decades ago.
>>>>>>>>

As someone who helped form the broad American coalition supporting the use of force last year, Kerry did not do so by inventing weapons programs Iraq had abandoned or never attempted, or creating connections with Al Qaeda that never existed, or manufacturing an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.

>>>>>>>
''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''

Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.
>>>>>>>>

[Scott Lee]

99. Another media lie about Howard Dean. I'm shocked.

"We can't cut and run in Iraq".

They are construing that into support for the war or the 87 billion?

Dean meant that it makes no sense to launch this stupid thing and then leave the soldiers unsupported over there, sitting ducks. If he had done any less he'd have been destroyed as anti-american, anti-troop.

He was the loudest of the candidates against the Iraq War. Thats the truth. Just because he doesn't want to abandon them in Iraq doesn't mean he suddenly supports this stupid invasion and occupation.

But this will not placate the antiDean spinsters like sandnsea. They will not rest until they can scrape a thin film of scuzz from the bottom of the hate barrel.

[killbotfactory]

104. Dean's statements on Iraq: Clear, consistent, reasonable

Let's compare them against what Gephardt was saying at the time.

I'm sure some Gephardt supporters can come up with a quick list...

Gephardt has supporters, right?

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade.

August 12, 2002

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence."

...

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

“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.”

...

"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.

...

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa.

September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment.

September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them."

September 18, 2002

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way."

...

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"It’s not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the big bully on the block and tell people we’re going to do what we want to do," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 2002

"The president approached it in exactly the wrong way. The first thing I would have done is gone to United Nations Security Council and gone to our allies and say, "Look, the UN resolutions are being violated. If you don't enforce them, then we will have to." The first choice, however, is to enforce them through the UN and with our allies. That's the underlying approach."

October 31st, 2002

"I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that. There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts."

December 22, 2002

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

...

"I do not believe the president has made the case to send American kids and grandkids to die in Iraq. And until he does that, I don't think we ought to be going into Iraq. So I think the two situations are fairly different. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. The best intelligence that anybody can find, certainly that I can find, is that it will be at least a year before he does so and maybe five years."

January 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 2003

"These are the young men and women who will be asked to risk their lives for freedom. We certainly deserve more information before sending them off to war."

January 29, 2003

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."

...

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 2003

"Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,"

February 5, 2003

"We ought not to resort to unilateral action unless there is an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary of State and the president have not made a case that such an imminent threat exists.''

February 12, 2003

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm">Feb. 22, 2003

"Well, I think that the United Nations makes it clear that Saddam has to disarm, and if he doesn't, then they will disarm him militarily. I have no problem with supporting a United Nations attack on Iraq, but I want it to be supported by the United Nations. That's a well-constituted body. The problem with the so-called multilateral attack that the president is talking about is an awful lot of countries, for example, like Turkey-- we gave them $20 billion in loan guarantees and outright grants in order to secure their permission to attack. I don't think that's the right way to put together a coalition. I think this really has to be a world matter. Saddam must be disarmed. He is as evil as everybody says he is. But we need to respect the legal rights that are involved here. Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them.

February 27, 2003

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq.

March 9, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

[[e-mail]]

110. Don't understand these Flip-flops.

I don't get the controversy. Dean has been pretty constant as far as his viewpoints.

[blm]

112. No he hasn't.

He was FOR the IWR with the Biden-Lugar amendment. Then he was for only waiting 30 days then go in. He said he never doubted that Saddam had WMDs on March 17, then, by summer, he said he was never fooled about the WMDs. Of course, he had also said we were all misled, including the president, by his advisors. Go figure.