For those saying Dean switched on the $87 Billion--think again

[Khephra]

Friday, October 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Statement by Dean on $87 Billion Appropriation
NEW YORK--Governor Howard Dean issued the following statement this morning:

"Just over a year ago, Congress gave President Bush a blank check to start a pre-emptive war without demanding answers to the tough questions. Many of us said that we should have never started this war.

"From Vermont I could see that the President did not make the case for war. There was no credible evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat or had a nuclear program. With Congressional approval, the President rushed these troops to war and now he and the Congress are rushing to approve another blank check.

"Let me be clear, I strongly support our troops and hope, with all Americans, for their safe return home. And the responsible action for our troops is to demand that the President immediately submit a new plan for supporting our troops and rebuilding Iraq. The results of the last hastily-made Iraq policy decision are all too evident today. Congress owes it to our troops, the American people and the people in Iraq to make the right decision this time.

"I would oppose President Bush's latest request for a blank check unless the President submits a new plan that is paid for out of the tax cut. The new plan must give our troops what they need and bring them home safely, share this burden with other nations, ensure the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq, and make sure that the billions of dollars we are spending are not wasted and used to pay off big corporations. Congress must demand that the President submit this new plan immediately.

"Too many in my party, like Senators Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman, and Congressman Gephardt allowed the President to get us into this misguided war. It is clear General Clark also supported the war at this time. The right choice would have been voting 'no' last fall; voting 'no' now cannot erase that poor decision. Trying to have it both ways demonstrates neither strong leadership nor good judgment."

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001895.html

[madfloridian]

1. Thanks, I was looking for that.

I notice no one cares.

[Skwmom]

2. Is that like his not supporting a unilateral attack against Iraq?

He (Dean) gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. 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.

When push came to shove, Dean changed his tune. How anyone can view him as anything other than a political opportunist in this area is beyond me.

[killbotfactory]

3. Supporting a unilteral attack under certain conditions

Which WERE NOT met, is not the same as supporting Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq which Dean was very vocal and clear about not supporting.

Thank you, come again.

[Pastiche423]

4. Aww...

Please don't invite her back.

[redqueen]

6. What?

What conditions?

[killbotfactory]

11. The UN not enforcing it's own resolutions

Or Iraq being an imminent threat to the US and the UN not wanting to do anything about it.

[redqueen]

12. But isn't that what Bush was saying?

Except he didn't set a time limit?

[Scott Lee]

9. I know you wish it were so - but it's not.

I guess Dean's position being repeated a million times doesn't do any good. So I'll approach it from this angle: The way this "war" was justified, planned and executed was thoroughly opposed by Dean, early on. That is why it can be accurately said that Dean OPPOSES THE IRAQ WAR.

He did, he does. And it was the right position. The other candidates (besides Kucinich) gambled on supporting the war being a "safe and supportive" position. Well the war is going hell and they guessed wrong.

Too. Damn. Bad.

[redqueen]

5. I can't remember which debate it was...

but he said he'd support it, if it was paid for by a rollback of the tax cuts.

[Sean Reynolds]

8. Which is true...but Bush would never do such a thing.

So he didn't support it.

[redqueen]

10. I see the logic.

Slippery though it is. :)

[Khephra]

7. Gotta go back to work

See ya all later!