If Dean had not come out against the war, who would have? Besides Sharpton

[ecstatic]

I'm just wondering if any of the other Democratic candidates would have come out against the war if 1) Dean had not, and 2) Dean did not gain tremendous support from voters by doing so.

I think that's why Dean has so many supporters now: He came out against the war at a time when the alleged polls put Americans at 87% approval for the war. He made it OK for us to say loudly that we opposed the war, and soon after, the polls began to reflect the true feelings of Americans about the war.

[kiahzero]

1. Clark and Kerry (n/t)

[kiahzero]

25. And Kucinich

Forgot about him... sorry, Kucitizens.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

2. Kucinich

He voted against the Iraq War Resolution and was always vocal in his opposition to the war.

[GreenArrow]

4. yep, and he was doing it first

.

[jpgray]

6. Right, in February 2002 Kucinich was against the war

Nobody running can beat that.

[ecstatic]

11. Thats true, its easy to forget about Kucinich--the media refuses to cover

his campaign.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

19. Before he was even considering a candidacy I might add.

He was not campaigning, or looking for opportunity.

February of 2002, Prayer For America speech.

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

snip>>>
"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy."
snip>>>

He is so far ahead of the others.


TWL

[Nile]

21. Is that something to be proud of?

Me do not think so.

[jpgray]

26. Yes, 500 fewer US soldiers would be dead if more had listened (nt)

[wryter2000]

28. You like killing people?

You call killing over 400 Americans and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians a good thing?

[ecstatic]

9. You're absolutely right, sorry about the omission nt

[sandnsea]

35. Actually proposed diplomacy

As a first and only resort. He's the only true anti-Iraq war in this race.

[youngred]

3. Kucinich

did before the war as well. But no one was listening to him and unfortunately they're still not

[xultar]

5. My Chihuahua...& Clark...what kinda question is that the war with Iraq

was clearly wrong. I agree that some candidates had made decisions based on the bush administrations lies...but that isn't their fault. I think when the lies were uncovered is when the American people started to change their opinions about the war.

That is the whole campaign issue the bush administration lies and lies to the american people to promote a pre planned political agenda.

what are you tyring to say?

[ecstatic]

8. I'm simply asking if anyone was on the record as being against the war

before Dean (and Kucinich) made it popular.

[BootinUp]

15. Need some info

on Dean as I asked below, Clark wrote articles and went to Congress warning against a uni-lateral approach in September 2002. Clark is not the waffler some try to say he his. His position is and has been exactly the same as Deans. I have a link to a Dean interview by the Newshour PBS, feb 2003 where he lays out essentially the same position as Clark did.

I agree with Dean and was very grateful for him being vocal about the war as he was.

[xJlM]

46. Dean was not actually against the war

No until some date in February 2003, when some poll results came in (I guess). The change came overnight, if I remember correctly. Take a look at the Des Moines Register and see what you think http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20626605.html .

[BootinUp]

7. Just curious

Anyone have an idea when Dean first started talking out against the war? Any links?

[Zynx]

12. I remember an Inside Politics interview way back in 2002.

I had no idea who the hell Howard Dean was at the time I heard it, but I distinctly remember Judy Woodruff asking him about it on a bus or something like that and he said he opposed it.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Here's my links for Clark being against the war....

in terms of not doing it alone and not rushing....more like taking it to the UN and getting weapons inspectors in there and not going to war....
If you were to watch Clark's senate testimony, which you can do right here http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html
go down till you find C-Span and see what Clark was saying at the beginning of this thing! He starts at about 20:00 and again at 1:07 I think.

you would find that he was saying not to go, unless you take it to United Nations....do everything in your power....weapons inspectors.....go slow, plan correctly....no need go to war.....always said the same thing...

Dean lies when he says that Clark supported a resolution that is any different from what Dean supported. After all Clark was giving Dean foreign policy advise for months....so Dean knows exactly well that Clark and he had the same stance. But Dean has to lie in order to have himself stand alone. He doesn't even give Kucinich proper credit for being the only that "HAD" to vote and voted correctly. Dean didn't have to vote same as Clark. Difference is Dean is lying about what he said .....and accusing Clark of having waffled instead. That's Low...but some will say anything to get elected...I guess it's the old politician's game.


Remember that the resolution was passed in October of 2002.....

THIS IS WHAT CLARK ADVISED SWETT......BEFORE THE FINAL RESOLUTION HAD BEEN DECIDED:

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM,Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.
----------------------
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said.
"As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."
He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist threat against the United States, and the connection ----between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.
------------------------
After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited Manchester West High School and reassured history students that the threat of terrorism should be kept in perspective.
-----------------------
He said he shares the concerns he hears from many Americans about whether the country should act against Iraq without United Nations support and about how the United States will deal

[dd123]

16. Prior to the Iraq War Resolution vote.

Dean says Bush has not prepared U.S. for Iraq attack
September 4, 2002

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/52530

By MIKE GLOVER The Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa — President Bush has not justified attacking Iraq, nor has he steeled the American people for the cost of that attack, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Wednesday.

snip

“He (Bush) 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.”

snip

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.

Dean said too much focus is being placed on the danger Hussein poses and too little on who would replace him if he is gone. There’s no clear replacement that would be better, Dean said.

“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.”

[killbotfactory]

31. August 2002

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

[ecstatic]

34. excellent accounting nt

[Zynx]

41. The statements during the war prove that he was truly opposed to the war.

[maddezmom]

10. I recall DK being the first n/t

[FrenchieCat]

14. This is what Dean said ......

so I don't know when he became against the war per se.....

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.

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.

Then a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

Then on June 22 2003: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, another Democratic contender, followed Mr. Kerry's lead yesterday with a similar accusation on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"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?"

[killbotfactory]

30. Straight from the National Review Online!

And they even use a reporters paraphrase of what Dean said as an actual quote! Now that's reporting!

Here's what Dean said:

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

[dd123]

45. Wow! Thanks for this post. n/t

[mikehiggins]

17. Parsing

With Clark I don't know if you can say he was against "war" as much as he thought "this war" was the wrong strategy to follow at the time. Clearly he has room in his world view for military action if it is called for but in this case he didn't see Bush's justification for it.

Like almost everyone else in the establishment I don't think Clark realised just how bizarre this administration really is, and thought, like Kerry et al that they were dealing with sane people.

Live and learn. If there can be no compromise with the Bush League it isn't the Democrats fault. These people have proven themselves beyond trust or beleif. They have to be removed.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Was he against invading or was he for waiting 60 days before invading?

I am not sure? If someone has some quotes with cites of his anti-Iraq invasion position I thank them in advance for providing them. As for being anti-war, if he is did he just start to be? He was for invading Afghanistan. I sure as hell was not. I would have much preferred to find out who exactly was resposible for 9/11 and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Don

[jpgray]

20. If I remember

He said if the president gave convincing evidence, and if the UN refused to help, we should give Saddam 30 to 90 days and then go in unilaterally. I also believe he said that he had not yet seen convincing evidence.

[Zynx]

43. That was precisely what he was saying. I watched nearly every interview.

Thanks for saying it.

[BootinUp]

23. Dean interview Feb 2003 PBS Newshour

I realy don't see a difference between Dean and Clark on Iraq pre-war. I do think Clark is the better guy to solve the problem now.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/howarddean2004/1608.html

a snip but you should read the rest:

GWEN IFILL: Governor, by my count, you just used some version of the
word "unilateral" six times in that response. If... the president would
argue he is not favoring a unilateral attack, that he has support from
Britain and other nations and is now going to the United Nations for a
second resolution. Under what circumstances could you imagine a
multilateral attack?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: 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.

[Scott Lee]

39. He was and is against the way this war came about.

No one in their right mind would refuse to defend themselves in the face of a true imminent attack. Dean was putting criteria on this scenario that made sure that A) the US had internationla approval or B) the threat was imminent and solid.

Those two criteria were never met. Hence, he's against this war. The antiDeans are still way into spinning this as hypocrisy, but facts still do not bear out all of their whining.

[Demobrat]

22. Kucinich did. In answer to

the second part of your question, No, and Absolutely Not. Others started to speak out against the war when they saw what it did for Dean. If the war was going well, Dean's would still be the lone voice in the wilderness speaking for us focus group members.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

32. "Dean's would still be the lone voice"?

Kucinich has been against the war since before he was even considering a run for President.
What makes you think that he would go against HIS OWN BELIEFS?
His stance against the war is not politically motivated. It is what he believes in. How would Dean be the lone voice? The lone voice that backed the BL resolution?

TWL

[ecstatic]

37. I think Demobrat meant that

while Kucinich did speak up, Dean was getting far more media attention (probably due to his Governorship, gay marriage stance, medical background, etc.). So even though Kucinich was shouting to the rooftops about his stance, nobody was listening at all. It reminds me of that commercial where one guy came up with a good idea at a meeting and nobody listened or responded and then another guy said the very same idea and everyone praised him and told him how brilliant he was.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

42. Agree to disagree?

Yes it was because of Dean's media coverage. Although I do not believe it was for the same reasons that you suggest. Kucinich is the head of the progressive caucus in the house. He has been speaking out against Bush since Bush came into office. The idea for the Department of Peace began BEFORE 9/11.

There are other reasons that the media ignores Kucinich. Threatening the very system that it thrives on is probably the biggest reason.

Also since when is Dean a supporter of Gay marriage? Kucinich has a stronger position on this. He supports full gay marriage rights across the board. I thought Dean only supported civil unions?

TWL

[dd123]

24. 9/19/02 press conf. w/Gov. Dean & his comments on IWR

http://real21mt.audiovideoweb.com/ramgen/avwebmt1257/091902iraqpc.rm

Governor Dean Foresaw Today's Problems in Iraq
BURLINGTON--One year ago today, Congress gave President Bush blank check authority to go to war in Iraq. On September 19, 2002, at his weekly gubernatorial press conference, Governor Howard Dean was asked about the congressional resolution and the president's rush to war.

At that time, he explained that the president and the administration had not made an adequate case for war nor had he planned an exit strategy if the U.S. was to occupy Iraq.

Now, as the administration offers one evolving justification for the war after another, and as the U.S. effort to secure and rebuild Iraq flounders from a lack of planning and support, the governor's words ring truer than ever before.

"The president will be supported by the country if he makes the case that Saddam Hussein has atomic weapons or biological weapons and can deliver them against either us or our allies. The president has not made that case," Governor Dean said at the time. "He has said Saddam is an evil man. Well, there are a lot of evil people. Before our sons and daughters come home in pine boxes, I think it's incumbent upon us to have a better reason than 'he's an evil man.'

"The president must be truthful about the length of this effort. This is where my fundamental disagreement with the president's foreign policy comes into play. The president does not believe in nation-building. I believe we have to nation build as part of our long-range defense strategy," Dean continued. "My argument is that the president should never go into a regime like Iraq or Afghanistan unless he's prepared to do what it takes to turn those nations, as difficult as it may be, into middle-class democracies where women fully participate in the economic and political life of those countries....

"The president has to be up front with the American people. If we go into Iraq, we'll be there for ten years with American troops on the ground in the most volatile region of the world.... Where he's going to get into trouble is: (1) going in without adequate support either internationally or at home.... what's he going to do when we're there? He ought to listen to Colin Powell. Colin Powell's philosophy is that you never go in anywhere unless you have an exit strategy. We have no exit strategy from Iraq," Dean concluded.

[wryter2000]

27. Kucinich

Kucinich voted against it.

[killbotfactory]

29. Still Dean

He was the only one demanding universal health care and a roll back of the Bush taxes, and he has a good record in vermont.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

36. Universal health care?

Dean's plan is not Universal health care. Or did he change positions?

TWL

[xultar]

33. Read this article...puhleez...

Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?
Some Vermonters Give Their Views
By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN
and RON JACOBS
(The Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)

Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont

--snip

Although he would likely be more sparing in its application, Dean has endorsed the Bush doctrine of preventive war, saying that he would not rule out using military force to disarm either North Korea or Iran. Dean has never voiced an objection to the notion that it is Washington's prerogative to decide which countries may have nuclear weapons, or its right to forcefully disarm those who do not do so voluntarily. In addition, Dean does not support cutting the defense budget, either for routine military expenditures, now at over one billion dollars/day, nor the extra supplementary appropriations to support the Iraq occupation, currently at four billion dollars/month.

--snip

When it comes to Israel and Palestine, Dean thinks the US should become more involved, but beyond that have no fundamental objections to the Bush administration policies in the region. He calls for an end to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but not for a cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian, nor an end to the Israeli occupation. He ignores Israeli defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and the Geneva Accords, and has been silent concerning withdrawal from Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even concerning a freeze on the new construction. His appointment of Steven Grossman, a former head of the pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC and ex-chairman of the DNC, to a top campaign fundraising post reflects his Zionist stance.

--snip
There was a small, but telling, incident back in 1996, when anti-death penalty protestors who were in town opposing (the Pennsylvania governor) Tom Ridges approval of Mumia Abu Jamals execution sprayed FREE MUMIA graffiti at the Ethan Allen Homestead. The judge ruled, over the prosecutor's objection, that the defendants could use a "necessity defense", i.e. to speak of their motivations and analysis of Mumia's situation, rather than just admit to spraying paint. Dean was disappointed with that decision. "These guys are a bunch of hoods running around our streets," Dean commented. "I don't think this has anything to do with the necessity offense --imported hoods I might add. People who spray paint and deface public property are hoodlums not protesters with some higher purpose. I have no patience for that." Reporter Peter Freyne, now one of Dean's great supporters, asked his readers at the time to "Remember the guy who once said 95 percent of people charged with crimes are guilty anyway so why should the state spend money on providing them with lawyers?"


you can get more here...http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

[w13rd0]

38. I preface this by saying that I'm a Dean supporter...

...but Kucinich led the House Congressional effort to organize opposition to the IWR. Let's not forget that a good portion of our democratic representatives voted no...

I applaud Dean for his opposition to the Iraq War, but that isn't the reason I joined his campaign (I joined prior to that), and it isn't the sum total of his candidacy either.

[jpgray]

40. Twenty-three of our senators, one hundred twenty-six of our congresspeople

I really get a little annoyed when people yell "milquetoast" and "spineless" in situations where it doesn't apply, and when used generally about the IWR, it doesn't apply.

[Jerseycoa]

44. Including Bob Graham

Erstwhile presidential candidate.

[poskonig]

49. Graham really doesn't count.

He opposed the resolution because it didn't authorize Bush to invade Syria and Iran. I kid you not.

[polpilot]

47. Kucinich deserves great credit for his opposition...loud & clear!!!

Dean '04...

[poskonig]

48. Kucinich and Braun

The others merely look to see which way the political winds are blowing.

If Dean's campaign never took off, all of the other top tier candidates would be praising Bush on defense with Lieberman right now like they were doing in 2002.