Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

1. They were both supportive of Biden-Lugar

amendment to the Iraq resolution that did not require regime change. Some key Dems agreed to the resolution before B-L was voted on.


http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."


http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20626605.html/

>>>
But the Democratic candidates aren't that far apart on the Iraq issue, a professor says.

Anti-war Democrats have cheered presidential candidate Howard Dean, but some campaign observers say the former Vermont governor's position on Iraq isn't that different from the rivals he criticizes.

"The positions of the Democratic candidates are not really that far apart," said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire, referring to Dean, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, and Sens. John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman. "Most leave themselves a good deal of wiggle room."<<<<

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

4. The professor doesn't apparently understand why Bush wanted to go in

Because Biden-Lugar, with its two key provisions, would have stopped Bush cold (unless he figured a way to bulldoze around it, which is possible).

Requiring the UN participation would NOT have happened. They knew Iraq was no threat -- else they'd have supported us from the get go.

Prohibiting regime change would have kept Iraq a sovereign nation and us from invading and occupying.

It was a VERY big difference from the Resolution that got passed. I hope the professor has had an opportunity to rethink his clearly ill-informed words in the meantime.

Eloriel

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.