Howard Dean's position on the war ...

[mzmolly]

In a nutshell... :P

HD would have supported the war under the following conditions.

1. The UN deemed that Saddam was not in compliance with international law.

And/Or

2. Saddam Hussein was an "immediate" threat to the United States.

Seems like common sense to me? :shrug:

[jmaier]

1. Yep,

I agree (coming from a Clark supporter). The incessant parsing of Dean's position on IWR from Kerry, Gep, Lieberman seems, at this point, like acts of desperation.

[mzmolly]

2. Thank you. It's sheer desperation I agree...

So glad its clear to other candidates supporters too.

:)

Peace

[Cha]

5. they are standing on

Desperation Avenue. they got nothing better so they have to parse, parse, parse.

[mzmolly]

6. Hey instead of poop we could say 'parse'

he he ;)

[Cha]

8. Brilliant!

:toast:

[hedda_foil]

29. Standin' on the corner of Desperation and Whine!

sorry, zidzi, I couldn't resist! The barbershop trio waitin' for a fourth.

[mzmolly]

3. kick

:kick:

[Padraig18]

4. Thank you!

This incessant, Jesuitical sophistry and parsing of what Gov. Dean plainly said about Iraq is maddening... :shrug:

[Cha]

7. I saw "Seabiscuit" last night on

Video and I couldn't help but think of the Dean Campaign!
The little campaign that could...Explode on the National Scene! :)

[mzmolly]

13. I like it!

:)

[ozone_man]

16. OMG, that is Dean on the front horse,

and Clark right behind him! Or is it Bush on the front horse and Dean right behind him? I haven't seen the movie yet.

I'll catch that flick too this weekend, but LOTR first.

[Cha]

24. It's so Good!

The "front horse" is "Seabiscuit"..you can tell by the "H" on Seabiscuit's forehead ...H standing for Howard as in Charles Howard...Seabiscuit's owner :)

edit~to change the position of the "H"!

[_Jumper_]

9. Anti-war-lite

His second reason is common sense and 90% of people would probably agree with it. In reality, he was only "anti-war" as long as foreign countries did not give him permission to go to war.

Anti-war people should back a candidate who truly opposed the war.

[killbotfactory]

11. more like "Anti-Idiocy"

[_Jumper_]

15. ; - )

The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”


“I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever. Saddam was a regional danger. I believed that he had weapons of mass destruction. I believe we could have controlled him. I believed that the proper way to remove him should he need to be removed was through the United Nations and I never wavered from that.” Fox News Channel, 12/10/2003

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.” CBS Face the Nation, 9/29/2002


“Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country.” Dean speech, “Defending American Values – Protecting America’s Interests,” 2/17/03

[killbotfactory]

17. You forgot something

"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."

September 29, 2002

[_Jumper_]

20. Reconcile that with this

"The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”

[mzmolly]

22. Uhm, there is noting to reconcile, it's right here...

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that.

No case
No dice
No reason to invade Iraq

[_Jumper_]

25. He was a threat, right?

If so, if he were apprehended would that not make America a bit safer?

The issue Dean was talking about on Sunday was not whether the Iraq war had made us safer but whether or not the capture of Saddam made us safer.

[mzmolly]

26. Containing him and disarming him made us 'safer'...

:hi:

[_Jumper_]

27. I agree, the war made us less safe

However, if he was a threat certainly his apprehension would make us safer. If he was a threat we are safer now than we were last week.

[mzmolly]

28. Gosh...

It was safest to proceed in a different manner. Creating chaos in Iraq actually made us more vulnerable.

Arresting a senior citizen who was in a 6 x 8 hole in the ground, did nothing to improve our security as a nation. Starting a quagmire in Iraq did nothing to improve our security as Americans.

Containing and disarming Saddam via the UN was the best way to proceed in this situation.

I'm out for tonight. Happy 'parsing' folks :)

[killbotfactory]

23. It hasn't, thanks to Bush and his approach to the problem

It's not that hard to reconcile...

It's like shooting a cancer patient in the head, and then crowing about how you stopped the cancer from spreading.

[mzmolly]

21. Yea but the quote in context is like sooo boring...

:P

[mzmolly]

18. "parse"

:nopity:

[quaker bill]

10. Better yet they can't make their minds up

A few weeks ago it was 'we were all for Biden-Lugar' and therefore just the same. Now it's "I don't think (he has) ever shown the kind of thoughtfulness about Saddam Hussein and how we deal with Iraq (that is) necessary to be president of the United States"

The funny thing is that Dean didn't change his position. The commenters did.

[mzmolly]

12. U Nailed it QB...

:)

[Cha]

14. Dean shows "thoughtfullness to be

Prez" much Better than they could ever hope to. In their wildest dreams. they are too busy PARSING for Dean!

[slinkerwink]

19. damn those parsers!

;-)

[arewethereyet]

30. so he was for the war then, glad thats settled

the UN recognized that he was in material breech. Case closed.

Go ahead and email Howard and tell him to update his stump notebook.

Or on second thought, better let him handle his own explainations because, as I read what he himself had to say on the subject, it does not match what you attribute to him.