Dean's Statement on the Anniversary of the Authorization of Iraq War Res

[Khephra]

Governor Dean's Statement on the Anniversary of the Authorization of Iraq War Resolution

BURLINGTON--Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today regarding tomorrow's one year anniversary of the authoriztion of the Iraq war resolution:

"One year ago this weekend, Congress wrote President Bush a blank check for pre-emptive war in Iraq. As I made clear in last night's debate, that momentous decision was a turning point not only in this election but in the country's history.

"At that time, some Democrats spoke out, questioning the wisdom of the doctrine of pre-emptive war and the rationale for invading Iraq before exhausting other options. But too many were silent, standing by the President in the Rose Garden as he signed the war resolution, voting for it, or urging others to do so.

"I opposed the President's preemptive war because I thought the threat wasn't imminent and because I thought it would make us less safe here in America.

"The opinion polls were against me, but I knew I had to stand up for what I believed.

"Today we know the American people were badly misled over the past year. We've now learned that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks, that there was no strong evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that presented an imminent threat to the United States, that Iraq did not try to purchase nuclear materials from Africa, that Saddam was nowhere near developing nuclear weapons, and that the Bush administration had no real plan for reconstruction once Saddam was gone.

"100 days from now, the Iowa caucuses will take place and the Democratic Party’s nominating process will begin. The real test of leadership is standing up for what is right, even when that stand is not popular. Last night, the Democrats in Congress who wrote the President's blank check a year ago continued to scramble to make up for that failure, hoping the people will forget their actions at the moment of truth. But the Democrats who will begin selecting our nominee 100 days from now have not forgotten -- and by their votes, I believe they will speak with a clear voice of the need for change and for a clear alternative to the failed policies of the present administration."

-- 30 --



Operation Iraqi Freedom:

By the Numbers

365 -- Days since Congress authorized a unilateral war

324 -- American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines dead in Iraq

1,767 --American military casualties in Iraq

164 -- Days since President Bush declared the war was 'over'

184 -- American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines dead since war was “over”

2.38 -- Tons of biological agents the Administration claimed Iraq had

6,868 -- Gallons of anthrax the Administration asserted Iraq was ready to use

317 -- Gallons of botulinum toxin the Administration reported Iraq was hiding

581 -- Gallons of aflatoxin the Administration stated Iraq possessed

45 -- Minutes the Administration claimed it would take Iraq to launch a WMD attack

Over 300 -- Alleged Iraqi weapons sites inspected to date

0 -- Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction found

100,000s -- Number of Troops needed in Iraq according to Gen. Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff

"Way off the Mark" -- Rumsfeld’s and Wolfowitz’s response to Shinseki’s estimate

150,000 -- American military personnel in the Middle East supporting war

29,000 -- Army and Air National Guard forces in Iraq

50,000 -- Reservists in Iraq

30,000 -- Number of US troops the Pentagon planned to have in Iraq late 2003

“Something under $50 Billion” -- Administration's initial projected cost of war

$1.7 Billion -- What Natsios promised would be total US share of reconstruction

$50 - $100 Billion -- Estimate of Iraqi oil revenue in 2-3 years by Wolfowitz in March

$2 Billion -- Estimate of oil revenues this year by Rumsfeld in September

$79 Billion -- Cost of Iraq war before supplemental request

$87 Billion -- Request for additional funds now under consideration

$800,000 -- Estimated cost of President Bush’s USS Lincoln Speech

$221 Billion -- Projected total cost of occupying Iraq

$222 Billion -- Total annual cost of the National Cancer Institute, FBI, pollution control, foreign aid, NASA, agricultural support payments, food stamps, non-defense homeland security, health research and training, highways, financial aid to college students, and federal support for grade-school education and high-school education

2.5 -- Hours it took after 9/11 for Rumsfeld to consider attacking Iraq

102 -- Days to change the whitehouse.gov headline announcing end of “Combat Operations” to end of “Major Combat Operations.”

16 -- Pages of documents from 2001 Cheney energy task force mapping Iraqi oil fields

$200 Million -- Value of no-bid troop-housing contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root

$1.7 Billion -- Total current value of Halliburton "reconstruction" contracts

$2 Million -- Halliburton’s 2002 fine for fraud in Calif. military base construction

$20 Million -- Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton early-retirement package

16 --Words proven false from the President’s State of the Union Address

16 -- Questions posed by Governor Dean to the Administration that remain unanswered



A Year to Regret:

12 Months of Failed Leadership

October

October 2, 2002 Participated in a Rose Garden ceremony convened after he strikes a deal with President Bush on the language of the Iraq Resolution, to the dismay of many Democrats

October 5, 2002 President Bush warns that Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/06/02)

O ctober 5, 2002 CIA letter to Congress does not support the White House's view that Iraq presents an immediate threat to America. (Knight-Ridder 10/05/02)

October 2002 Steven Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor receives two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons. Both memos are also sent to chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and one is sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. (CNN.com, 7/23/03)

October 7, 2002 President Bush states “we know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” At CIA Director Tenet’s insistence, statements suggesting that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa are been pulled from the speech. (www.whitehouse.gov)

October 11, 2002 The House and Senate vote to give President Bush blank check authority to use military force against Iraq.

November

November 2, 2002 President Bush claims that Saddam Hussein has had “contacts with terrorists networks like al-Qaida." (AP, 11/02/02)

November 6, 2002 Election Day -- Culmination of aggressive and successful campaigning by President Bush against Democrats -- even those who had supported his Iraq Resolution.

November 8, 2002 The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441.

December

December 11, 2002 US withholds evidence from UN weapons inspectors pertaining to Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Africa. (Financial Times, 07/09/03)

December 19, 2002 The U.S. declares Iraq in “material breach” of Resolution 1441. Bush Administration publicly identifies Niger as country in Africa from whom Iraq purportedly attempted to obtain uranium. (State.gov/New Yorker, 3/31/03)

January

January 27, 2003 The White House issues an eight-page "white paper" asserting that United Nations officials have concluded that Iraq has not adequately accounted for more than 2.38 tons of biological agents it formerly possessed –enough to to produce 6,868 gallons of anthrax, or three times as much as Iraq has admitted to possessing; 317 gallons of botulinum toxin; and 581 gallons of aflatoxin, a carcinogen. (Seattle Times, 1/24/03)

January 28, 2003 The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, says there is no evidence Iraq is reviving its nuclear weapon program. (Seattle Times 1/24/03)

January 28, 2003 In his State of the Union address, President Bush states that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (AP, 1/29/03)

February

February 5, 2003 Colin Powell presents evidence to the UN stating “our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” (NYT, 2/06/03)

February 5, 2003 Governor Howard Dean says that Secretary Powell’s speech failed to make the case that Iraq posed for “an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq." (AP, 2/06/03)

February 5, 2003 Kerry says evidence presented by Secretary Powell is “real and compelling.” (NYT, 2/10/03)

February 10-11, 2003 France, Germany, and Russia align in opposition to the Bush Administration’s United Nations resolution calling for a military confrontation in Iraq and, instead, call for more intense weapons inspections. (NYT, 2/10/03)

February 11, 2003 A tape is released with Osama bin Laden’s voice on it, encouraging Iraqis to fight the U.S. (UPI, 2/11/03)

March

March 8, 2003 U.N. and independent experts determine that Niger uranium evidence is forged and that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. (Washington Post, 3/08/03)

March 16, 2003 Vice President Cheney says that “we believe has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Washington Post, 3/18/03)

March 16, 2003 President Bush claims that “intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” (Washington Post, 3/18/03)

March 18, 2003 UN weapons inspectors found that the missiles Iraq possessed could travel less than 200 miles -- posing no threat to our allies in the region. (Washington Post, 3/18/03)

March 20, 2003 The US launches attack on Iraq after the expiration of President Bush’s deadline for President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq.

March 30, 2003 Referring to the WMDs, Secretary Rumsfeld states that “we know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (DoD Transcript, 3/30/03)

April

April 3, 2003 Senator John Kerry claims that he voted to give the President the “threat of force.” (Manchester Union Leader, 4/03/03)

April 11, 2003 Halliburton wins no-bid Iraq reconstruction contract worth up to $7 billion. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 4/16/03)

May

May 1, 2003 After landing on the USS Lincoln, President Bush announces the end of major combat operations in Iraq. (whitehouse.gov)

May 14, 2003 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims that he knows of “no one in the Bush Administration who said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.” (Washington Post, 5/20/03)

May 29, 2003 President Bush asserts that “we found the weapons of mass destruction.” (Washington Post, 5/31/03)

June

June 8, 2003 Condoleeza Rice claims that, at the time of the State of the Union, “no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that might be a forgery.” (NBC, 6/08/03)

June 26, 2003 The State Department's intelligence division disputes the CIA’s conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons. (NYT, 6/26/03)

June 27, 2003 House Republicans reject two attempts by Democratic lawmakers for additional inquiries into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs. (Reuters, 6/27/03)

July

July 3, 2003 Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the commander of allied forces in Iraq admits that “we’re still at war.” The concession comes on a day in which 10 American soldiers were wounded in three separate attacks. (Reuters, 7/03/03)

July 6, 2003 Ambassador Joseph Wilson writes NYT Op-Ed describing the events surrounding his investigation of the Niger uranium evidence. (NYT, 7/06/03)

July 7, 2003 The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa. (NYT, 7/07/03)

July 10, 2003 Senator John Kerry says he believes that he voted absolutely correctly. (FDCH Transcript, 7/10/03)

July 10, 2003 Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month. (AP, 7/10/03)

July 11, 2003 The US Senate votes unanimously to urge President George W. Bush to consider asking NATO and the United Nations for help in rebuilding Iraq.

July 11, 2003 CIA Director George Tenet says that he is responsible for President Bush’s false allegation in his State of the Union address that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium in Africa. (MSNBC.com, 7/11/03)

July 14, 2003 Robert Novak reports that Senior White House officials have disclosed the name of Ambassador Wilson’s wife and identified her as a CIA operative, destroying her career and endangering her life and the life of those with whom she worked.

July 15, 2003 President Bush claims that the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation… (Washington Post, 7/18/03)

July 16, 2003 An explosion killed a U.S. soldier in Iraq, bringing the total combat deaths to 147, equaling the total in the 1991 Gulf War. (Reuters, 7/16/03)

July 17, 2003 The Senate votes down a Democratic proposal to create an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the administration's use of secret intelligence to justify war with Iraq. (Knight Ridder, 7/17/03)

July 17, 2003 General Abizaid acknowledges that mid-level officials of Saddam's government “are conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it.” (DoD Transcript)

July 18, 2003 Governor Dean poses 16 questions to President Bush, which remain unanswered. (AP, 7/18/03)

July 23, 2003 Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley says he is at fault for allowing the uranium claim to remain in the State of the Union address. “I failed in that responsibility,” he said. (AP, 7/24/03)

July 24, 2003 Gen. Tommy Franks predicts Saddam Hussein will be found within 60 days. (Newsday, 7/24/03)

August

August 7, 2003 At least 11 people die and more than 65 are injured when a car bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. (NY Times, 10/8/03)

August 20, 2003 Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special representative in Iraq and at least 17 others die and more than a 100 are injured as bomb explosion rips through the organization's headquarters in Baghdad. (NY Times, 8/20/03)

August 29, 2003 A car bombing at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf kills more than 95 and leaves more than 140 wounded in the single deadliest attack under the U.S.-led occupation. (NY Times, 8/30/03)

September

September 8, 2003 President Bush says that he will ask Congress for $87 billion in emergency spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Iraq had now become "the central front" in the campaign against terrorism. (NY Times 9/08/03)

September 23, 2003 President Bush addresses the UN and says that “the regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” (www.whitehouse.gov)

September 30, 2003 Attorney General Ashcroft announces that the Justice Department has opened a full investigation into whether senior administration officials illegally disclosed the identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, a CIA operative (NY Times, 10/1/03)

October

October 2003 US Weapons Inspector Kay files interim report and testifies before Congress. At best, Kay's report showed that Hussein had a continued interest in developing weapons, perhaps once international sanctions were finally lifted -- a far cry from the imminent threat claimed by President Bush. (New York Times, 10/4/03)

October 8, 2003 The White House launches a new public relations campaign to beat back critics of its Iraq policy, by focusing on local media to get out its message. (CNN.com, 10/9/03)



http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9792&JServSessionIdr002=peqmubz841.app195a&news_iv_ctrl=1301

[dfong63]

1. damn, he's good

[Egnever]

2. Go Dean! keep rubbing thier noses in it!

Thank God for this man! He as long as he keeps screaming the emporer has no clothes the media cant ignore it. Keep up the good work doc I want my country back!

[killbotfactory]

3. That's my Dean!

Take 'em down, Dean.

[DJcairo]

4. Dean rips nearly half the Dem field

Why does he insist on dividing the party over the IWR vote. It wasn't a declaration of war. It was a resolution that threatened force as a last resort. Does Dean mean to imply it was Democrats fault for going to war? Does anyone seriously thionk that if Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt or Lieberman had been president things would not have been gone about in a different way?

Dean can repeat this like a broken record but it will never make sense to me. Why does he insist on demogogueing (<---is that even a word Howard?) this issue?

[killbotfactory]

6. It's an important issue

The resolution allowed Bush to invade whenever he wanted and the war was not a last resort. I'm sorry it looks bad for G.I. JFK, but it's his own damn fault.

[Meshuga]

12. That's what pisses me off about Dean...

Easy for Dean to say anything because he didn't have to make any decisions to vote for the IWR.

Dean should let it go already!

[blm]

18. If Biden-Lugar had passed Bush would have STILL had his war

and Dean would be lumped in with those who would have voted for THAT version of the resolution.


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."

[killbotfactory]

24. Yeah...

Except for that whole Bush only being allowed to attack if Iraq was a proven threat, thing.

[blm]

27. That was in the IWR, too.

That's why Powell had his dog and pony show at the UN.

Bush would have met the minimum threshold of ANY resolution. Why pretend?

[killbotfactory]

30. No, actually it wasn't.

Unless you've read a different resolution then I have.

Powell never proved Iraq was a threat. Why pretend?

[blm]

35. I said it was a dog and pony show, and the media

was 100% behind the presentation.

btw...Dean said on March 17 that he was never in doubt that it was necessary to remove Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. So, what convinced him to say that?

Dean:

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

[gully]

50. Dean wanted the 'weapons in question' removed via inspections.

He also wanted us to respect the international process.

Unlike Kerry, he didn't have a hand in authorizing the war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. The last time the United States went to war legally

was WWII. Since then Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility. The attack on Afghanistan (which is the 'war' I came closest to 'supporting') I think was a particularly egregious example of this because there was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON NOT TO DECLARE WAR other than to avoid legal responsibilities. Our country had been attacked, we believed we were retaliating against the attackers, the country supported it with the closest thing to a consensus about war that I think you will ever see. And Congress still did not declare war.

Shameful.

[LuminousX]

31. Keep telling yourself that

The fact so many of us don't see it the way you see it means the party was split before Dean arrived on the scene.

I supported Byrd. Why didn't the rest of the Democratic senators support him?

[George_Bonanza]

57. Bush could've gone to war anytime he wanted, IWR gave him no more powers

Instead, it limited the warzone to Iraq, instead of it spreading to Iran and Syria. It brought the UN into the picture, forcing Bush to at least set up a potential embarrassment (which has taken fruit these days) for his lack of credible evidence.

Congress approval... Bush couldn't have cared less. If he was willing to gamble his entire administration on some cloudy logic, you think he would've been timid because some lowly congressmen weren't too sure? And there was little chance that the IWR would've been defeated, given the Republican majority and capitulation of certain Dems like Lieberman and Gephardt. But Kerry was one of the Dems who fought to the last to make sure Bush was in check, but he decided that it was necessary to threaten Iraq with force.

[killbotfactory]

67. So Bush can go to war with any country...

How does the IWR prevent him from spreading the war to Syria or Iran if he has the power to go to war whenever he wants? The IWR was toothless and didn't require Bush to go to the UN, Bush even made a mockery of it with his incompetence and was scared to go back for a final vote. He cut short inspections and bypassed the UN when it was convenient, so why did Kerry still support the war?

[blm]

5. "blank check" meme is a lie.

Kerry and some other Dems negotiated to prevent Bush from having the real blank check he wanted. He did NOT want to go the UN and Congress with evidence (Now the root of his credibility problem) and he did NOT want to be limited to Iraq (he wanted the freedom to attack Syria and Iran). That cost them their VOTES.

btw, kephra...I notice that you don't seem to acknowledge that the ONLY Democratic candidate who was criticizing the "commander-in-chief" BEFORE Iraq was John Kerry. And that was when it was TRULY "politically unpopular" and rarely discussed by the Deanies who want to forget that he supported Bush's military strategy, refusing to back up Gore and Kerry on MTP in 2002.

[killbotfactory]

7. What genuis political maneuvering!

Oh wait, no, they screwed up. Sorry.

[Egnever]

8. Waaaa?

the only candidate criticizing bush before IRW was kerry? Where the hell do you get that from?

[AWD]

9. Didn't you get the memo?

Voting for everything Bush wants means you were actually AGAINST it.

John-John Jr. supporters seem to think so at least.

[blm]

13. Here...try Conason for starters.

and then look what Dean said on MTP July, 2002.

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer
>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.


>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

>>>>>
Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.
 
According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.
>>>>>

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.
       
       MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?
       
       GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the
       commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.

[gully]

51. I could post selective statements from Kerry as well to make it appear

as though he 'supported' the President many things.

Most of us are too smart for this BLM, nice try though.

Interesting how you always 'forget' those pesky links...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Dean wasn't willing to criticize Bush

about Tora Bora. That is clear. No amount of extra context is going to show Dean criticizing Bush in this regard. Or anyway I'd like to see it if there is such criticism.

However, I think Bush missed a critical opportunity to get the real perpertrator of the horror that was committed against us. The administration keeps telling us it's not about 'one man' - then how come we all know the names Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Osama bin-Laden? It may not be ALL about one man but an evil leader is a lot more dangerous than an evil foot soldier. And everything we know indicates that we had Osama surrounded, and Bush let him get away because he was afraid to incur American casualties (yet 326 in Iraq mean nothing?). We had Osama cornered and Bush let him get away! That's something Joe Six-Pack can understand. And Kerry knows all about criticizing the President during wartime so he wasn't afraid to speak up.

You know in the General Election: Where's Osama? is going to be an issue like it's not now in the primaries. Kerry is the one who spoke up and called Bush to task on this. Dean didn't 'choose to engage in doing that'.

[gully]

70. This thread is about Iraq is it not? Dean spoke out against the Iraq

war from the beginning.

I prefer to stick to the subject matter. If you'd like to start a thread about Kerry questioning Bush on Osama, I'll be glad to chime in...

[blm]

59. It was the MTP transcript, you are welcome to peruse it.

It was from the timeframe when NOONE but Gore and Kerry criticized Bush openly on his military tactics. Dean was specifically asked about their criticisms of Bush.

If more Dems had backed up Gore and Kerry then, Bush's credibility as commander-in-chief would have taken such a hit that he COULDN'T have pulled off Iraq.

btw...no response about Conason's article? Interesting. I guess Conason lies as much as I do, eh?

[gully]

71. What do you want me to say? Conason gave Kerry props

at a DLC event in July of 2002. He also said Hilary Clinton gave the best speech.

Dean didn't formally announce his Presidential bid until June of 2003, I'm not even sure he attended the event. At any rate, I don't see how it applies to the subject matter.

You said~"NOONE but Gore and Kerry criticized Bush openly on his military tactics. Dean was specifically asked about their criticisms of Bush."

Regarding the mis-statement above on See posts 61 & 66. Dean spoke out early and very vocally.

[blm]

77. The perception that Dean was the FIRST and ONLY is wrong.

And many Dean supporters keep repeating the false point ad nauseum. As long as they continue to perpetuate that lie, then I will continue to point to the truth.

Regarding Conason's article, he said that Hillary was recognized as giving a rousing speech, but Kerry's was the most substantive while hitting Bush the hardest, especially on foreign policy and military strategy.

Dean was campaigning as a candidate from early 2002. There are plenty of articles from Vermont criticizing his constant campaign travelling throughout 2002. The fact that he refused to back up Gore and Kerry's attacks on Bush DID matter.

By propping up Bush PUBLICALLY on military decisions, he reinforced public perception of Bush as a strong military leader. That's what emboldened Bush to take full advantage of public perception and allow him to follow through on Iraq.

[JohnKleeb]

80. spoke out on the war?

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020719-militaryaction.htm
July 19, 2002, or you can look in Feburary 2002 with his prayer for America. That is Kucinich.

[blm]

81. Early and CONSISTENT. The media ignores those they fear.

Kucinich and Kerry are way too substantive to get airtime.

[JohnKleeb]

82. Stupid media *groans*

I can get the prayer for America link.http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm
Feburary 2002, one of his best.

[hedda_foil]

10. It's no meme, blm. Khephra ran the Senate Watch throughout.

Our team at DU did real time transcription of every moment of the debate over the IWR, including every proposed amendment and every right wing tactic. KoKo was one of the team as were many other DUers.

You obviously weren't one of the people who listened to the days of debate and transcribed it for others, nor, it seems, did you read those extensive threads on the old DU.

You weren't there when every line of the proposed act and all of the proposed amendments were instantly posted on the Senate Watch threads, parsed, analyzed and compared. If you had, it would be impossible for you to continue to protest that we don't know what we're talking about as you have been doing all year.

We have never spun the facts. We have simply reported them. Unfortunately, you have either chosen to accept the inaccurate spin your candidate has offered or you are choosing to spin yourself.

[Khephra]

11. You could hear my heart breaking during Kerry's speech

He was my number one pick up until that day.

I don't like being told that the reality I watched--sometimes 12 plus hours a day for a bit there--isn't the real reality. Thanks for the backup, Hedda.

[blm]

14. That's not what I said...and to believe the "blank check" lets Bush off

the hook on what he WAS constrained on, Iran and Syria and the presentation of evidence to the UN and Congress.

If you perpetuate the idea that Bush was given a blank check then what if he DID bomb Syria and Iran, because most of the public believe that he was NEVER constrained.

[clar]

22. So Senators Byrd, Leahy, Jeffords and others

who all called the IWR a blank check are all lying? And of course, you know more than they do.

[blm]

26. That was used for debate purposes.

I understand that. I also doubt that any of them would condemn those Dem lawmakers who were stuck negotiating with the White House for the better deal.

[clar]

40. For Debate purposes????

You mean they really didn't mean what they so strongly stated? And implicit in those speeches are some pretty strong condemnations of those voting for the IRW. Stop the spinning. You're making me dizzy.

[blm]

43. They know what it takes when you're stuck doing the negotiating.

There is a JOB involved. If NO Democratic lawmaker would have taken on that job, they would have been derelict of duty. And we'd all know what a real blank check looked like.

The day you can point to the FACT that Bush was not stuck presenting evidence to the UN and that he invaded Iran and Syria, as per the "blank check" that he wanted, is the day you'll have a case.

[clar]

44. That's ridiculous

They didn't inhibit bushco one iota. It was a blank check.

[blm]

48. So you say they did not negotiate to keep Bush from Iran and Syria

and they did NOT get Bush to present evidence to the UN and Congress.

Gee, Bush over-reached on his evidence for NOTHING? We bombed Iran and Syria after Baghdad?

[gully]

54. UHM, what good did it do to present evidence?

Especially given the fact that the UN had no say...

[blm]

60. Bush over-reached. Why do you think his credibility is shot

for the most part? It didn't happen in a vacuum.

[gully]

69. Who's credibility is shot? Did Bush ever have credibility...?

I don't think so...

[blm]

78. With the general public it was VERY high.

Don't mistake DU for the general public.

[tedoll78]

15. I want you all to imagine something..

Imagine that Dean is the nominee. This mean's he'd be getting a TON of coverage on this statement. A constant flow this kind of information coming from the Dean campaign would be in back of the public's collective mind at all times. This man would be a really powerful campaigner.. taking Bush to the mat.

[Larkspur]

16. I can imagine Dean taking Bush to the mat

I don't think that Bush will debate any Dem and whoever our Dem nominee is had better be ready to run an aggressive campaign to counter the Repuke media hounds.

Dean is the only one running such a campaign right now and running it successfully.

[polpilot]

17. Taking the whole Republican Party to the mat, taking congress to the

mat, taking the DLC to the mat, taking all the sold out political whores to the mat, taking long term do nothing politicians to the mat.

This is why ALL the entrenched politcos, demos and repubs, HATE the Dean movement. He cannot be controlled. His letter on the anniversary of The Iraqi Sheperd Bombing Resolution shows who he will be as prez.

Imagine this primary season WITHOUT Dean. Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and crew with a 'blank check' to posture about how great war is...how great it is that we've bombed Iraq with little opposition and then finally the Kerry nomination and his certain loss to Bush. Not a very pretty picture. Remember Edwards' surprise at the CA demo convention earlier this year, the look of surprise, at the reaction to his pro-war stance.

Mr. Dean, uninvited to the party, asked to leave the party, continues to Rock N Roll!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Howard Dean...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[KittyWampus]

33. By 2004 Dean Will Still Be Issuing This Same Statement-And Be IRRELEVANT

So what if he's the nominee and he repeats the same statement for the millonth time?

The Bush Cabal is moving ahead and Dean is a broken record.

But maybe that's symbolic for his DLC Center Right record as Govenor!

Except for his statement against the Resolution, which is JUST A STATEMENT UNSUPPORTED BY AN ACTUAL VOTE, Dean had and has very little but a slightly better than mediocre political history.

[Larkspur]

47. Bush moving ahead?

Then why does he have to launch a campaign recently to defend his war?

The Iraq War will be an issue for many years to come.

[KittyWampus]

49. Wake The Heck Up Dean Freaks- Iran & Syria Are Next

So while Dean's sending out more timelines.... the Bush Cabal is moving ahead with their own!

By the way, why doesn't Dean provide us with a timeline of his Iraq War statements so we can all see how he "evolved" his position?

[gully]

55. He maintained from day one that the President did not make a case for war.

Period...

[KittyWampus]

19. So While Dean Obsesses Over Iraq Resolution

Time, Junior's Administration and the PNAC war machine marches ahead.

What a freaking waste of time.

There's only so many people that Dean can attract reciting this tired mantra... and most of them are already in his camp.

Too bad he's not addressing the Bush Cabal's move towards Syria and Iran.

[killbotfactory]

23. Yeah, it not like it's that important or anything.

It's just an unjustified and unnecessary war that we are still engaged in and sucking up money and lives for no fucking reason. Boo hoo. What's much more relevent is what Kerry did in a gunboat back in Nam.

[KittyWampus]

29. What's More Relevant IS WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW!!!

The PNAC Plan to try and play checkers over the Middle East is proceeding apace and Dean is still sending this crap out?

Who the heck said anything about Kerry or any other candidate?

This is about Dean and his ultimate inability to appeal to more than a few Democrats.

Many Dean supporters on DU are single issue voters... and it's not even about the Iraq War... it's about the Iraq War Resolution.

It's about Dean SAYING he would haven't have voted for the Resolution.

It's about supporting a candidate because of his HYPOTHETICAL stance on an issue that he did not PERSONALLY have to vote on.

Without Dean's assertion that he would have voted against the Resolution he would be NOWHERES and NOONE would have ever heard of him.

Why should I take his word on it?

He has a DLC approved, CenterRight, Corporate-Friendly record.

[killbotfactory]

32. Uh, he's exposing the lies that built this current war

And showing how incompentent and untrustworthy the current administration is. This will go a long way towards persuading people not to support any of Bush's future planned military conquests. You're criticizing Dean for bringing up a current and important issue. It's stupid.

[KittyWampus]

34. The Resolution Is HISTORY

And every other Democratic Candidate is pointing out how incompetent and untrustworthy Bush is.

Let's hear Dean address PNAC and what he'd do to stop it.

Because that is the CURRENT REALITY.

[killbotfactory]

63. jebus christ.

He's done more to expose the lies and incompetence of this administration (providing timelines, facts, figures, and quotes available in pdf format on his website) than any other candidate. What more can he do? We don't even have the troops to invade Syria or Iran. The Iraq war is still waging, and we are feeling the effects of what some people running for president supported (or at least until it became politically unpopular). This issue is fair game, and I'm still quite pissed off about it myself.

[KittyWampus]

64. He's Done More Than Any Other Candidate?

I strongly disagree.

And I can't believe you think there's not a plan on the table for extending hostilites into other countries...

THAT is what the candidates need to address.

THERE'S ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES ON IRAQ!!!

Dean is not unique, he isn't saying anything the others aren't.

And he has not brought up how he thinks we need to circumvent the PNAC'ers other than electing HIM.

Is he going to wave a magic wand and suddenly the PNAC crowd will disappear out of government, businesss, the Pentagon?

[killbotfactory]

68. I do believe they have a plan to extend the war

They just can't because our forces our overextended and they have a credibility problem for the run-up to war in Iraq, which Dean is helping to bring to the forefront.

[LuminousX]

36. More than a few?

Dude, he's leading in New Hampshire, he is clearly in the top 3 candidates... That is definately more than a fwe.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Dean wanted to have it both ways - like any politician.

In short, America may have to go to war with Iraq, but we should not rush into war - especially without broad international support.

Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred.

However, that case has not been made, and I believe we should continue the hard work of diplomacy and inspection.

We should work with the Security Council to push the UN inspection process as hard as possible, as fast as possible, and with as much help as possible from our intelligence assets. We should continue as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done. We should have the inspectors report back every 30 or 60 days, so that we can assess whether to continue on course or take tougher action.

If particular weapons of mass destruction are discovered, by the inspectors or otherwise, they must be destroyed immediately, by the inspectors or by the Iraqi government. If they are not, their destruction should be accomplished by military action under the UN. I believe that every member of the Security Council would support such an approach.
--Howard Dean Feb. 17 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html

Look, I don't disagree with anything Dean said here. But it would be mischaracterizing to say he is opposing the doctrine of unilateral, preemptive war:

"Now, I am not among those who say that America should never use its armed forces unilaterally. In some circumstances, we have no choice. In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."

Ok, Dean was vocal against the war, and I give him credit for that. But he has not opposed the policy of unilateral, preemptive war.

[killbotfactory]

21. He is against attacking countries is there is no imminent threat

A position most people agree with, and for some reason, one which he was harshly criticized for.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. All the candidates agree with that

it's like saying he's in favor of motherhood, or a strong America -- meaningless.


And I would like you to show one example of a candidate criticizing Dean for being "against attacking countries is there is no imminent threat".

In fact show an example where any Democrat thinks we should attack countries that don't pose an imminent threat.

[killbotfactory]

28. And Dean said Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat.

Same with Kerry, only Kerry voted for the resolution, supported the war, and criticized Dean for wanting to give the UN a veto on national security during the run-up to the war, all the while saying that he would only support war as a last resort.

[blm]

37. and Dean said he never doubted Saddam had WMDs.

Dean:

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

[JohnKleeb]

38. I sure was in doubt whether Saddam had WMDs

You know, I like Kucinich because he talks about the human costs of war, I havent heard about Dean doing this ever to my knowledge TO MY KNOWLEDGE so guys dont jump on me. I have this Kucinich speech on my iPod and you know what good olde Dennis brought up, the facts that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, etc, and he wondered where the outrage was about the Kurds when that was going on, "it would be nice to have a foriegn policy with clean hands"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. I thought there would

be at least some small shred of some evidence - a few pounds of mustard gas - a test tube - something.

You know we learned about 'the Big Lie' in school but when they are doing it to you it is hard to encompass sometimes how large the fabrication is -- I guess that's what makes it effective...

One of the reasons I support Kerry is that he does know the human costs of war, first-hand, he has shown anguish at the loss of his comrades, and compassion at the suffering of the innocents -- even, that rare commodity among politicians - a conscience. Say what you will about the vote, but it is my bedrock belief that Kerry would never have gotten us into this mess if he were President, he would have prosecuted the effort against al-Qaeda with vigor, and we'd have gotten Osama by now, and we would still be the most respected country in the world, as well as the most feared.

[JohnKleeb]

42. I dont know, but I dont hate Kerry for IWR

Fean hes my second choice. He knows what war is and I highly respect that. Fean, I disagreed with the vote but it seems to me he didnt have hawkish intentions. Dont worry about it, I like your candiate, if DK wasnt in I would be supporting Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Oh I know

I know you... I was just stating my feelings, not trying to oppose you... I feel DK supporters are Kerry supporters natural allies anyway ... at least you've taken the heat for the 'too liberal to be elected' argument that otherwise would probably be directed our way lol

[JohnKleeb]

46. lol yeah heh

I get along with a good number of you guys, Doc Funk always has good pictures, etc. We had different feelings but Kerry has a good record theres no lying about it.

[gully]

53. Dean ALWAYS maintained the President did not make a case for war.

Dean pushed for more inspections not a war.

"Governor Howard Dean says that Secretary Powell’s speech failed to make the case that Iraq posed for “an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq." (AP, 2/06/03)

[gully]

56. The question was how to deal with said WMD.

Dean didn't have a crystal ball, BFD. He trusted that if two Presidential administrations said there was WMD there may very well be WMD.

That is why he pushed for allowing inspections to continue, not going to war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. You've described

some criticism that you say Kerry offered. Let's see it and examine whether it is as you've described.



Also, you say Dean said Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat. Could you please reference this statement. I'm not saying he didn't say it, but I certainly don't remember him making a blanket statement like that before the war. I'd like to read it. I believe he said many times -- as did many others -- that the case had not been made that Iraq was an imminent threat. However I don't remember him saying 'Iraq is not an imminent threat.' Just a small point.

He 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.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html

Clearly, Dean is in favor of the US acting unilaterally, and preemptively, if neccesary. What I think almost all Democrats agree on, is that it was not neccesary in the case of Iraq.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush.
-- John Kerry 3-18-03
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667

[killbotfactory]

61. "strong personal preference"... ouch!

That Kerry sure can scorch the Bush administration. To bad he supports the war in that same speech.

On Iraq, Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan told the Associated Press that Mr. Dean wanted to give the U.N. "veto power over national-security decisions," and that it was "an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. President or serious candidate for the Presidency."

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_dean2004_archive.html#90398101

As for what Dean said about Iraq:

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

"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

"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

"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 06, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 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

"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

[gully]

62. Killbotfactory...

:yourock:

[killbotfactory]

76. gully...

right back at ya.

:toast:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. You want me to argue with you

about some comment that Jim Jordan supposedly made to the AP in early March and may be referenced in some column in the NY Observer that isn't even available for me to read. No thank you. As if that has anything to with who is the best person to lead our party and our country.

Then you post a bunch of quotes from Dean that we all agree with. OK. As I've said already in this thread Dean deserves credit for opposing the Iraq war. But the fact is he tried to straddle the same fence as any intelligent politician would. He accepted the idea that WMD's existed. He did not oppose the principle of unilateral, preemptive war with Iraq. And although he did once claim that he voted No on the Iraq Resolution he did not do so in fact, as he is not a member of Congress.

And when the troops were rolling to Baghdad, what he saying then?


Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/politics/5435514.htm">Dean to ease up on Bush

for contrast:

Kerry: ""This is a democracy, we could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?" Kerry Stands By Bush Criticism

[killbotfactory]

66. Here's another source

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20030221/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_2004

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, fired back, "Governor Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency."

This, of course, was during the run up to war, when all the candidates were gloating about supporting our invasion and Dean was declared DOA because of his opposition to invasion.

You still don't get the unilateral/preemptive war thing. Dean would not unilaterally invade Iraq unless they were an immediate threat, WMD's or no. Possible WMD's did not give us a ticket to invasion. I thought Saddam was probably up to something and did not support the war.

Dean criticized the president and said that the invasion was wrong during the march to Baghdad. He even was criticized for saying he supposed it was a good thing that Saddam was gone, and expressing concern that Iraq could turn into a mess.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. You still want me to argue about

Jordan. I couldn't care less about Jordan or some stupid comment he made in March. And your link doesn't work anyway.

You say I "still don't get" it. What I did say is that:

Dean deserves credit for opposing the Iraq war.

He tried to straddle the same fence as any intelligent politician would:

He accepted the idea that WMD's existed.

You're not disputing that point are you? His statement sure seems to indicate that to me.


NOW, A SEPARATE POINT:

He did not oppose the principle of unilateral, preemptive war with Iraq.

Are you disputing this point? Dean said that if Saddam didn't 'disarm', and if the UN chose 'not to enforce its own resolutions', the US should have given a deadline, and then acted unilaterally. Is this in some way a statement against the principle of unilateral, preemptive war ( yes, only if the threat is 'imminent' ). Did he make some other statement at some other time against the principle of unilateral, preemptive war? When?

As for these two statements you made:
("Possible WMD's did not give us a ticket to invasion")
("Dean would not unilaterally invade Iraq unless they were an immediate threat, WMD's or no.")
I really don't know what to make of them. Is this meant to refute some point I made? Which one? How? The first one seems to contradict the Salon quote, where he doesn't say anything about needing proof, just about Saddam not 'disarm'ing and the UN choosing 'not to enforce it's own resolutions.
The second I believe is true of Dean as well as all the candidates (with the possible exception of one, who has no fans here and who doesn't have a chance anyway).


NOW A SEPARATE POINT:

And although he did once claim that he voted No on the Iraq Resolution, he did not do so in fact, as he is not a member of Congress.


Are you disputing this point? Now I don't really understand why Dean felt it neccesary to state: "I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution." What's really odd about this is that he was so careful to add the part about 'in reasonably good shape in the polls', since DK voted no, yet even while speaking so carefully, it somehow slipped Dean's mind that he did not actually vote no, as he was saying. I mean, did Dean forget that he wasn't a member of Congress, and didn't vote? It's very puzzling. He say he find's it hard to believe... ok. Me too.

Finally, you say "Dean criticized the president and said that the invasion was wrong during the march to Baghdad." I don't know of that criticism, I haven't read about it, but, I have an open mind. Please show this criticism you say Dean made during the march to Baghdad. Yes on April 9th on being told about the phony 'fall of Baghdad' he said 'I suppose that's a good thing'. Is that the stinging criticism you are referring to?

[killbotfactory]

73. Jordan speaks for Kerry

This was back when Kerry let his staff do all the mud slinging.

Yes, Dean said there were WMD's, most people thought Saddam had them, but he did not concede they posed a threat to the united states or that there was enough proof to justify war. His support for unilateral action would be based on proof of a WMD threat and inaction to that threat by the UN. That is not the same as supporting Bush's preemptive strike in Iraq as it was carried out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Does Dean speak for Dean?

Why did Dean say at speech on June 5 in Washington, D. C.,
"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."

Did he 'forget' he wasn't a member of Congress?
Somehow in the same breath he managed to remember that Dennis Kucinich voted against the resolution.

Did he believe his opposition to the Iraq war was not compelling enough, and needed to be 'sexed' up?

Was he just off his meds that day?

[killbotfactory]

75. Good golly!

Dean made a flub and said he voted no on something he didn't vote for but vigorously opposed! Yikes! Dean should drop out this instant!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. Is the rest of Dean's opposition to the war just as honest?

A flub? You want us to believe that on Dean's 'signature issue', basically the only thing convincing liberals to support someone with his views, that he just 'forgot' he wasn't a member of Congress?

That dog won't hunt. Kerry was ahead of Dean in the polls at that point, and Dean wanted to pump up the importance of the vote, wanted to use it a distinction between himself and Kerry, since their actual positions are so similar. And he was willing to lie to do so.

[killbotfactory]

83. Kerry wasn't way ahead, actually...

It was about tied. And it's not really important. Dean opposed the war at the time of the vote and took heat from pundits and the other candidates for months.

Kerry has produced mountains of doublespeak on the issue previously and recently, but it won't erase his support of the war.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. So when Dean says

he voted No on the Resolution, it's no big deal?

I can just imagine how forgiving you'd be if Kerry made the same false statement.