response 441 of 536:

Dec 15 17:22 UTC 2003

I'm not sure being consistent in your stands gets you anywhere in a
campaign these days.  Bush clearly doesn't think so.

response 443 of 536:

Dec 17 02:12 UTC 2003

Dean has never been inconsistent in his opposition to the war in Iraq.  
He was never against removing Saddam Hussein, he was against the means 
used to justify the ends.  Is there a cost that is so high that 
something isn't worth doing?  This is an excerpt from Dean's foreign 
policy speech he gave yesterday:

Howard Dean:

"I want to talk about Iraq in the context of all our security 
challenges ahead. Saddam s capture offers the Iraqi people, the United 
States, and the international community an opportunity to move ahead. 
But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee.

Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the 
administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, 
with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. 
An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership 
might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam s ouster, to 
then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged 
yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the 
aftermath of the administration s war to oust him. There is the 
continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our 
personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There 
is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for 
American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does 
Saddam s capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even 
greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, 
does Saturday s capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire 
them.

When I become president, addressing these critical and interlocking 
threats   terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be 
America s highest priority.

To meet these and other important security challenges, including Iraq, 
I will bring to bear all the instruments of power that will keep our 
citizens secure and our nation strong.

Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:

The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;

The credibility that comes from telling the truth;

The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by 
ideology;

The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;

And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world 
has ever known to ensure the security of this nation. "

Everyone's applauding Bush now that Saddam's captured, and even the 
other Democratic candidates are mostly saying they agree with him.  
What did Dean say in above excerpt yesterday, 

"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the 
administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, 
with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost."

Dean said that a year ago, six months ago, and yesterday, the day after 
Saddam's capture.  Dean has not changed his view and, unlike his 
opponents, he is still speaking out.  

response 445 of 536:

Dec 17 03:19 UTC 2003

Oh, yeah, Mr. richard???  "Never inconsistent"???? What say you to 
this:

Thecarpetbaggerreport.com

December 11, 2003
Exactly how anti-war was Howard Dean?

. . .Dean's statements about the war in Iraq warrant a closer 
look. . . Dean's record is not as clear as the conventional wisdom 
would have us believe.. . .

On the September 29, 2002, episode of Face the Nation, Dean 
said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the 
United States and to our allies."
Then, in February 2003, Dean agreed with Bush that the Iraqi threat 
was real. . .  Dean said, "(H)e has tried to build a nuclear 
bomb.. . . So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is 
not a debate; it is a given."
A month later on Meet the Press, Dean said he believed that Iraq "is 
automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it 
because of the possession of these weapons."
Dean may have thought there was "no question" that Hussein was a 
threat before the war, but looking back now, his hindsight is telling 
him the opposite. Just this week, for example, Dean mentioned at the 
DNC's New Hampshire debate "that there was no serious threat to the 
United States from Saddam Hussein." 
. . . (T)he New York Times reported today that Dean said, plainly, "I 
never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever." In light 
of the Face the Nation quote from 2002, we know that's just not 
correct.

While Dean has repeatedly emphasized his belief that war efforts 
should be pursued through the U.N., Dean has also appeared willing, at 
times, to accept unilateral war in Iraq.
As recently as February 2003 . . . Dean appeared to accept a 
unilateral approach in Iraq as a necessary evil.
According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper . . . Dean 
said . . . (i)f 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.
. . . (A)ccording to a Des Moines Register report on October 6, 2002, 
Dean said, "It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally [in 
Iraq], but that should not be our first option."
On January 31, 2003, Dean told the LA Times' Ron Brownstein 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."
Since then, however, Dean has insisted that unilateral war is wholly 
unacceptable. . . 

. . . But before the war, Dean was far more receptive to the 
possibility that Bush deserved the benefit of the doubt. . . . U.S. 
News & World Report's Gloria Borger asked Dean in September 
2002, "Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to 
you [regarding Iraq]?"
Dean, who now argues that he saw through Bush's charade from the 
beginning, said . . ., "I don't think he really has to prove 
anything.  I think that most Americans, including myself, will take 
the president's word for it."
. . .
(H)e told Roll Call earlier this year, "I would be surprised if 
[Hussein] didn't have [chemical and biological weapons.]"
Appearing on Meet the Press on March 9, 2003 . . . Dean spoke with 
some certainty about Hussein's dangerous arsenal.
. . . Dean said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent 
threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of 
these weapons."

. . . (Dean)endorsed a congressional effort . . . that was very 
similar . . . to the resolution that passed both chambers in 
Congress. . . The Biden-Lugar resolution authorized Bush to use force 
in Iraq -- unilaterally, if necessary -- if a diplomatic solution 
could not be reached at the United Nations.
Dean has argued that Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush to return to 
Congress . . . to seek congressional support for a military 
invasion. . . Actually, Biden-Lugar doesn't appear to have made such a 
condition at all.  The resolution . .  simply required Bush to "make 
available" to Congress his "determination" that the Iraqi threat "is 
so grave that the use of force is necessary." . . . 
Dean . . . publicly endorsed it, despite the fact that it allowed Bush 
to pursue war in Iraq, without U.N. support, and without a second 
congressional resolution.  As Ryan Lizza noted last month in The New 
Republic, "[T]he war resolution Howard Dean supported would probably 
have led to exactly the same outcome -- a unilateral war with Iraq."
. . . (T)he important point to be learned, as far as I'm concerned, is 
that Dean's record on Iraq isn't too-terribly-different from that of 
Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Clark.


(Go How-weird!!)

response 447 of 536:

Dec 17 04:01 UTC 2003

Re #446: what seems to be overlooked in all that is that prior to the war
Dean was responding on the basis of what Bush said about Iraq acquiring
nuclear weapons, and definitely having WMD, were true.  Why should he have
assumed then that Bush was lying? We only learned afterward that Bush had
been lying.

I think this post-factor hesaid/shesaid argumentation is rather
irrelevant. Before the war not only Dean but everyone was not only largely
in the dark about what the administration knew or thought they knew, the
administration was actively lying. That's much worse than any
tentativeness Dean might have had about the situation. 

response 449 of 536:

Dec 17 04:24 UTC 2003

We know he did. Even if Iraq does have hidden WMD that will not change
the fact the Bush did not have incontrovertable evidence he did, as he
said he did. 

In any case, why don't you apply your criticism of Dean, for flip-flopping,
to Bush's flip-flopping? Bush's prevarications are certainly MUCH more
serious than any mistatements from Dean. Bush took us into a war killing
people on the basis of his lies. 

response 451 of 536:

Dec 17 04:40 UTC 2003

  It's not Bush's fault he deliberately deceived the country to
  get us to go to war.  It was those "Clinton intelligence officers."

  Is that really your explanation, Bruce?

response 453 of 536:

Dec 17 05:36 UTC 2003

Again, the reason for removing Saddam was that he was said to have weapons
of mass destruction.  He did not turn out to have them.  Either the
information was wrong or Bush lied.  But regardless of that, the real question
is whether the ends justified the means.  Bru and klg do not seem to care how
many hundreds of billions of dollars it cost and how many american lives it
cost (and will continue to cost as the troops are still over there) and how
many countries we have relations with that we pissed off.  The means don't
matter to them, only the "ends"  They are like Hitler, who told the German
people that he would make them great again, that was the "end", and the means,
exterminating the jews, wiping out other countries, just didn't matter. 

Well as the German people found out, the ends DON'T always justify the means.
Sometimes the cost is too high.  Dean said he would have supported the removal
of Saddam unilaterally IF and ONLY IF there was an imminent threat to national
security, such as we were about to be attacked.  This was not the case.  So
even though we all wanted Saddam out of power (and I think everyone agrees
on that), the end wasn't going to justify the means unless it happened the
right way.  This was NOT the right way to go about it.  But Bru and Klg don't
care, they simply don't.  They don't care how much blood was shed or what the
longterm diplomatic damage was.  There will be longterm repercussions because
of this.  And we are now running a huge national defecit again.  But Bru and
klg don't care.  They just don't.  Because to them the end ALWAYS justifies
the means, whatever those means are.  

response 455 of 536:

Dec 17 14:38 UTC 2003

I vote that if jp2 is going to use 'How-weird', from this point on Bush
shall be referred to as 'The Shrub' in this item.

response 457 of 536:

Dec 17 15:00 UTC 2003

It would have been easier to just say "we are going to depose Saddam".
at least then you would only have broken international law, instead of
breaking international law, lying through your teeth, and leaving the
generations alive today wide open tothe charge of imperialism in the
future.

response 459 of 536:

Dec 17 16:44 UTC 2003

Re: 458: This guy reads my mind.

response 461 of 536:

Dec 17 17:24 UTC 2003

Mazel tov.

response 463 of 536:

Dec 17 17:37 UTC 2003

Well *somebody* here sure looks foolish...