Kerry Supporter challenges Dean's assertion

[ModerateMiddle]

that Dean has "always been against the war".

This is from the Kerry blog, with the author's permission to repost:

To bring others up to speed, here's the problem. On the Dean web site, Howard Dean specifically states, "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

This is Dean's current, ongoing, steadfast claim. Unfortunately it is hardly clear as to what he means, because to my knowledge Dean himself has never actually stated when this 'beginning' was. In stark contrast, we all know when Kerry laid forth his rationale for voting in the affirmative to authorize the president to use force, if necessary, in disarming Iraq: October 9, 2002.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

We also know when that vote occurred: October 11, 2002.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237



As for the Doc's assertion that he opposed the war "from the beginning," we're left to guess when that beginning was. This is of course politically convenient, but we'll skip past that and assume he's being sincere. On the face of it, there are only two logical possibilities. Either Dean is saying he was opposed to the attack on Iraq from the beginning of the war itself, or he is saying he was ALWAYS fundamentally opposed to any attack on Iraq.

Given that the war in Iraq did not begin until March 20, 2003, a full five months after Kerry's vote, we can dispense with 'A' fairly quickly. By the time the war kicked off, it was clear that president Bush had failed in his responsibility to work with the U.N. on aggressive weapons inspections, to build a large multi-national coalition, and to exhaust every option before using force. Because all of these were conditions set forth by Kerry FOR his affirmative vote, Kerry himself could have said he was against the war from the beginning of the war if he wanted to.

In fact, even before the commencement of hostilities Kerry was expressing severe doubts with the way the president had moved toward war. Nine days after the attack began, Kerry was giving voice to those concerns, while Dean was going negative, calling Kerry a flopper:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=76828&SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&S=1

Leaving aside the politics again, it's clear from the linked text that Dean was not asserting he had only been against the war in Iraq from the beginning of the war, nine days prior. Rather he was saying he had ALWAYS been against war, which is what we must assume he is still saying today.

This brings us back to the original question I asked, which was when Dean first went on the record as being against war with Iraq. In response, 'Fairness' has replied:

"...approximately September 4, 2002, a full month before Senator Kerry cast his vote."

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/52530.htm

This then, must be the date on which Howard Dean was unequivocally opposed to war with Iraq, or, at the very least, stating conditions which would justify such an attack. The question before us now, is, is that true? Is it true that on September 4, 2002, Howard Dean was clearly and unambiguously on the record opposing war in Iraq?

'Fairness' quoted a number of Dean's comments from the above article, including:

"' 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.'"

In fact, just after September 4, 2002, in anticipation of the joint resolution scheduled for five weeks later, the administration ramped up an aggressive disinformation campaign designed to do exactly what Howard Dean said they needed to do: make the case that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat. From the Washington Post:

"Two debuts took place on Sept. 8: the aluminum tubes and the image of 'a mushroom cloud.' A Sunday New York Times story quoted anonymous officials as saying the 'diameter, thickness and other technical specifications' of the tubes -- precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts -- showed that they were 'intended as components of centrifuges.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9¬Found=true



Quite clearly, over the next month, the Bush administration did everything they could to convince America that another 9/11 could happen, only this time involving Iraqi nuclear weapons. In fact, here's Donald Rumsfeld appearing on Face the Nation, ALSO on September 8, 2002:



Rumsfeld: If you go back to September 11th, we lost three thousand innocent men, women and children. Well, if -- if you think that's a problem, imagine -- imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction.

Schieffer: Let me just -

Rumsfeld: It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.



(The above interview is also referenced in the WP article.)

Clearly, immediately after Dean says the Bush administration needs to make the case that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, the Bush administration goes about doing so. Just as clearly, this horrific possibility is being squarely aimed at the Senators and Representatives who will be voting on the upcoming joint resolution, and at the American people they represent.

But can't we safely assume that Howard Dean saw through all of these lies? As 'Fairness' has said, September 4, 2002 marks the date on which Howard Dean put himself on the record as being against the possibility of war with Iraq, so it's safe to assume that he never changed his mind after that fact.

The problem is that Dean DID change his mind, stepping back noticeably from the opposition to war he was claiming on September 4. More importantly, Dean was also clearly UNABLE to see through the withering stream of lies coming from the Bush administration during the month of September.

How do we know all this? Because of Howard Dean's appearance on Face the Nation (FTN) on September 30, 2002 - only eleven days before Senator Kerry's floor speech, and only thirteen days before Senator Kerry's vote. Excerpted:



GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: 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. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.



Note here that Dean is specifically admitting that he would have to trust the president in this matter. His qualifier, that the president hasn't said that America is under immediate threat, or that Saddam has the capability to strike the U.S. directly, misses the point that the administration was making: Saddam Hussein could give nukes to crazy people who would smuggle them to the Unites States.

Also according to Dean during the interview, Bush needs to, "bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council." Dean also wonders, "What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?" Note that these are the SAME concerns John Kerry spells out in his floor speech eleven days later.

Because Bob Schieffer is an excellent journalist, he follows up with Dean:



SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.



(I urge everyone to read the full FTN interview in order to be sure that I have not taken the quotes unfairly out of context.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

So: Howard Dean is totally against a war with Iraq on September 4, and then, by September 30, he is NOT totally against a war with Iraq. In fact, he is fully admitting that he may have to trust the president, and that there may be valid reasons for disarming Iraq by force.

Factually, there is no difference between Howard Dean's position on that date, and that of John Kerry. The ONLY difference is that Howard Dean will not have to vote on the record thirteen days later. Unlike those who are on the record, Dean will then be free to LIE about his position for political gain in the coming months, as the Bush administration fails to deliver on its promises and Iraq turns into a quagmire. This will in turn will help Dean extract significant sums of money from anti-war voters, and from people generally opposed to the Bush administration.

'Fairness' asked, in his original post on this subject:

"How is a person who was fooled by the BS put out by this administration -- to the point of approving a war based on this BS -- any more suited to be 'trusted with the welfare of the United States' than is a governor of a small state who was able to see through the BS from the start?"

As we have seen, Howard Dean saw through nothing. As we have also seen, Howard Dean has yet to explain when 'the start' was of his opposition to war with Iraq. In truth, the only difference between John Kerry's position on October 13th and Howard Dean's position on September 30th is that John Kerry had to go on the record, and Howard Dean did not. In the aftermath of the vote, John Kerry has repeatedly taken George Bush to task for misleading and failing America. Howard Dean has lied about his record and gone negative on John Kerry.

'Fairness'' original question thus becomes: How is a person who refuses to lie to the American people about his stand on a difficult issue any more suited to be 'trusted with the welfare of the United States' than is a governor of a small state who IS lying about his stand on that issue?

The question answers itself.

'Fairness' closed by saying, "I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm simply providing the facts to back up why I'm supporting Gov. Dean for seeing through Bush's BS early on."

As Fairness has just noted, a good number of Dean supporters (and a growing number of FORMER Dean supporters) gravitated to Dean because he professed, and continues to profess, that he saw through Bush's lies. Because this is not true, Dean supporters will have to either swallow their pride and stick with the most premeditatedly manipulative candidate in the race other than George Bush, or they will have to leave the Dean campaign in search of a straight-talk candidate who says what he means and means what he says.

I understand that rabid Dean supporters will never accept that Dean was fooled, or that he is lying now about his position for cynical political gain. Kerry supporters, however, don't blame Senator Kerry, others members of Congress, or the American people, for having been duped by George Bush. We also don't blame former Dean supporters for having been duped by Howard Dean.

Posted by: Mark from Iowa on September 14, 2003 07:32 PM

http://www.blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000201.html#000201

[wtmusic]

1. Shame, shame, shame

If Kerry supporters have to resort to microscopic examination of Dean's every word over the last six months to find contradictions, he's still miles ahead of Mr. Kerry.

[blm]

3. Not microscopic. It's been visible for a year

but, who pays much attention when the blinders are on?

[wtmusic]

10. If you need a simplistic answer

to the war question, that's fine. Not everyone else does.

[blm]

2. REAL antiwar support belongs to Kucinich.

Dean muddied the waters to get what DK deserved honestly.

Dean was NEVER against the war, he was FOR a different version of the resolution and that STILL would have landed us in Iraq.

Ted Rall was right. Dean saw the millions of antiwar protestors and made his move on them.

[charlie]

9. True - thank you blm

Kucinich was unequivocably against an invasion of Iraq. No parsing of rhetoric is necessary to divine what he meant:

"The Administration's unilateral first strike policy, and its harsh rhetoric against Iraq, has very serious ramifications for not only Iraq and the middle east region, but on the carefully constructed alliances upon which the US relies. Pre-emptive military action in Iraq would only destabilize the region and place at risk the lives of those American men and women who would be called to action. It is important that the United States work in coordination with the international community to contain Iraq, and not proceed unilaterally with an unprovoked war.

Although, the Administration has failed to establish a clear link between the attacks of September 11th and Iraq, recent press accounts indicate that the Administration is considering an attack, before the November elections. I would like to remind the Administration of Article I, Section 8, which clearly states Congress, has sole authority to declare war. It is my strong belief that US policy and actions must be made carefully, according to the Constitution that we, in Congress, and the President have sworn to uphold. There is no room for pre-emptive military action in a democratic society which relies upon its Constitution for guidance in domestic and foreign affairs."

July 19 2002

[Eloriel]

17. NO Dean supporter for whom his opposition to the war is

important confuses the positions of Dean and Kucinich. NO Dean supporter takes away from Kucinich HIS position, which is different from Dean's. I see DK as basically a pacifist; Dean is not. I like Dean's position -- I too am not a pacifist.

And no, Ted Rall is NOT right. He never cynically went after the anti-war votes. That was, and is, his honest position. You forget-- it's YOUR candidate who panders.

Quit this intellectual dishonesty.

Eloriel

[blm]

23. Blinders on...check.

Attack blm...check.

Typical. Ted Rall, Richard Reeves, Jimmy Breslin...they are all just misunderstanding Dean and his political maneuverings.

[CWebster]

4. A lot of sound and fury

to determine just exactly when the "beginning" was. Well, since I started Dean opposed it, and it is a good enough place to begin from for me - while Kerry was busy ignoring protestors camped out at his offices and crowing about how Saddam threw out the Inspectors.

Kerry spouted the lie, and he must've known it was a lie, because I did. Kerry believed the press and the polls over the truth and accepted the growing and angry base was little more than a "focus group". He has demonstrated poor judgement and political calculation and treated a vast swath of the electorate on the Left with contempt.

That is why Dean is running over him effortlessly.

[blm]

5. While Kerry was working to stop Bush's REAL blank check.

And this is how you thank those who prevented that from happening by PAYING for the better deal with their votes.

[wtmusic]

6. Yeah, Kerry was working to stop Bush's real blank check

by voting against both the Byrd and the Levin amendments.

Gimme a break.

[JNelson6563]

14. Exactly!

I saw my Senator on the floor that day (Levin) doing what he could to maintain some of Congress' authority over declaring war, trying to put an amendment on a blank check. I applauded his valiant effort and was once again proud he's from Michigan.

Then I watched as his collegues (supposed fellow members of the "loyal opposition") shoot him right down. They shot their own down and then make fancy speeches as to why they give the Simian everything he wants. As if lots of pretty words would sooth the countless constituents who called their offices demanding a "no" vote.

Well it didn't work.

Julie

On edit: BTW I have had the good fortune of being in Sen. Levin's company several times since that vote. I thanked him and told him of the admiration he got here for his efforts on Iraq and the Homeland inSecurity bills. He was a glimmer of light in a dark fall last year. I for one won't soon forget.

[wtmusic]

20. Levin's terrific

Need more like him.

[blm]

24. Because he was stuck with his role.

If you preferred NO Dem negotiate then you preferred Bush get a real blank check to bypass the UN, presentation of evidence, and to bomb Iran and Syria.

[joeybee12]

8. The problem is not Dean's words, but Kerry's words AND actions!

He blah-blah-blahed against the war, and then turned around and voted for it--quite frankly, he voted for it so it would make him look strong on defense and he thought it would help him in his bid for the nomination. Now it's turning out to be his Achille's heel.

[clar]

7. "Kerry Cat Challenges Dean Cat's Hissing"

Do you even begin to understand how silly this? Honestly, I thought this was a spoof thread. Oh yea, it is a spoof thread.

[deutsey]

11. Much ado about nothing (another Shakespeare reference)

Dean, as were many anti-war protesters I knew, was opposed to the US going it alone, in violation of international law.

Had Bush somehow managed to build a coalition like his father did, I think a lot of the wind from the anti-war movement could have gone from the sails. I get the impression Dean wouldn't have had major problems with that either.

Personally, I would have been opposed even if there were a coalition unless there was a proven, substantiated threat that Hussein posed to us or the world. But many people I knew were not as absolute in their opposition. They believed the UN and international law had to override Bush's "mad cowboy disease."

[Tinoire]

12. Howard Dean was NOT against Iraq!

Dean is not antiwar. Dean was totally behind the war against Afghanistan and has made some very disconserting statements about Iran and Syria (the next 2 countries on Bush's list). Re Iraq, Dean simply wanted the war to be delayed 60 days but was all for going in, with or without UN support.



---
From March 2003

Dean’s Rhetorical Twister

Dean has been on the campaign trail for a while, and his opponents have noticed earlier contradictions as well.

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." ((So in other words, had the manufactured evidence been less clumsy, that is not being anti-war or even anti-this-war.))

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."

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty032803.asp



Afghanistan:
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

the United States must reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil and we must have a President who is willing to confront the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, and others who send money to Hamas, and finance a worldwide network of fundamentalist schools which teach small children to hate Americans, Christians, and Jews. ((AIPAC talking points if I ever saw any!))

From Dean's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations - June 25, 2003
Restoring American Leadership: A New Direction for American Foreign Policy
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6072#

While we focused on Iraq, we neglected the very real nuclear threats emerging in North Korea and Iran. For months we refused to see North Korea's nuclear challenge as a crisis-and now it is a declared nuclear power.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6072#

In Iran, we again must use the full range of economic and diplomatic tools at our disposal. We must work with the Europeans and the Russians to stop Iranian development of nuclear weapons and their support of terror.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6072#

[CWebster]

15. Imagine

with my own ears I heard the second coming Kucinich claim that if the case was made that Iraq in anyway represented a claear and present danger to the US he would support military action.

Imagine that.

Sad that you would have to use the "National Review" to make your case.

[charlie]

18. You've got a problem with that?

You would oppose military action against a clear and present danger to the US? You'd fault Kucinich for supporting a defense against a real enemy? He didn't see an actionable threat from Iraq because there wasn't one. Would you care to make a case otherwise?

[CWebster]

19. Well, no

But isn't that the same case as when Dean claimed the case hadn't been made?

[charlie]

22. The difference is that Dean

opted to temper his convictions with a "I trust the president because a president would only have our best interests at heart" caveat:

"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."

Contrast that with Kucinich's unalloyed statement that Bush was jeopardizing safety and precedent with the reckless rush to war.

I'm not interested in busting Dean's chops. I'll happily get behind him if it comes to Bush vs Dean. But comparing the two, only Kucinich's opposition to the Iraq invasion has been steadfast and unqualified.

[CWebster]

25. That flies in the face of his position regarding the Iraqi invasion

and he took heat for it at the time, so your unreferenced quotes don't support that reality.

[charlie]

27. Huh? Don't support that *reality*?

I extracted that quote from the post that started this thread. If that's not good enough, it's referenced again here:

http://www.tnr.com/iraq/iraq_contenders.mhtml

It's what the man said. It's reality.

[CWebster]

28. the entire quote

" 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. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons anytime in the immediate future. My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way? 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. We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will, but I think the time now is for g--getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies."

And the allies said the US had not built a case so keep the inspectors in. But the entire case for Iraq was fabricated out of thin air, the Bush administration pounding the drums 24/7 required everyone to recognise the formalities--however there was no mistaking Chimp's intent. He never made a case, couldn't afford to keep the Inspectors in and risk the negative findings--claiming the threat was so imminent we must go alone. Easy enough to see through.

[charlie]

29. Absolutely

Of course I agree that the Chimp dragged us into this tarbaby for his own tawdry purposes. And it was apparent for all to see.

Dean gave a measure of latitude to Bush, in that Junior may have reasons to invade Iraq, he just didn't take the time to present a compelling case to the UN Security Council. He made little argument against invasion:

My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board?

His contention was that unilateralism was unwise.

Kucinich's position was drawn from more fundamental principles: The president was only authorized to wage war against the perpetrators of 911:

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, the House passed a resolution, on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of force against those determined to be responsible for the attacks. However, the authorization of force was limited to those determined to be responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/pr-020719-militaryaction.htm

...and commitment to war cannot be legally made without consent of Congress:

Although, the Administration has failed to establish a clear link between the attacks of September 11th and Iraq, recent press accounts indicate that the Administration is considering an attack, before the November elections. I would like to remind the Administration of Article I, Section 8, which clearly states Congress, has sole authority to declare war. It is my strong belief that US policy and actions must be made carefully, according to the Constitution that we, in Congress, and the President have sworn to uphold. There is no room for pre-emptive military action in a democratic society which relies upon its Constitution for guidance in domestic and foreign affairs."

Again, I'm not one to rag on Dean. But you can't make light of Kucinich's stance vis a vis Dean's. He's not the "second coming", but he was... and is... right.

[Upfront]

13. Yawn

[ModerateMiddle]

16. you really ought to get some sleep

you spend a lot of time yawning. I guess that lack of sleep is limiting your ability to actually reply to any content, eh?

[wtmusic]

21. LOL

I'd have to 'yawn' at the 'yawn' thing if it wasn't so trite

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. Ok, let's see. It seems that blogger likes to mislead...

The vast majority of that post is just hot air. All it does is confirm what Dean's stance was (and is) and then shows quotes from an interview that it claims proves the opposite.

So let's see what WASN'T quoted.

here is the first quote from the FTN transcript:

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: 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. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

But, here is the question immediately before it, that PROVES this blogger is trying to mislead the reader as to what Dean meant:

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: Good morning. We begin in Austin, Texas, this morning where Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is. In San Francisco we find Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in Chester, Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd. First to Governor Dean.

Governor, you are unabashedly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, out already raising money for that.

You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. 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. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

The question and answer the blogger quoted was a follow up to this answer, and in this answer Dean says he does not believe that Bush has proven a case for war, in fact he doesn't believe Bush has even MADE a case. He is saying that Bush NEVER claimed there was an immediate threat, and thus the war should not happen.

He is then asked what he would take as proof, and Dean, fairly, says that proof may not be possible and that some trust may have to be placed in Bush, but reiterates that NO CASE has even been MADE let alone PROVEN that Iraq is an immediate threat. Hell, he even grants that Iraq is a long term threat and that eventually something may have to be done, but he most forcefully reiterates that no case of an IMMEDIATE THREAT has even been made and thus the war is not neccessary at that point.

The Kerry blogger is trying to SPIN the answer to say that Dean agreed a case had been made, WHEN IT IS CLEAR HE DOESN'T.

The fact is, Dean is NOT arguing against the war based on a pacificst type viewpoint, he is saying that war may be necessary, but a case has to be made. He is saying that evidence of a theoretical threat in the future does NOT constitute a case for ignoring allies, ignoring diplomacy and invading sooner rather than later.

Dean is all for invading Iraq, but only if Iraq has WMD, and only if a REAL effort is made to build a coalition to do so. He is saying that Bush never tried to make a case nor build a coalition and thus he thinks the war AT THAT TIME was not right, which has been his stance all along, just as Dean said.

We now know that if Bush had waited much longer, his claims would have been PROVEN wrong by the inspectors. This is why Bush ordered them out and invaded BEFORE the inspectors had finished. Bush KNEW that he would be proven wrong because EVERY bit of evidence he had presented was PROVEN wrong.

What would Dean's stance have been had the inspectors finished their inspections and reported that Iraq was free of WMD. I'm pretty sure it would have been the same as Kerry's - No war! But Kerry and the other Dem's that voted for the resolution gave Bush authorisation to NOT WAIT to be proven wrong. In fact they authorised him to PREVENT the inspectors from proving him wrong, and he did so.

Trying to spin Dean's words to make it sound like he agreed with Kerry is merely DESPERATE deception on behalf of the Kerry supporters. Dean said he would support a war if the case was made that Iraq was an immediate threat - Kerry supported the war DESPITE a case being made that Iraq WASN"T a threat AT ALL! There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.