Where is the inconsistancy?

[killbotfactory]

A candidate and a lot of people (mainly, supporters of said candidate) are making the claim that Dean was inconsistant with his views on Iraq, but after researching I'm having trouble finding it.

Can someone please find it for me?

Bonus points will be awarded for someone who can point out where Dean misrepresented himself as a peacenik anti-war dove in an attempt to pull one over on the peace movement.

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

President Bush would have to meet two criteria before he ordered a U.S. invasion, Dean said Sunday during a presidential campaign trip to New Hampshire.

"The first is, he has to show the American people, as President Kennedy did in the Cuban missile crisis, that there’s evidence (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) has either atomic or biological weapons and can deliver them," Dean said. "So far he has not made that case. So where’s the threat? We need to see that evidence."

...

"We also have to be honest about how long we’re going to be there. We’re going to have American troops on the ground in Iraq for 10 years," Dean said. "If we’re not honest about that, then I don’t think the president ought to have the right to make the decision to go into a war with Iraq because the American people ought to be told ahead of time what that’s going to mean to us."

August 21, 2002

“He 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.”

...

"He needs to be forthright with the American people about what this means," said Dean. "If we go into Iraq, we’re going to have to stay for probably five or 10 years."

He warned that simply deposing Hussein is not enough. The United States would have to plant the seeds of democracy in a country with little such tradition, he said.

"Americans are going to have to die and a lot of money is going to be spent," said Dean.

...

"The American people need to be told the truth up front," said Dean. "It’s not going to Afghanistan and it’s not going to be the last Iraqi war. If we don’t stay there and remold the country into a democratic country, which will take 10 years, then it’s stupid to go in there."

September 04, 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

"I think most of the focus on Iraq is because of their terrible record on the economy and health care," said Dean, a Democrat. "I think there’s a healthy amount of domestic politics involved."

September 25, 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," Dean said on CBS’ "Face The Nation" via satellite from Austin, Texas.

"The question is, ‘Is he an immediate threat?’ The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we’ve had over the weekend, that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it’s got to be gone about in a very different way."

...

While Dean said the United States must defend itself unilaterally if necessary, he emphasized that now is the time to be getting the cooperation of the United Nations Security Council and U.S. allies.

"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," he said.

September 29, 2002

Kerry said he expects Democrats will overwhelmingly approve the pending Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. "I think there will be a significantly more unified front than in the last Gulf War," he said.

But Dean said there are significant differences among Democrats on the issue, and suggested a political motive for presidential moves toward war.

"What’s the imminent danger?" he asked. "The president has never said, and all the intelligence reports say there isn’t any. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some of this has to do with the midterm elections."

October 6, 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

Appearing on the CBS news show "Face the Nation," Dean, who is running for president, said President Bush had not made the case to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

...

"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 05, 2003

"I personally believe hasn’t made his case"

January 10, 2003

Dean, meanwhile, said he would not have voted for the Iraq resolution, though he is not against the use of military force if necessary.

"The problem with the resolution on Iraq is the president has never made his case," he said.

January 23, 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

"The secretary of state made a compelling case for what the American people already know: Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed," said Dean. "But I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq."

...

"I am not in the no-way camp. Definitely not. I think Saddam must be disarmed. The problem I have is that I have a deep reluctance to attack a country unilaterally without a pretty high standard of proof," he said. "I am hoping to resolve this peacefully.

"To say you are in the not-yet camp implies that war is inevitable and I don’t think that is true," he added.

Dean did say he is not completely opposed to a U.S. attack on Iraq: "There are circumstances under which I would attack Iraq unilaterally, but we are very far from those circumstances."

February 5, 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

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.

"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

March 15th, 2003

"I went to Parris Island so I could look into the faces of the kids who will be sent to Iraq," Dean told a cheering lunchtime crowd in Concord, N.H. "We should always support our kids, but I do not support this president's policies and I will continue to say so."

March 18, 2003

"Anti-war Presidential candidate Howard Dean said he will not silence his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy now that the war has begun, but he will stop the 'red meat' partisan attacks.

"No matter how strongly I oppose the President's policy, I will continue to support American troops who are now in harms way," said Dean

March 20, 2003

While Dean said he was staunchly opposed to the war and planned to continue criticizing it, he also said the United States should keep fighting, putting him at odds with other antiwar activists who have been calling for an immediate cease-fire.

''We're in. We don't have any choice now. But this is the wrong choice,'' Dean said. ''There will be some who think we should get out immediately, but I don't think that's an easy position to take.''

March 23, 2003

"I’m certainly not going to change my message," Dean said. "I don’t see how I could. I think the war is a problem, in terms of our long-term foreign policy."

"What I’ve said is, I’m not going to criticize the president in a partisan way or in a personal way during the war," said Dean. "But for me to change my policy on that now wouldn’t make any sense. I haven’t altered my view about this."

March 24, 2003

On day one of a Dean Presidency, I will reverse this attitude. I will tear up the Bush Doctrine. And I will steer us back into the company of the community of nations where we will exercise moral leadership once again.

April 17th, 2003

[Paschall]

1. "I will tear up the Bush Doctrine"

I like that. And I think it's what the world needs to hear from the next American president.

Thanks for going to all the trouble of compiling this! Great read!

[killbotfactory]

4. I had fun compiling it.

Dean called it early and accurately.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Here, for one:

"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."
--2/17/03
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html


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.
--2/22/03
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5236485.htm

[killbotfactory]

3. You left out this part of the second quote. A mistake or deliberate?

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.

He doesn't support sending troops to Iraq without the UN because he
remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States.

And it's not even a direct quote, but a paraphrase of his position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. You asked where the inconsistency was. I showed it.

But really the core inconsistency is trying to paint himself as some implacaple opponent to the Iraq war when actually Dean supported Biden-Lugar, believed Bush about WMD's, supports the principle of unilateral, preemptive war under the right circumstances -- basically the same position as Kerry with the exception that Dean didn't have to vote on the resolution.

Except,

"I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted “No” on the Iraq Resolution."
http://www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/dean_062303_131529.pdf

well, gee, maybe he did vote on the resolution. At least he said he did.

[killbotfactory]

6. There is no inconsistancy between those two quotes.

They clearly show Dean saying there is no need to unilaterally attack Iraq and it is a mistake to go in without the UN.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Beyond The 30-60 Day UN Deadline For Unilateralism?

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration's saying wasn't so. We don't know why that is. So...

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

''A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,''' said Dean. ''The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/Dean_won_t_let_Kerry_off_the_hook+.shtml

<>

[killbotfactory]

8. You mean, if there was evidence of an imminent threat?

That's inconsistant with his previous statements where he would support unilateral action in Iraq if there was evidence of an imminent threat because... ?

Dean is saying Bush misled the US on WMD, not that he supported the war. Obviously, as the statements above suggest, he did not believe there was enough evidence to justify a unilateral invasion and that is what he was not misled on.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. If you have to spin it to make it look consistent then it's inconsistent.

lol

[killbotfactory]

10. Can you find me a quote where Dean says we should never attack Iraq?

Under any circumstances? If not, it is not inconsistant.

lol

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. No candidate would ever say anything that stupid.

I agree, Dean is not a moron. Is it really neccesary to set the bar so low? :eyes:

[killbotfactory]

12. Then what is the inconsistancy?

MR. RUSSERT: In an interview with Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, in January, you said this, "In a meeting...with 'Roll Call' editors and reporters, Dean said this if President Bush presented evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, 'Then I'd go back to the U.N. and get a new resolution that either disarms in 60 days or we go in.'"

Isn't that exactly what the president did in November? He went to the United Nations, made the case, and it's now been 120 days and Saddam Hussein is still not cooperating.

MR. DEAN: See, I don't think the president has made the case. I think what the president has made a reasonable case for is that Saddam is moving weapons around in terms of biologicals and chemicals, perhaps. He has not made a case for the three things that I think require or enable us to invade unilaterally or pre-emptively or preventively, as we are now calling it. He has not made the case for Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. He has not made the case that he has any kind of a credible nuclear program. And he has not made the case that Saddam is giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists. If he were doing any of those things, I think we would have a right to defend ourselves, and we should go in. That case has not been made, either by the president or Secretary Powell, and I don't think that we ought to go in, if we don't want to use the word unilaterally, than preventively or pre-emptively.

...

MR. RUSSERT: If he hadn't disarmed within a year, would that be too long?

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Tim, I prefer very strongly that the United Nations make this decision about disarming Saddam. I said to Mort Kondracke, I think we can get a resolution, and I hope we will get a resolution that says 60 days, but it's the United Nations resolution that's important here.

March 9, 2003

[Nicholas_J]

13. Lets see other Quotes:

Dean's reference to ambivalence the night before is directly contradicted by a first hand account from Lawrence Lessig, an Edwards supporter and chair of the Creative Commons project, who attended one of those events:

Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the “correct” answer is “no”. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go...


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."

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."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right


http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html


And lets get the Salon.Com Version of that "Attack for the UN not upholding its own resolutions"

"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.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html



"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."

He said Bush had approached the Iraq issue from the wrong direction - he should have taken the issue to the United Nations first, before he threatened unilateral military action to oust Saddam.

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


AND Deans interview with Russert is filled with facts that indicate that Dean knows absolutely nothing:

RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

Dean initially did what you’re supposed to do when thrown something unexpected.

Admit you don’t know the specific answer, but address the larger issue, so you make your point and avoid sounding clueless:

DEAN: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is.

I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now…

…In Afghanistan, we need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords…

…And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations…

RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

Dean initially did what you’re supposed to do when thrown something unexpected.

Admit you don’t know the specific answer, but address the larger issue, so you make your point and avoid sounding clueless:

DEAN: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is.

I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now…

…In Afghanistan,we need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords…

…And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations…

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/062203.htm#062303

So in the one month peopd befor the war, we have Dean going from stating that he would go towe would go to wat Iraq SOLY on the grounds of the U.N. not supporting its own resolutions within 30 to 60 days of going to the United Nations for support, to him staing we should only go with UN. support, to him saying that he wou7ld only go if there was aqn imminent danger.

The first quote, 30 to 60 days contyains NO references to imminent danger, onlt to the U.N. not supporting its own resolutions, a few days later, he us saying under no circumtances should we go except imminent danger. But in June, with Russert, after the war has started he is stating that we should send in MORE troops to Iraq, and then minutes later stating that we should get NATO involved in order to remove troops...

What is Dean saying NOW about Iraq...

He is going back to the statements that he is the only person who OPPOSED the presidents war in Iraq, wheras in the quote to Salon,com, he supports one of thePROMARY reasons Bush went into Iraq: The U.N. not supporting its own past resolutions regarding Iraq..


Howard Dean, who has ridden his party's anti-sentiment to the front of the pack, opposed the war from the start. The former Vermont governor says he would give Bush his $87.5-billion, but only if it is paid for by rolling back the president's tax cuts for the wealthy. That would be the right thing to do, but as Dean well knows, it's not going to happen.

Democrats need to get a grip on themselves before they become casualties of Bush's war. They could do worse than heed the words of Bill Clinton. "I'm not against helping the Iraqi cause," the former Democratic president said recently. "We acquired responsibility because of what we did . . . We just can't walk away from this."


http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/02/Columns/_Blank_check__babble_.shtml


ANd How about an overall picture of Dean's foreign policy:


Two measures of American desperation: Wesley Clark and Howard Dean"

Why all the Hype?

So how did Dean get labeled a progressive antiwar candidate? Dean wonders himself, " out here talking about a balanced budget and a healthcare system run by the private sector," Dean said in a New York Times article. "It's pathetic I'm considered the most progressive candidate." He's even remarked on the campaign trail that he doesn't "think the Democrats are going to be able to beat the President with the equivalent of Bush-Lite." So why isn't he offering us a clear alternative, or at least acknowledging they exist?

Don't count on Dean for that. It is unlikely he'll be hailing the true progressives in the Democratic primaries -- Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton -- anytime soon. Why would he point his supporters to their camps? Dean's generous patrons have anteed up over ten and a half million dollars in small donations since his campaign's inception. Their loyalty has pushed the ex- Governor into top contention for the Democratic nomination for President.

Looking over some of Dean's hawkish foreign policy positions, it's difficult to see what all the hype is about. The Right has so controlled the political landscape in the U.S. that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark look decent to some progressives. Even if either pull it off by winning their party's nomination and by unseating Bush -- the Left will still not be "victorious."

Desperate Americans

It's hard to imagine that either Dean or Clark would be monumentally different than George W. Bush. Perhaps they would. However, it's clear our struggles must continue well beyond the 2004 elections. The Democrats may save us from Bush, but with the likes of Governor Dean and General Clark leading the oppositional pack -- its apparent the Democrats won't be able to save us from themselves.


http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1640&mode=thread&order=0



So lets look at the REAL deal.

Deans statements have wavered anywhere from attack Iraq if the U.N. prooves unwilling to support itys own resolutions, and we see this quote referred to in two places, the complete quote indicating that Dean has made that statement " at least EIGHT TIMES that Day"

To quites a few days before and after with Dean giving TOTALLY opposing statemetns about his support of what happened in Iraq.

But that ONE quote is the CLOSEST quote of any of the candidates giving total support for one of Bush's reasons for going to war...

The fact that the U.N. was not going to enforce its own resolutions.

Look carefully at the Dean quotes about the 87 billion for Iraq. Only do it by repealing the Bush tax cuts to "THE WEALTHY"

could this be the precursor of another Dean flip flop. Is he now planning to drop his "TOTAL REPEAL" of the Bush tax cuts, and trying to slip it in under the guise of speaking about Iraq.
Given that Dean has supposedlyt changes his stance on everything from Medicare, Social Security, Iraq and everything else, it is not unlikely that he will flip flop here as well.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Inconsistent On The Role Of The UN, Inconsistent On...

Whether you can be "misled," inconsistent on Israel (looks like a dove, but is more hawkish than Wolfowitz), inconsistent on Biden-Lugar, etc. etc.

[killbotfactory]

16. repeating it doesn't make it true

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Which Part Isn't True? I'll Give You Quotes On Any of Them

I don't say anything I can't back up, and you know that.

<>

[killbotfactory]

21. The only possible inconsistancy

Is from the salon.com interview, where he said he would give Iraq a deadline if the UN refused to act on evidence of WMD, and was frustrated from being asked his position on Iraq. Previously, and many times before, he said there must be UN involvment and that the UN would not ignore such evidence.

Much ado about nothing.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Are Saying That Dean Would Never Go Anywhere Without UN Approval?

I'm not sure what point you are making. It seems that Dean's position was:

1. He would first seek a multilateral, non-military effort to disarm Iraq (presumably, some sort of voluntary inspections).

2. If that fails, he would support a multilateral military effort to disarm Iraq.

3. He would support a unilateral military approach if the threat from Saddam became imminent.

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot—and will not—support a unilateral, U.S. war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101002.shtml

[killbotfactory]

27. That's pretty much it.

Not difficult to understand, and not inconsistant.

Sometimes he didn't qualify what he'd do in case the UN would not disarm Saddam, sometimes he did. Saying that's inconsistent is nitpicking.

[killbotfactory]

15. I took you off ignore for this tripe?

1.) Lessig was talking about what EDWARDS said, NOT Dean.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/2003_03.shtml

2.) IF the UN doesn't enforce it's own resolutions. That was never the case. He's said elsewhere he doesn't believe they would allow that to happen.

3.)

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."

He said Bush had approached the Iraq issue from the wrong direction - he should have taken the issue to the United Nations first, before he threatened unilateral military action to oust Saddam.

This is inconsistent, how? Dean has always said he would support multilateral action if authroized by the UN, or unilateral action if Iraq was proven a threat.

4. Totally unrelated to the topic.

5. Totally unrelated to the topic. "It's hard to imagine that either Dean or Clark would be monumentally different than George W. Bush" Speaks for itself.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

17. Wow, excellent research!

And now I hope we can all put to bed the misconception that Dean wasn't consistent on the Iraq issue.

[mzmolly]

18. THANK YOU!!

You know ... :yourock: !!!

Bookmarked this 'badboy'.

[blm]

20. Dean clinging to "unilateral" when he knew it was already

a multilateral force. He used the word unilateral to qualify his stance, knowing that those who saw him as antiwar would applaud the "sound" of his tough stance, disingenuous though it was. I remember Gwen Ifill calling him on his dependency of the word unilateral to describe his opposition.

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

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Friday he remains unimpressed with President Bush’s argument for attacking Iraq and he called for a standdown of military force.
"We ought not to go attack unilaterally or preemptively," Dean said. "We have a right to strike against those countries that pose an imminent threat and I don’t think Saddam possess an imminent threat."

March 8, 2003

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq?

Um...Did anyone ask Dean what Democrats were supporting a UNILATERAL attack? Didn't Dean say that if Saddam didn't comply after 30 days that we should attack, even if unilaterally?

[killbotfactory]

22. He never thought it was a true multilateral invasion.

Because the US was pushing it.

The 30 days is an example of what he would do in case of Iraq being an imminent threat and/or the UN refusing to disarm saddam. Dean's threshold for justifying a unilateral attack is high.

[blm]

23. He knew the reality, it WAS a multilateral force.

Britain WAS a full partner, and that was all it needed to fit the definition of multilateral according to Webster's Dictionary. Add on the coerced countries and it comes down to a debate that Dean would have no chance of winning in front of the general public once he was cross-examined on this stance.

The 30 days is what he suggested for Bush's invasion.

Depending on the word unilateral to make a case against the invasion, to make your words SOUND more antiwar than your actual stance, is disingenuous.

Dean knows what he s doing when he uses qualifying words. He knows what he is doing when he feigns anger at things that never angered him in the past. The guy said he even had mixed feelings about IranContra. UH....that was a blatant subversion of the Constitution and Dean was never angry about THAT? Why so many believe his dog and pony show is beyond me.

[killbotfactory]

24. Ahem. I'll point you to this quote

"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.

February 27, 2003

[blm]

25. I saw it, and then after he said it he used "unilateral" again.

Does Dean want to have that fight with Webster's Dictionary? The media will make him to be a buffoon on that if the fight is between Dean and Bush.

[killbotfactory]

28. Because he didn't think it qualified as a true multilateral coalition.

That's the point. You can quibble over whether or not it really was, but it misses the point. Even Kerry wanted more diplomacy and further working through the UN, although it went from being a requirement for his support of the invasion to his personal preference after Bush invaded.