Dean in June '03: I tend to believe President on Iraq.Saddam had weapon

[kerry-is-my-prez]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/14/dean_words_on_the_war/

....Dean's antiwar rhetoric doesn't square with his documented prewar support for an amendment by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Richard E. Lugar of Indiana to the resolution that authorized President Bush to use force.

The proposed amendment would have required Bush to certify that diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted "before exercising the authority" to wage war. The resolution as passed allowed him to act as long as he offered his certification to Congress "no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority."

-snip-

June 22, 2003, NBC's "Meet the Press":

Tim Russert, host: “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 tend to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration’s saying wasn’t so."


July 2, 2003, National Public Radio:

Bob Edwards, host: "What would you be doing differently in postwar Iraq?"

Dean: "Now that we're there we can't leave. We cannot allow chaos or a fundamentalist regime in Iraq because it could be fertile ground for Al Qaeda. First thing I would do is bring in 40 to 50,000 other troops. I’d look to Arab countries, Islamic countries who are our allies, NATO, the United Nations. ... We’re going to be there for a long time in Iraq. We can’t leave."


http://starshiptim.com/index.php?itemid=158

Dean: Claims to have been “against the war from the beginning” and to have “figured out” that Bush was lying about WMDs well before anyone took any action on authorizing a use of force. However, on January 31st, six months after the congressional vote, he said 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 (LA Times, 2/01/03). Then in February said, quote:

“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.”

In a separate interview, also in February, he said, quote:

“I agree with President Bush—he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. 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.” In September, again on Meet the Press, said “There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and our allies.” This month he was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever.”


http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Feb/956.html
War With Iraq: Howard Dean Leaves Room to Wiggle
-snip-
But Dr. Dean said in an interview that he would support a United States invasion of Iraq if it was approved by the United Nations.
"Action with the U.N. is where we should be aiming at right now," Dr. Dean said. "We should be going back and set a timeline with the U.N. for absolute disarmament. I've chosen 60 days. And then there would be military action."


http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html


Opposed, with occasional tics:

in August 2002, said he would support unilateral action if convinced Iraq had usable WMDs (source: Slate.com), a position he repeated in January 2003 (source: Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03, no longer online);

-snip-

in March, demurred in conservative South Carolina that "it's hard to criticize the President when you've got troops in the field" (source: The State); shortly thereafter resumed vocal opposition, maintained to the present (source: DeanforAmerica.com)

[curlyred]

1. misleading and misquoted

Dean said most people tend to believe the president, but in the case the president was lying.

Dean: "Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tend to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration’s saying wasn’t so."

[cprise]

9. Thread de-bunked in first post

Thank you acaudill.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

12. I don't think so... You've got a lot of 'splaining to do....

n/t

[wtmusic]

2. Say what you will

Dean, Kucinich, and Robert Byrd were the government leaders who were speaking out openly and candidly against the war consistently since last year.

Kerry said he supported it.

Clark was talking strategy on news shows.

Now that the situation sucks Kerry and Clark have hopped on the bandwagon. Kinda obvious in hindsight, isn't it?

:eyes:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

4. Sorry - but not consistently. He's been all over the place...

n/t

[wtmusic]

13. Oh really? Got anything to back that up?

?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. Did you read the post I just posted? I can post more....

I would think what I've posted points this out....

[kerry-is-my-prez]

17. some more....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean18dec18,1,7335688,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

As his rivals have stepped up their criticism of his stance on Iraq, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's public statements about the war are under increasing scrutiny, revealing a candidate whose off-the-cuff style has sometimes led him to take contradictory positions.
A close examination of Dean's comments during the last 15 months shows that he has consistently voiced opposition to the United States invading Iraq without the support of the United Nations and repeatedly argued that President Bush did not make the case for going to war. But Dean, who acknowledges that his outspoken manner often gets him in trouble, has made conflicting statements about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and the conditions under which he would support going to war.

In a Dec. 10 news conference in Concord, N.H., Dean insisted that he "never said Saddam was a danger to the United States, ever."

But in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sept. 29, 2002, Dean said, "There's no question Saddam is a threat to the U.S. and our allies."

On the campaign trail, he frequently argues that he is the only major Democratic candidate who opposed the war. But Dean voiced support for legislation in the fall of 2002 that, had it passed, would have ultimately given Bush authorization to invade Iraq unilaterally.

-snip-

Despite his antiwar image, Dean never was against an American invasion of Iraq in all circumstances. "I'm not against attacking Saddam Hussein, but we can't do it without a good reason, and so far the president has not made the case," he told reporters in Montpelier on Sept. 19, 2002.

-snip-

"It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option," Dean told reporters before the state Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines.

much more....
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dean18dec18,1,7335688,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[pasadenaboy]

3. Aren't people tired of these attack posts yet

I'm really tired and bored of them. They are counterproductive and don't change anyone's mind.

[Bertrand]

5. How is it an attack

to point out what one believe is hypocrasy coming from a candidate on an issue. Howard Dean says he supported every war in the last 50 years except Vietnam and IW2, so that leads people to conclude that he isnt against War.

[clarknyc]

7. Could you clarify your point?

I don't understand.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. This is a discussion of the issues... Quotes from Dean himself.

Sorry if you don't like it. When I see a candidate going around making claims that I know to be false - I'm going to call them on it...

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. Again?

Hasn't this particular topic been beaten to death here yet? :eyes:

[clarknyc]

10. Apparently not.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. Apparently not because I see people often making erroneous claims

Many people here don't seem to know the issues or know the records of their candidates.

We just had a poll that asked who Paul Wellstone would have endorsed and more than half said Dean. They obviously don't know his record on the environment. Also they don't know that Wellstone blasted Dean and called him an "environmental racist."

This really sends me over the moon - to be honest with you.... I've taken the time to research most of the candidates records - especially the one's I've considered voting for or working for. And yes, Dean was one who I liked until I started reading up on his record.

[Egnever]

14. Dean is gores president

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.

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

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

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

Nuff Said!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

16. Many of those statements are in direct opposition to what he said earlier

He has changed his position dramatically. To be honest - It's just not very credible to me.

It's okay to change your postion but he has jumped all over his opponents for doing the same thing. In additon, he has changed way too many of his positons and that's another reason I don't find him credible.

[Shanty Oilish]

18. Yes, Dean had a garbled message. But on balance,

don't we all understand what he is saying to America?

I've seen this before, seen people pick over every little thing Al Gore said, and then mutate what was mutate-able.

Not everybody's Daniel Webster.

Dean was right, and so was Kerry. A year ago we were eyeballing Saddam Hussein. 99% of all possible scenarios, it would have worked. Who could have known he'd be a fool about it? The real failure of intelligence was that nobody caught on, that Saddam Hussein was not playing with a full deck. He now says he wound up in a spider hole because he didn't want his palace privacy invaded.

What was supposed to have happened---and Bush could not have taken us to war if it had---was that Saddam would have blinked. This is the "diplomacy" that everyone's really talking about, and avoiding defining. It's not lovely, it's not beanbag, but it nearly always works.

Dean and Kerry and everybody else assumed "diplomacy" would work. Dire threat of invasion is a part of that diplomacy. You can't fault Howard Dean because we had, on the one hand, Bush holding the gun and on the other hand a stubborn old mother-of-all-bluffers refusing to open the door. The both of them, bad material, but there is no other way to play the game.

Had Howard Dean been president since 2001, it would not have come to that, IMO. There were other paths we could have taken. But once Bush took that stand and challenged Hussein, we were obliged to get behind it in the usual fashion.

It's Realpolitick, pure and simple. Dean was responding to what was already happening. It's not what he'd have done to begin with, it's what had to be said at the time.

When people like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton get behind Bush, it's not because they love a jolly little war. If anything they're a lot angrier than Dean, because of the position he put them in.

I've got plenty of doubts about Howard Dean, but not because of his statements about the war.