Face the Nations 9/29/2002DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.
Look, it's very simple. Here's what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the U.N. Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline saying "If you don't do this, say, within 60 days,
we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtmlSalon.com February 20, 2003
"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.htmlIf you examine both of Deans statements, he is stating that his stance would be to attack Iraq, not because there was evidence of WMD's and that Saddam would not get rid of them But simply if the U.N. will not agree to enforce its own resolutions, and gives a minimum of 30 days, and no more than 60 days from going to the U.N. to do this.
This by Dean's time table, if he went to the U.N. the same time that Bush did, late November 2002, he would have attacked Iraq by the end of January 2003 if the U.N. did not enforce its own resolutions regarding which it placed upon Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.
Once the War started, Dean became "The only candidate who stood up to George Bush on Iraq"
From these quotes this is very far from the truth.
Other problems with Dean's supposed antiwar stance is that he is supposed to have not been fooled by Bush's claims that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S.
Exactly how anti-war was Howard Dean?
Posted December 11, 2003 02:17 PMViewing Saddam Hussein as a threat
On the September 29, 2002, episode of Face the Nation, Dean seemed to believe, wholeheartedly, that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be dealt with.
While questioning the immediacy of the danger Hussein posed, Dean nevertheless 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; he simply disagreed with Bush as to how the U.S. should go about dealing with that threat.
"I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is," Dean said. "
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."
Dean, who now argues that he saw through Bush's charade from the beginning, said at the time, "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."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(516 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
