You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #17: and [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
Pez Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-05-03 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. and
JANUARY 31, 2003 - LA TIMES

Ron Brownstein writes that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

February 20, 2003, from Salon.com:

"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."

FEBRUARY 20, 2003 - SALON.COM

Jake Tapper writes, " is -- 'as I've said about eight times today,' 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.

FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - PBS NEWS HOUR

"If Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him."

"If he were , I would advocate unilateral action."

"We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy."

-Howard Dean on Feb. 25th

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean...



and http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#0921031159pm


dean went back and forth, ok. but don't trash fellow dems who had the responsibility of going on the record for their decision. they knew what a vote one way or the other would mean. ultimately, had it not been for bush and his ridiculous game of international hopscotch we would not be in this position today. it's not the fault of democrats.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC