|
Kerry was played for a fool. Dean wasn't. Kerry has no legs to stand on when he attacks Dean on this issue. 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, 2002President 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, 2002Dean, 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, 2002Kerry 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, 2003Dean, 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, 2003In 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, 2003Former 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, 2003The key is there has to be an imminent danger in order to go into Iraq. March 9, 2003MR. 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, 2003What 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, 2003While 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, 2003On 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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
