Howard Dean: not anti-war when anti-war wasn't cool.

[seafey]

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

"And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) 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, on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

I realize context is key here, and he was saying that we should wait around for support from other countries, but he had no qualms about invading Iraq if they didn't bend over for inspections.

The hypocrisy involved with claiming that Iraq was a threat to the countries around it because they have "these" weapons. WE (as in the U.S.) have "these" weapons too. We have a crazy leader named Bush. We are a danger to others. We not only attempted to make a nuclear bomb, but we did! And then we used it! Twice! And then we kept making them and kept making them and we're still making them and selling them to whoever is on our side at the time.

Does this mean someone should attack us? By Dean's logic, yes. But he would never agree that someone should attack us even though our actions could be portrayed in a much more sinister light than Iraq's actions. Because in his eyes, "America" which is a CONTINENT not a country, gets to play by different rules than other countries. We get to co-opt the name of our continent, we get to "inspect" other countries' defense arsenals. We get to bully foreign governments into selling out their own peoples to the interest of American corporations. We get to live in utter luxurious wastefulness while others around the world go hungry. So, it's not only his statements that he felt we should attack Iraq that disturb me, but even with the qualifications he was throwing out there, (i.e. waiting for other countries to agree) it's still disturbing that attacking Iraq was something he believed was right because Iraq wasn't cooperating with us on weapons inspections.

But it makes sense when you look at some of the other things he's supported- he totally supported the first Gulf War, NATO's intervention in Bosnia, Bill Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Iraq, not to mention the 1995 air attack on Serbia.

So this is why I can't stand to see all this talk about Dean being a harsh critic of the Iraq war. It's such a joke.

[madfloridian]

1. Damn! Talk about cherry-picking...shame on you.

But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration?

GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. 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. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat.

In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.

GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: 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. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

It's not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block and tell people we're going to do what we want to do.

We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will. But I think the time now is for getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies."

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."

But there's been this kind of bellicose talk going on for three or four months now about unilateral intervention and all that. I think the American people are confused about this, and I think it could have been very easily stated from the outset: "Here's the problem. Here's the threat. Here's the conditions under which we will go in."

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, because listening to your first answer this morning, it sounds to me like you may be taking Saddam Hussein a little more seriously today than perhaps you were last week. Is that fair to say?

DEAN: I'm taking Saddam Hussein a little more seriously today than I was two days ago when he began to -- when he, at that time, was not saying what he said yesterday. Today he's very clearly looking like he's going to resist a return of the inspectors. That is not acceptable. He has got to allow the inspectors in, and if he doesn't, then we will be in the position of having to intervene. "

That is NOT advocating war. That is saying that if the president can prove his case that Saddam is a threat....and he says he has not.

Come on.

[seafey]

2. read the whole post...

I don't agree with Dean that the inspections issue was legitimate reasoning behind attacking a country militarily. Dean DOES believe this.

[wtmusic]

5. So anti-war in your book includes ignoring countries

who willfully ignore UNSC mandates? No penalty at all?

[seafey]

10. my book

In my book anti-war means you don't attack a country militarily for any reason.

[wtmusic]

'kay...now where did Dean say he advocated attacking

Iraq militarily if Saddam didn't comply with inspections?

[seafey]

15. partly here...

"We clearly have to defend the United States, and if we must do so unilaterally we will. But I think the time now is for getting the cooperation of the Security Council and our allies."

This, to me, sounds like he just wants cooperation from others in order to carry out the idea of attacking Iraq militarily. If he had any moral problem with invading Iraq, he never stated it. It sounds like it's something he wouldn't mind doing if only other countries would agree with us.

Have you ever found anything he's said that would indicate he felt that going into Iraq would be a great mistake? Or that attacking another country militarily is a morally corrupt thing to do?

[wtmusic]

17. So attacking Nazi Germany was morally corrupt

as was the first Gulf war?

I don't think he believed Bush would invade Iraq. Very few outside the PNAC did, at the time. And you say "it sounds like", but that is your interpretation. It doesn't "sound" that way to me at all.

[regnaD kciN]

32. No kidding...

Although it shouldn't surprise me that some of the vitriolic near-pathological Dean-hatred that was common currency around here during the 2004 primaries (predominantly among Kerry and Clark partisans) continues to exist as "background radiation" on DU even now. :eyes:

[JohnnyCougar]

3. Wrong.

Where in the above did you quote Dean as being a threat to the US? It looks like he only said Saddam was a threat to "the countries that surround it." The US doesn't surround Iraq.

Furthermore, he only said we need to do something about it...not necessarily war. Calling for Saddam to disarm is totally reasonable. That's what the inspections were for.

INSPECTIONS AREN'T WAR

[seafey]

4. Ummm...

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

That's in there.

[madfloridian]

7. That is such simplistic thinking. The whole thing goes against your point

I am so amazed. That is the very one that folks have quoted time after time, yet it is all talking hypothetically.

[seafey]

16. whatever you have to tell yourself.... (nt)

:eyes:

[NYCGirl]

22. No, it's you who is trying to justify your crap.

You're the one who's telling yourself lies.
:eyes:

[Zynx]

6. Whoa! Did I just have a time warp back to the 2004 primary season?

I feel like I've been whipped through time.

[wtmusic]

8. Hurts so good

:spank:

[Guaranteed]

9. I'm not sure that this particular post has anything to do with the

primaries.

[Zynx]

12. I remember this debate back a year and nine months ago distinctly.

Why are we at it again?

[Kralizec]

19. Sounds like it. Almost word for word. Dean has discussed this already. n/t

[CountAllVotes]

11. just another ...

two-faced Janus. BEWARE OF CROOKS & LIARS! BEWARE!!!

:kick:

[XemaSab]

13. You're absolutely right!

And that's why I'm encouraging all Iowans to go caucus for Kerry, who is a completely unabashed supporter of the war!

not

[wtmusic]

14. Wes Clark

that's all...Wes Clark. :silly:

[XemaSab]

20. Didn't run in Iowa

:silly:

[Adelante]

18. Dean's not running for office

He's running the party. Give it a rest.

[kevsand]

21. Aside from the fact that it is a totally unfair analysis

of Dean's position (since the majority of his statements in 2003 were decidedly anti-war), what is the point of all this? Why bring it up now, except to mess with people? Why the long knives?

[NYCGirl]

24. The long knives are drawn because obviously, with this last election,

some people are scared.

[wookie294]

23. Alot of countries are a threat to the USA

But we don't invade most countries that are threat.

[mandyky]

25. Howard Dean NEVER claimed to be anti-war

that is the MSM media. Dean made no bones about what he supported and what he didn't. He was against the USA UNILATERALLY attacking Iraq.

Unfortunately, GWB and the GOP are right - official US policy since Clinton and maybe even BushI has been regime change in Iraq...

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. So with this in addition to the bullshit "fundraising" article....

...are we going to see a new DLC offensive against Howard Dean this week, because he committed the unpardonable sin of WINNING an election?

[LizW]

27. Yes. Exactly.

As predictable as clockwork.

[madfloridian]

29. Yes, from both sides.

Some are even going to try to disrupt the DNC planning meeting in December in Phoenix. Yet they did not disrupt the DLC conference this week. Go figure.

[AntiCoup2K4]

31. God damn you Howard Dean!

How DARE you win an election and destroy our plot to kiss even more Republican ass!

[regnaD kciN]

33. You got it...

After all, the Democratic LOSERship Council has to make sure that its agenda of "defeat liberalism, then maybe start to think about defeating Republicans," which brought such stunning success in 2002 and 2004 :sarcasm: , is retained as the only permissably "mainstream" doctrine of our party.

After all, Holy Joe may want to run again in 2008.

:grr:

[Orangepeel]

28. This again?

Dean is not anti-any-war-any-time. He is not a pacifist and never claimed to be.

He was against the IWR, in that he went on record as saying he was against it while it was being voted upon. Since then, he *has* been a harsh critic of the timing and method of the war, as well as the fact that it diverted resources that should have been used to fight the real war on terror.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Nice try, but no cigar. Next.

[LittleClarkie]

34. His position was something like Kerry's,

and when he realized what was happening in Iraq, he said so.

It's called reassessing the evidence, and changing one's mind. He was just more forceful about how he said it.

I can deal with how Kerry and Dean talk now. In fact, Dean has come out in support of Kerry's pullout plan. That's a good thing.

What was the amendment that came out at the same time? Rangel/Lugar or Hagel/Lugar? Ugh. Anyway, both preferred that one, as it was more sane than what the Prez was promoting.

We have to let the Dems be able to come out and say they think the war was wrong, even if they were giving the Prez the benefit of the doubt at the time. If we criticize them for saying just what we've been waiting to hear from them, how silly would that be.

[ProSense]

35. Thank you! Plus Virginia has a new Democratic Gov.

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

36. Huzzah for my old home state! Good going VA

:hi:

[ProSense]

37. Just to be clear!

I double dipping in my celebration.

Family in VA. I voted for Corzine.

:hi:



:dem:

[Cha]

38. Dean can talk about how

terrible this Iraqi Invasion was and is any damn time he pleases..he's earned it. He was against the bombing from the beginning and your saying he wasn't is pure unadulterated HOGWASH..but then you know that.

And too bad you "can't stand" it..buck up and face the truth.