Progressive "Tom Paine" refers to Dean as "Anti-War" in his column.

[KoKo]

I just read Tom Paine's excellent "Back in the Saddle" column on his "Common Sense" Web site. However I was shocked to see him repeat the Repuglican and Lieberman talking point that Dean is "Anti-War."

I e-mailed him asking him to correct or explain his statement. Since Dean expresses my and many other Progressives view that "Anti-Iraq Invasion" is the proper term to describe our position.

I have trouble understanding why he would have used the term, and I hope he replies to my query.

Here's the quote:

And the Democrats? With nine candidates clawing at each other, it's unlikely that anything resembling a coherent message on Iraq can come from them until, at the very earliest, March—when someone sews up the nomination and most of the party falls in line. Until then, it's a catfight, and there's no telling even then if a workable Iraq policy will emerge from the loyal opposition to Bush. Senator Joe Lieberman, laboring under the bizarre notion that he is a viable candidate, seems intent on drawing blood out of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean by trashing his anti-war stance. General Wesley Clark still seems confused, but not quite as confused as Senator John Kerry. And so on. Centrist Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, are increasingly arguing that rather than withdrawing troops from Iraq, we need to send more troops there—reasoning, perhaps, that Saddam loyalists and Islamist suicide bombers don't yet have enough targets.

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9637

[Armstead]

1. It's good you called them on it

It's a lot more specific anbd accurate to say he was anti-Iraq War, Dean is hardly a peacenik.

[KoKo]

2. I still can't figure out how Tom Paine could buy into that "Anti-War"

line? Can't imagine why he would do that. Now, I'm going to be suspect of what he writes, when I see something like that. I wonder "who is he supporting?" Does that shade his columns? Sheesh!