Dean on Crossfire- WHAT was he talking about?!

I didn't see this posted anywhere, I'm not sure if it's already been brought up yet or not, but I thought it was important that I get some clarification from the Dean camp here at DU.

On Crossfire today, Judy Woodruff said that some had been complaining that Dean's stance on the Iraq issue was muddled, because he had never clearly spelled out how he himself would have handled the situation.

Dean's defense was that he would have used "UN troops" to remove Saddam from power. Uhh.....what? What the hell is he talking about? Can anyone explain this? Or did he just misspeak?

The war was wrong period, Dennis J Kucinich can you that.

you like?

What I dont like is the fact that he didnt oppose the war all together, he opposed the war only because the UN didnt support it, I oppposed the war because it was wrong all together. Kucinich opposed the war because it was wrong. No offense and with complete respect.

Can't get much clearer than that! And I'm not trying to make a convert here ..I'm just explaining why Dean's stance is one reason I started lookin' at him.

Yes the UN has troops.

Your problem here would be.....?

I'm surprised so many Democrats are spouting the Tucker Carlson spin today.

Yes, the UN has troops and has worked effectively in East Timor for example.

I'm not.

He would have let inspections work and gone through the UN if necessary to take action. He's said this, oh, eight hundred zillion times.

Woodruff is full of it.

It is basically what he said today, though he should have said it better today. He did not believe so much in removing him as containing him with the help of other nations.

SNIP...."I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election....."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

He has pretty much said the same thing each time he has been asked.

On edit: Woodruff should shut up and give others a chance to answer sometimes. She did this to everyone today.

just like when she asked him about raising middle class taxes

he basically replied with his line about "if you want a balanced budget you better elect a democrat, because republicans can't handle money"

of sadam....We didn't have to go freakin' bomb Iraq!

they stopped the UN from removing Saddam. They couldn't have because they wouldn't.

with the information we had at the time of the invasion, Dean would not have authorized. He would have kept working with the UN to determine the nature of Iraq's threat, and what options were prudent.

Had we waited, we most likely would have concluded the then current policy of containment was sufficient for the near future, and not taken any additional action besides increased weapons inspection.

Had we found evidence of WMDs. and Iraq had not disarmed, France Russia Germany, and probably China, would have given the go ahead for a mult-national action under the authority of the UN.

Ws hubris and impatience was the big problem, not that the other countries wouldn't go along. They would have if we had sufficient evidence. We didn't, the administration lied, our politicians and media went along with it, and now we are stuck occupying a hostile country, paying for it ourselves with american lives and treasure.

what actually happened but now it comes back to me!

Jeez! It's like a three alarm fire drill around here with people hitting the Dean panic button!

and even most DEMS can't name one Democratic candidate yet, it always amazes me that every word has to be parsed, weighed, measured and judged on here before the race even begins...or people get all huffy over it!

We all take it Uber Seriously! Bless our Patriotic Hearts! :kick:

Loved that little discussion over there about coming to DU. See one of the Kerryites said he got "locked out".

you are bitching about?

(But in a way, there can be "UN troops") if they are sanctioned and deployed under a ratified resolution. Maybe -that- is what you are bitching about...I dunno...

What exactly is your point here?

are currently deployed all over the world.

When the UN as a body agrees to do something, an international force is assembled from member nations and these folks then carry out whatever mission is at hand. Same for NATO. That's what Dean was referring to. Tucker knew that too. His comment was just to chide Dean, whom he opposes ideologically. That's not hard to understand, is it?

rather than adopting this "my way or the highway" attitude that the president displayed. He would have gone through the UN and worked to build an international coalition rather than this go-it-alone cowboy foreign policy approach. That is what many war opponents said - that it would have been more acceptable had it had the backing of the UN.

Hope that helps.

out of them! We would have removed sadam through the UN Process!

Without Bloodshed and Bombs! And now it turns out ..FallOUT! :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

First, zidzi- Dean didn't say he would have removed Saddam through the UN Process, he said he would have removed him with UN troops.

So, let me understand this as clearly as possible-

If Howard Dean thinks we should have used UN troops, does he mean that he thinks we should have used an international, UN sanctioned force?

In that case, is Dean's problem with the Iraq war that it was unnecessary and unjustified, or is it just that he thought it was executed improperly?

I'm sorry, I don't think this is an extreme conlcusion to make, given the fact that he said he thought Saddam should have been removed using UN troops.

What don't I understand here? I'm not a Dean basher. Although he's not my first choice, I like Dean. But this statement confuses me.