Did Dean publicy say he was against the war when

it was going on? Or before it started? I am curious about this, I truly don't know because I have seen a lot of quotes from Dean after the war was over that he opposed it, but did he say he opposed it before it started?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

Draw your own conclusions...

That cleared it up for me.

That was disingenuous, because the operation had already become a multilateral use of force at that point. Ifill points out Dean's dependency on that word as his REASON for opposing it. He sounds tough, but, uses strawman tactics to change what he is being tough about.

"That was disingenuous, because the operation had already become a multilateral use of force at that point."


BLM look how far you have to move to intot he right wing bullshit zone to defend Kerry and attack Dean. That war was about as multilateral as the Bay of Pigs.

England plus a few nations we bribed into letting us fly over their country, isn't a multilaterial action.

YET AGAIN. Do you ever READ carefully before you shoot from the hip?

The American people only know this as a multilateral action and NOTHING you or Dean can do will change that perception because it was already BOUGHT by most of the American public thanks to the media. They will only know that more than one or two countries were part of the coalition. and that fulfills the Webster's dictionary version of the term multilateral.

You are welcome to create an ad that will dispel that notion and change the definition of multilateral for 70% of the population.

He definitely did before Dubya declared it over.

of course he was opposed to the war prior to its beginning. He was quite outspoken. You may want to check out his site
www.deanforamerica.com

It has all kinds of position papers, speeches, ect so you can research.

As of last week, Dean didn't have his statements from when the war started easily accessible at his site. I believe it was March 17, wasn't it? This is from Dean's own page of released statements and articles. Nothing from March 10 to April 9? I wonder why.
..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

I already posted the link to the statement on Dean's site and proved you were lying about it being scrubed from his site or hidden.

So here it is AGAIN:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8363

Why are you continuing to lie about this. Do you think nobody will catch you or call you on it? Seriously?


And I also showed how YOU edited the quote to try and make it sound as if Dean was supporting the war and Bush's invasion, when the fact is the quote was very clearly not saying what you were trying to dishonestly misrepresent it as saying.


"Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President’s management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. "

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

took all of about two seconds using the serch function.

You are trying to spin the fact you got caught lying about this information being scrubed, when the fact is tht it couldn't be found because you had edited the quote.

With the actual quote, it was easy to find with a simple search.

And even now, you can't write the whole quote out because it clearly speaks of disarming saddam through the UN WITHOUT WAR. Which doesn't exactly support your lie that Dean supported the war or the WMD rational for the war.

If what you were trying to claim were true, you wouldn't need to edit out the part of the quote that prove you're full of crap on this.

and articles on his featured page?

This is copied from Dean's own page of released statements and articles. Nothing from March 10 to April 9
..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

they don't have space to list every statement Dean has made in the quick link section... that's why there's a search function.

Had you used it, you'd see that you claim they hid the statement is full of crap.

which did I say?

You are gullible for all things Dean if you think they thought his earlier statements and articles were more important than ANY statement made the day the bombing started, and for weeks afterwards.

This is from Dean's own page of released statements and articles. Nothing from March 10 to April 9.
..........
Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

State labor leaders like all that Dean did for health care in Vermont
Shir Haberman, Portsmouth Herald (March 10, 2003)

All Criticize Bush but Diverge on Iraq
By Dan Balz, The Washington Post (February 22, 2003)
.........

i read some place that on deans agenda was to balance the nations budget... however he wouldnt cut any spending on defense...
which would mean he would need to cut domestic social programs... education and the like...

thats what i heard though... but the website "issues" isnt working?

basically what im wondering, is, dean may say he is "against" a unilateral war but could there ever be an incentive for him make a spin to be for war?

When I spoke with him in October 2002 he said that he didn't follow Bush's rush to war. He didn't think it would solve anything:D

or just against the way the Bush administration rushed into it and deceived the American public? Seems like the latter.

I'll visit Dean's web site for more information too.

The quote is from a pro-Dean blog discussing the Salon profile. Because the profile is part Salon's premium service, I can't confirm it was actually in the article. I assume it is since it's been frequently posted on DU without being rejected as a fabrication.

http://www.howardsmusings.com/2003/02/20/salon_on_the_campaign_trail_with_the_unbush.html

"<A>s I've said about eight times today," <Dean> 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."

about supporting the commander in chief and the troops. And since then he has said we need to put more troops in Iraq to bring peace.

Kucinich spoke out for months against the war, voted against the war, sued Bush* to stop the war, filed House resolutions to stop the war. The day the war began he issued a statement of concern for the safety of our troops and called on Bush* to bring them home and has been calling for an end to the war ever since, suggested an exit plan months ago. Unfortunately, the media pay little attention to him, having decided to make Dean the "anti-war" candidate.

Kucinich also supports creating a Department of Peace yet he is not a pacifist. He simply believes that there are few just causes for war. I hope you'll investigate his stands as a candidate, too. His web site is

http://www.kucinich.us

and from the home page you can click on Issues to get a summary of his Top Ten Issues. :hippie:

Now that I would agree with 100%. No doubt where Dennis stands!

why kucinich does not get air time. most of his appearances are the congressional appearances which is cspan, and those usually done on small liberal media like. many times i hear about something kucinich said and i wonder why it's not reported on bigger media.

I think it could be a connection to why we aint doing so well yet. Kucinich is brilliant, if people like Governor Dean for speaking out, you should see what this man has to say, wow. He spoke up on the power outages this August. He is a great man and its easy to see why I support him.

Dean specificaly said that while troops are in the field they are all our kids and we should remember that and lay off the red meat attacks, however he would NOT stop going after Bush's bad policies.

And as for more troops... he wants UN TROOPS!

The Authorization called for military action to enforce UN resolutions. Going through the UN was all over that Authorization. Going to war to protect US security implies imminent threat. Howard Dean's position isn't any different than the candidate's, save Joe Lieberman. That interview doesn't state he is anti-war, like Dennis Kucinich for instance.

It's anti-war unless it's done through the UN, after all inspections and diplomacy have been exhausted, and only unilaterally to protect US security. For the life of me, I can't see how this is any different than the candidates. George Bush ignored this Authorization just like he ignored the UN and ignored the rest of the world. And I would bet that had we gone to war with the UN, most of the people on this board will STILL be against it because it would be presumed the US had simply paid off France & Germany in some way. And they would be right. To be an anti-war protestor and support Howard Dean because he's anti-war makes no sense to me.

Most of the Democrats, no matter how they voted, did not want this war and certainly not the way George Bush has done it. And George Bush is getting away with it because the people who would normally be holding him accountable are busy attacking their allies in that effort instead of taking it to Bush.

Kerry and Dean are not that far apart regarding the war. The difference is Kerry, as a Senator, was actually faced with going on record regarding the Authorization. I disagree with how he voted, but it was clear from his speech as well as his before and after criticisms of Bush he would have worked with the UN and used unilateral force only as a last resort--just as Dean stated he would have done.

Kerry attempting to portray Dean as antiwar and Dean attempting to portray Kerry as prowar is going to be one of the stranger aspects of the coming months since I suspect they both know their actions, were either of them President, would have been pretty much the same.

This is my current take on the whole "antiwar" issue. Probably will start a flame war, but I agree with you completely. I just hope it doesn't completely wreck Democratic credibility in 2004.

The only pure anti-war candidates are Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton. The rest vary in their support from the Kerry/Dean stance to the truly gung ho Lieberman/Clinton stance. Yes, Hillary was very gung ho on this war. I'm more interested in the candidates actual views on the Middle East, foreign policy and war in general than one vote that didn't mean a hill of beans anyway. It's obvious George Bush was willing to concoct anything to go to war and he would have done the same thing without the vote.

criticize the Dems who voted for the resolution.

and I don't think he spoke out against it until after Bush* declared we had won, or whatever it was he declared from the carrier.

a link would be nice, sorry just for your own good so you wont be scortched. BTW Ive heard something like this before but never read it. I dunno again I gotta like what Dennis said "so I say support the troops but oppose the mission and the adminstration" simple really I have done that.

could I please see a link for you "quotes"?

n/t