The only thing Saddam's capture has changed in this race is:

determined the "anti-Dean" candidate. It's not Kerry, Clark, Gephardt or Edwards. Nope, it's none other than Joe Lieberman. So, before you anti-Deanies start jumping for joy, thinking Dean is finished because he spoke out against the war rememeber this...So did Kerry and Clark.

So, are you all prepared to rally behing Holy Joe now that he's the official "Anti-Dean" candidate?

Now Kerry was against the war? The flip-flopping on this is insane.

I thought many here considered him as backing the IWR, which is a misnomer, anyway.

Kerry had deemed that something needed to be done about Hussein, since the first week after Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors placed in Iraq in 1998.

It was he who went to Clinton and stated that something needed to be done about Hussein's blatant disregard in violation of the terms set at the end of the first Gulf War.
Kerry supported the IWR as a means to use all methods to deal with the growing problem that Hussein posed in the region, starting with diplomatic methods, internationalism, and finally, as last resort, a war. The latter ONLY if Hussein was deemed to consititute an imminent threat to the US.

Kerry's stance, as well as Lieberman's stance was a progressive means of dealing with a leader of a state who intended to disregard agreements he made with the international community.

In the end, his trial will show his atrocities. I was not for this invasion, neither was Kerry under Bush's terms.

Kerry has been the candidate with the longest time in perceiving that eventually something was going to have to be done about Hussein.

He hasn't been firmly on one side or the other. Makes him "wishy washy". The only one who has stood firm in favor of the war has been Lieberman. So, if Democrats want to fight a hawk with a hawk, Joe Lieberman is the ONLY valid choice. If Democrats want to present a clear alternative and focus on how badly Bush has let Americans down on the domestic front, Howard Dean is the best choice. Where it stands right now, it's either Dean or Lieberman IF the capture of Saddam actually changes anything at all.

The "wishy washy" accusation: Kerry has taken the same stance since 1998, to wit, he went to Clinton and said that Hussein had to be dealt with at some time, due to Hussein's failure to abide by the terms set at the end of the Gulf War. Kerry's statements have been the same from day one:a progressive set of steps in dealing with Hussein and his regime, first diplomatically, and then, if necessary, progressive use of force. Dean's flip-flops started in September of 2002 when he stated the US should go to the UN and give them an ulitmatum to deal with Hussein within 30-60 days, or the US would reserve the right to act in its own interests to defend itself.

See this:

"DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

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."


More at this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml


Now , let's move forward to Jan/Feb 2003:


"As I've said about eight times today," he 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.


Full link here:

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

These are two consistent points in which Dean states he would attack Iraq unilaterally if the UN did not act to support its own resolutions.



To be sure, Dean has other political strengths and has inspired his followers. From my perspective, however, Dean was able to overcome his initial obstacles as a presidential candidate by reminding primary voters and liberal activists that he has consistently opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, while his serious congressional rivals -- Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman -- voted in favor of a congressional resolution supporting the war.

The angrier Democrats got about the war, the more Dean's anti-war message resonated. And the more the costs of our occupation escalated -- in terms of lives and money -- the smarter Dean looked. Even Al Gore, in endorsing Dean this week, said the Vermont governor was "the only major candidate who made the correct judgment on the Iraq war."

Full story here:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000940.html


Now what IS Dean's stance? It is the same as Kerry's with the exception that Kerry sets no time limit for the exhaustion of diplomatic methods to control Hussein and his regime. Dean does.

Yet later on, after the war starts, Dean begins to criticize the very actions he advocated between September and February, prior to the war.

Joe Lieberman seems to be today's hottest Democratic TV interviewee, too.

Yay. :hangover:

It's just a matter of time before the anybody-but-Dean crowd realizes that Clark doesn't have "it". I'm still looking forward to all of the pro-Lieberman threads. I think I even saw one the other day.

Any Democrat who ever criticized the war is in the exact same boat Dean is in. If it sinks, it sinks with EVERYONE but Lieberman. We can either argue about who can win or we can all start bailing and focus on domestic issues before we get stuck with Lieberman.

KaraokeKarlton wrote: "Any Democrat who ever criticized the war is in the exact same boat Dean is in. If it sinks, it sinks with EVERYONE but Lieberman. "

Gephardt is/was just as much a war hawk as Lieberman. He will gain from this as well.

The conservaturds will be all over this taking credit for something they had nothing to do with. Desperation for something credible will drive them to using this as a justification for the war. It wasnt worth all the death, destruction and money its caused. So we captured a two bit, ineffective, broke down Dictator hiding in a hole.

Ya wanna tell me that was worth 500 american lives and the thousands of innocent Iraqis?

Over Dean, who has been unable to show any consistancy or strength of character as a candidate and has been seen to have in a period of a few weeks from supporting unilateral invasion of Iraq, to stating the the U.S. had no right to be involved in Iraq without the U.N.

If Dean is the nominee, all that Bush will have to do is show the testimony and photos of the torture and executions that are popping up in front of us all today, right now, and state that Dean wanted to prolong the years of human rights abuses of a completely monsterous regime. They will state that given the it would have been an act of cowardice to prolong the crimes against humanity and the genocide which are the charges that are being stated today that Hussein will be charged with.

Dean has changed his position many times, as public opinion changed, and now Dean is going to have to figure a quick way to get out of being the "only candidate who spoke out against the war.

Once the trial gets going and thousands of cases and testimonies of the nature of Saddam's regime become graphically obvious, Dean's statements about his war stance (or lack of a clear stance) will simply become Deans biggest liablity. Deans supposed anti-war stance has been his most loudly touted platform position. And lets see how long it takes for Dean tries to spin his statements into support of regime change in Iraq:



On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "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."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html

Dean attacked both Edwards and Kerry in San Francisco for being inconsistant in their stances on Iraq, but all of the other candidates, even Joe Lieberman have been clearer and more consistant in their stances than Dean who has changed his position more than all of th other candidates combined.

Better Joe Lieberman, than a candidate who is trying to continually manipulate public opinion, and divert the public from his own rather poorly conceived statements about Iraq and other candidates.

In a matter of days, Dean goes from supporting unilateral attack on Iraq in a matter of months sim
And these are just two statements made by Dean. While the resolution was being debated, Dean states he believed the president and that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

And in Septtember of 2002, Dean credited the democrats in Congress for focring Bush into going to the United Nations, which he had absolutely no intention of doing:

I think things have improved in the last couple of weeks, as he's turned to the United Nations. We should have done that in the first place. And we need to continue, as his father did, to build an international coalition to go after Saddam and make sure he does not have those weapons of mass destruction.

BORGER: Do you have any evidence that the president of the United States is not trying to do that?

DEAN: Well, I don't think he was trying in the least bit up to a few weeks ago...

BORGER: Right, but now do you...

DEAN: Sure, I think the Democrats have pushed him into that position and the Congress, and I think that's a good thing. And I think he is trying to do that. We still get these bellicose statements.

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."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml

Dean's stance on Iraq has been consistantly inconsistant, and his current stance on Iraq is in direct opposition to this earlier statement which is basically, we go to the U.N., give Iraq and the U.N. and ultimatum, and stated that if they do not do this, we will reserve our rights as Americans to defend ourself.

Against a set of conditions that Dean has been currently stating do not exist.

Again, here is Dean stating that he agrees with the contents and premises of the Authorization of the Use of Force Resolution' that later criticized the other candidates for voting for.

Dean is simply and shamelessly opportunistic, changing his stance on any issue as long as he beleives that change will gain him votes.

It will be a very, very good thing for the public to now have the opportunity to look back on Deans differnt positions over the past year regarding Iraq.

Pruner's xmas present must be pretty good stuff. ;)

"Second, he described Saddam Hussein as a “brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime” and said he must be disarmed. Kerry criticized the Bush Administration for a delayed emphasis on disarming Hussein. “When finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament.”

He placed burden with Hussein to live up to the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ceasefire agreement, but also placed burden with the Bush Administration to “do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.”

He further advocated a longer and more careful consideration of war. “The U.S. should never go to war because it wants to, the U.S. should go to war because we have to,” Kerry said. “And we don’t have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action."

Link here:


http://www.thehoya.com/news/012403/news1.cfm


More on Kerry's true stance on Iraq pre-emptive intervention by the US:


Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change
>by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a
>Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein - the
>ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism - should
>be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the
>inspection process is merely a waste of time should be
>reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our
>people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential
>foundation of success.
>
>If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war,
>President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we
>had no choice, that this was the only way we could
>eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.


More here:

http://www.massgreens.org/pipermail/needtoknow/2002-September/000206.html


This latter statement by Kerry was made at the same time that Dean first stated that the US should offer an ultimatum to the UN.

he is despised or at least disliked by the Dem base.

Are your beliefs truly this fragile?

rally behind WHOEVER WINS THE NOMINATION but I hope that person is Clark.