Imagine Dean is President: Do we invade Iraq?

NO

edit: see post #5

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

"If former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000, Albright said his administration would have concluded "that a war against Iraq, while justifiable, was not essential in the short-term to protect U.S. security."



Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same. Bush and Gore are the same...........

I don't think we would have invaded under anyone save Lieberman. And even he is at most a maybe. While certainly all of Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt supported the war and still do they would not have taken a lead on it.

You're right. Maybe I should have included the caveat that PNAC would still would be calling the shots at DOD, but that would never happen. (edit to remove unfair Lieberman bash).

I'm going to edit my post. The topic doesn't really reflect any reality of a Dem administration.

of people acting like every senator that voted for the war was a slavering war monger.

MOST of the Dems that voted did so with reservations that they publicly announced. MOST of them said that they were given a yes/no proposition that was worded, roughly, that the US would use force AS A LAST OPTION ONCE ALL DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS HAD FAILED.

And we don't know WHAT Dean would have done. We know what he SAID he would have done. He can say a lot of things before he is actually in the position to do something about them. You know, things like saying he is going to get some really good things done about being gay in the military and that he is going to get a national health care system going...but it seems like once you are in there, there is this little thing called POLITICS that gets in the way. When you are outside the loop, it is easy to throw stones at the people on the inside having to actually make the choices you just get to talk about.

Does your computer change words around? What part of I don't think we would have gone to war under anyone save Lieberman and even he is a maybe was unclear? I think you need to reread my post.

I replied to the original post, read some more, got re-hot and replied again. I don't *think* I was specifically replying to you, that's just where I was at when I hit 'post'. I have done that a couple of times, sorry.

Dean, Graham, and Braun (at least) are not doves. If the Iraqi dictatorship blocked inspections, and if the U.N. Security Council agreed, they likely would have joined a U.N. campaign to change governments in Iraq.

This unilateral, preemptive, non-imminent threat war? Heck, no.

Braun claims to be a dove, but not a pacifist. For what that's worth. Her views on foreign policy, the legality of war, and the Consititutional separation of powers, and her own statements against Bush's war, all suggest that she would not have invaded Iraq, not asked the Congress for such a resolution, not have twisted arms and manipulated evidence in the UN, and generally would have pursued peaceful means of ensuring Iraq's disarmament. So, yeah, heck no.

I wonder how a mulitlateralist Dem would have handled Afghanistan. I believe Bush didn't negotiate in earnest with the Taliban for the hand-over of Bin Laden, Omar, and the rest. On the other hand, they did seem to be intransigent. And Americans generally favored a military solution. Hmm...

I think the candidates views on the October Resolution are crucial for assessing how they would weild power. (Braun opposed it, btw.)

Braun is a self-described "dove," but I don't believe she'd govern that way. (Just a gut feeling, really, based on her past performance in office.) That's why I grouped her with Dean and Graham on this issue. Honest disagreement, though.

No on all of them, except Lieberman maybe.

I think you are failing to distinguish the difference between action and aquiesence.

What I guess is that ALL the Dems would have committed sufficent ground forces to Afghanistan two years ago to have:

1) Left further adventurism much less likely due to deployment of forces in Afghanistan, and

2) Actually captured bin Laden and Mullah Omar, instituted a Marshall Plan there and set the USA and the World along a far superior path to extinguishing the threat manifested on 9/11.

And Dean supporters would go along with anything their leader did.

The UN vote was 6 to 9 with us on the 6 side. So that means the UN didn't approve. 6 is less than 9. Got that?

:-)

Or, would he have continued the policy of containment?

This is the most interesting debate here. Before his February foreign policy speech at Drake, Dean seems to have believed that containment would suffice. This may have reflected his desire to enlist the anti-war movement for support.

However, once Dean established his legitimacy as a candidate, he made a serious reversal of opinion. After the Drake speech, Dean came to the conclusion that Kerry had in 1997 - Saddam's violently erratic record required full accountability. We could not trust that he was so weakened that he was incapable of posing a long-term threat.

I know that RummyisFrosted supports the old Dean line, but I tend to agree with the new Dean/old Kerry.

Do you really think that Dean is the ONLY Democrat that wouldn't have invaded Iraq??? The only reason Iraq was even an issue is that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a bunch of others have wanted to invade there for like the last five years.

I find that to be a pointless and ridiculous question and waste of my imagination.

and if it had become necessary to go to Iraq, Dean would have gone, but with world support (NATO and UN).

What good is all this speculation?? NOBODY know WHAT he would have done. He didn't have to DO anything except TALK.

Saddam hadn't let them in since 1998.

And what would he have done if he had gotten an intelligence report stating Iraq was seeking uranium? Would he have known to send an outside source to Niger to check it out? Would he have known the games intelligence agencies apparently play? What if it had turned out to be true and the UN still wouldn't cooperate, then what?

Not even Lieberman. Bush helped create the greater tension in the Mideast with his alliance with Sharon who likely would not have taken office without Bush's help.

no matter what. He won a crushing victory due to Barak's inability to convince Arafat to negotiate in good faith. Bush can be blamed for a whole bunch of the trouble in the Middle East but he is not to blame for Sharon's victory.

The only leg you stand on is the IWR crutch. If we compare what both Dean and Kerry would have done as Presidents, Dean comes up short every time.

A wise man once said, "Don't go there, girlfriend."