What did Dean mean by this statement?

"I'm already down as waffling on that one. I've waffled before. I'll waffle again...."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/28/ill_mend_iraq_rift_dean_says/

or this statement:

""It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally ...."

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20626605.html

or this:

"I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons...."

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

or this:

"The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088207/


hmmm...makes you wonder don't it?
:think:

have answered all that. Look it up.

So much for the new DU rules. I knew there were some pro's on here that have one mission! They just fly under the radar.

Good call my friend. I hope others just don't give it any attention.

Clip their wings!

"Let's not be divided. Let's not attack each other. Let's keep the heat on Bush and not show our repuke enemies any cracks in our will or our message."

Three guesses, Eric.

he's afraid of being called on it.

Was I right?

It was 'ol DJ hisself...just a few minutes ago...

other Dems. He "demoagogoues" the IWR for cheap political gain and he shouldn't. He should concentrate on sorting out his feelings about medicare and social security and making sure that his only qualification as a Dem is that he is somehow "anti-war."

won't sell here.

You just loooove to post Kerry's "attacks" on Dean et al here.

Give me a break...

not each other.

"Cigarette Life If You Don't Weaken"

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

It is said quite clearly e.g. in the first article:

"I'm already down as waffling on that one. I've waffled before. I'll waffle again," he joked.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/28/ill_mend_iraq_rift_dean_says/
Looks very much like some just deliberately refuse to :think:

"In a speech on the Senate floor immediately prior to the October vote, Senator Kerry categorically stated that Saddam Hussein was “attempting to develop nuclear weapons.” However, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that Iraq had had an active nuclear program for at least eight to ten years prior to the U.S. invasion. Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in 1998 and subsequently that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled.

<snip>

In addition, Senator Kerry stated unequivocally that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” He even claimed that most elements of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs “are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” He did not try to explain how this could be possible, given the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

What did Kerry mean by this statements?

Why are you criticizing Dean on this when Kerry has been actually worse? Dean said "I believe...". As stated in this article, Kerry "stated unequivocally that "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons", as well as "attempting to develop nuclear weapons".

It makes you wonder...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Not only did every major candidate believe Saddam had WMDs, I think Clark said that he believed we would find them still a while back. I personally believed he had them too up until the end of May. I think the same goes for a great many people.

and he has been on Bush for this since the beginning.