Dean Foresaw Today's Problems in Iraq

Governor Dean Foresaw Today's Problems in Iraq

BURLINGTON--One year ago today, Congress gave President Bush blank check authority to go to war in Iraq. On September 19, 2002, at his weekly gubernatorial press conference, Governor Howard Dean was asked about the congressional resolution and the president's rush to war.

At that time, he explained that the president and the administration had not made an adequate case for war nor had he planned an exit strategy if the U.S. was to occupy Iraq.

Now, as the administration offers one evolving justification for the war after another, and as the U.S. effort to secure and rebuild Iraq flounders from a lack of planning and support, the governor's words ring truer than ever before.

"The president will be supported by the country if he makes the case that Saddam Hussein has atomic weapons or biological weapons and can deliver them against either us or our allies. The president has not made that case," Governor Dean said at the time. "He has said Saddam is an evil man. Well, there are a lot of evil people. Before our sons and daughters come home in pine boxes, I think it's incumbent upon us to have a better reason than 'he's an evil man.'

"The president must be truthful about the length of this effort. This is where my fundamental disagreement with the president's foreign policy comes into play. The president does not believe in nation-building. I believe we have to nation build as part of our long-range defense strategy," Dean continued. "My argument is that the president should never go into a regime like Iraq or Afghanistan unless he's prepared to do what it takes to turn those nations, as difficult as it may be, into middle-class democracies where women fully participate in the economic and political life of those countries....

"The president has to be up front with the American people. If we go into Iraq, we'll be there for ten years with American troops on the ground in the most volatile region of the world.... Where he's going to get into trouble is: (1) going in without adequate support either internationally or at home.... what's he going to do when we're there? He ought to listen to Colin Powell. Colin Powell's philosophy is that you never go in anywhere unless you have an exit strategy. We have no exit strategy from Iraq," Dean concluded.

The original video is available at www.streaming.cctv.org click on the 9-19-02 press conference at the bottom of the page to launch it. The response to Iraq begins approximately 1 minute, 30 seconds into the video.


www.blogforamerica.com

truth sayer (instead of Dean just repeating what many people were saying at that time). Politics is full of so much b.s.

Graham had yet to throw his hat into the race; so we'll not count him. That only leaves 4 other Democratic candidates that were outspoken against the war. Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, Braun. The rest were perched next to the president at a speech in the Rose Garden.

Yup, politics truly is b.s.

Just curious.

and non-partisan.

Although at some point Lou Dobbs stopped having him on because he was too political in critiquing Bush.

By the way, I used the word Critique which is making statements based on a holistic view of a situation.

Dean, on the other hand "Bashed". Just another idealogue pushing buttons.... with nothing to say about his own
plans for the America.

And if youwere really "Curious" why not google?

Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

many people were saying. And, IMHO, that is probably the single biggest reason that Gov. Dean's campaign is taking off and has momentum.

There are many, many examples of Dean doing this.

He and Trippi took advantage of the Anti-Iraq War sentiment among Progressive Democrats who were wired to the Internet. And, while that was an astute foward-looking political move it is belied by the following points:

Dean actually claims to have NOT VOTED FOR THE IRAQ RESOLUTION AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."

It's unfortunate that Dean's "foresight" didn't extend to the WMD- he believed Saddam had them.

"Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the
safety and success of our men and women in the field. 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."

And while he's made statements about how wrong Bush was ingoing into Iraq- it's on the record that he didn't oppose the principle of unilateral, preemptive war with Iraq:

"as I've said... 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.

The Iraq Resolution is HISTORY.

There's no reason to expect people to believe Dean would have voted "No" just because he says so.

Almost all Democratic Candidates have similiar positons on what to do in Iraq now that we're there.

Dean better figure out a way to reach people without relying on Iraq.

Saying he was one of the first to start questioning it is NOT going to win an election.

But that wasn't Dean's stance. He didn't believe Iraq posed a threat to America and thus we shouldn't have invaded. Yes Dean didn't vote for the resolution, but I'm sure he wouldn't have if he were in Congress.

As for your assumption that Dean capitalized on the anti-Iraq war sentiments, I don't agree. First the anti-war citizens of this country were in the hard minority. When flags were wavin off SUVs and bombs were dropping in Iraq - most Americans were cheering 'em on. So why would Dean, someone that you feel wasn't actually anti-Iraq war, take such a gamble? I mean the other anti-Iraq war candidates were polling just as bad as him - so it would only seem that the anti-Iraq vote wouldn't have done much anyway. Wouldn't it have been a better 'political' move to actually support the war? Remember, at this time last year Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards were all atop in the polls and they all supported the war.

Problem is, you like to live in a what if scenario. Dean opposed the war - he's stated it MANY times. Whether or not you believe him is your own personal choice. But don't bring up crap from the past to try and dissuade from the obvious; Dean was outspoken about the war ONE year ago today.

they have nothing better to say against Dean! It's all Stale Hot Air!

And the "Anniverary of the Iraq War Resolution" email he circulated is living proof.

He is a one-note candidate who milked the antiwar progressives and now has nothing but his Business friendly record in Vermont to fall back on....

His campaing rallies are nothing but Bush bashing with some spew about what he did in Vermont and then precious little about what he wants to do to move america foward.

Kerry with his Vietnam ties.
Edwards with his mill working father.
Kucinich with his peace beliefs.
Gephardt with his union ties.
Lieberman with his strong moral convictions.
Braun with being a black woman.
Sharpton with his anti-Washington beliefs.
Clark with his military background.
Dean with his anti-Iraq voice.

So don't make it sound like Dean is a ONE issue guy, they all are.

When he talks about what he did in Vermont he is telling people what his background is and what his experiences have allowed him to do. This is important, otherwise nobody would know what he is capable of doing. Just the fact he is a doctor tells me that he is highly intelligent and knows the health care system a lot better than you or I do. He talks about every American having health care and how he wants to reform the health care system.

If the avid anti-war progressives wanted to believe Dean was an anti-war candidate, then they projected something on to Dean that wasn't there and subsequently became dissillusioned with him---eventually turning against him entirely. War for it's own sake is bad, but necessary sometimes to protect a country. Dean just doesn't believe in pre-emtive strikes against a country that's not an imminent threat.

Have you ever gone to Dean's website? Dean has a lot of ideas about what he would like to do as president.

Also, how can you expect any president to not recognize that business is important too? Without businesses, there would be no commerce, no goods, no work. Business interests and an individual's interests have to be balanced so it serves the greater good.

Dean is a centrist, making him highly desirable as a candidate since he represents the moderate majority.

So why would Dean, someone that you feel wasn't actually anti-Iraq war, take such a gamble?

Very simple- because if he hadn't taken advantage of the Progressive Democrat's outrage at the Iraqi Resolution-\

Dean would be a nobody right now.

He is a DLC approved, center right Democrat who would have NO APPEAL to Progressives except for the fact that Trippi engineered his "Grassroots" Movement and made anti-Iraq War its centerpiece.

Again, the anti-war crowd was a hard minority in America back when Dean came out against the war. It could have been a political mistake to not support such a war. Show me proof Dean only came out against the war to garner support. Is this fact, or could it be YOUR opinion? Well don't pawn your opinion off on me like it is fact.

As for Dean not getting the progressive voice, you're wrong. Many progressive people began to support Dean because of his very pro-gay views. Alas, if you think Dean is center, right, you're either turned around or really don't know the issues. I'll be the first to say Dean aint the most progressive candidate out there, but to clump him with the likes of Lieberman and other DINOs is WRONG.

I could say the same for a majority of the Demicratic candidates with their beliefs in the past - but I won't.

Because I see him showing that he was the first to question the misadministration as a sign of his true leadership, one of his best qualities. I think many people are drawn to a person who clearly does what he feels is right, despite polls and possible political suicide. This is one example of many showing Dean standing up for what he believes in and leading the fight, not following in others' footsteps (like many of the candidates do).

Howard Dean would be absolutely slaughtered in the general election. Those 45% of Americans who believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, no matter how wrong they are, will never support Dean. The middle of the road people will question his wishy-washy responses and be confused as to how he can say Saddam had WMD, but be against doing anything about it. Which leaves a small margin on the left who aren't enough to win.

But you may be wrong.

Things are changing...I had two co workers, both members of the Air National Guard, one who flew missions in Iraq (A-10 SAR), tell me that ther are supporting Dean. Mostly for two reasons:

1. He was right about bush and Iraq. Bush lied, and soldiers are dying because of it. And Dean had the guts to speak out before it was polular to do so.

2. Fiscal conservative.

There are cracks in the 45%, and they are getting bigger every day.

Fiscal conservative isn't the guy who's going to repeal all the tax cuts and introduce a medical plan like the one in Vermont that's already running deficits. And saying Saddam had WMD, but having no solution to deal with it, is not going to sit well, no matter what Bush did. At least Bush did something and that's what Americans always want in matters of defense. Add all the other goofy comments Dean has made and you've got some very serious gaps to overcome in 2004. I don't think it's possible.

"And Dean had the guts to speak out before it was polular to do so."

That was Ancient History. And it's a pathetic campaign tool...

But MOOOOOOOOOM, I said Iraq War Resolution was bad FIRST...

All the Dem Candidates have similar stances on what to do in Iraq.

I agree - it's easy for Dean to say he would have voted against it, since he didn't actually have to face that decision in Congress.

In hindsight, we all know the decision was the wrong one, but Dean didn't have to vote in Congress under the pressure of 87% approval for Bush and pressure from a pro-IWR constituency. Comparing his "vote" to real votes placed by members of Congress is a little misleading.

Don't give me that crap about pressure on those in Congress as regards to JK of MA, a perfectly safe place from which to have voted no. As far as Dean goes, he says he would have voted against it, and actually in Vermont, majority sentiment was against the war and all three of our members of Congress voted agin it.

John Kerry, nor did I intend this to have anything to do with Kerry.

My point was that it's pretty easy for Dean to sit on the sidelines and claim he would have voted against it, because he is not subjected to the other issues at hand including, but not limited to, political peer pressure.

I have no doubt that Dean believes that he would have voted that way and he probably would have, but comparing his non-vote to the votes of others who were faced with the actual decision is misleading, especially when he tries to turn it into a litmus test for the other candidates.

Dean overstates his case by comparing his apple (not being required to vote for IWR) to oranges (those who did vote yes on IWR).

Although I don't fault Dean for taking political advantage of the fact that he did and does speak out against the war, and that he does not have a vote for IWR on record. He would be foolish NOT to bring this up. IMO, he just overstates the case with headlines like this. But it doesn't make me not want to vote for him in 2004.

issue from a national campaign standpoint, though I agree that he'd be crazy not to use it now that the American public seems to be waking up to the nightmare that is the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Strangely enough, having an anti-war stance is very much a Catch-22 from a national perspective. There are still large parts of the US that are both pro-Bush and pro-war in Iraq - I live in one of them. Candidates who voted for the IWR are probably in a better position to attract moderates and conservatives out here in the red states. Aggravating, but true.

So, while Dean's anti-IWR stance will very likely help him in the primaries, it may make life a little more challenging in the general election, should he be the candidate.

It is harder to criticize Bush's Iraq invasion if you supported his Iraq invasion. It makes you look oportunistic, which is exactly what I and even Sen. Lieberman believe that Kerry has been acting during the primary.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): “I thought that John Kerry's statement in his announcement address -- that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein -- was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. … I don't get it. He's been criticizing Howard Dean for lacking experience to lead America in the world today. It's true. It's not the best time to put a rookie in charge of our country's future. It hasn't been a good time to have a cowboy in charge of our future, but we also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future.” (Glen Johnson And Anne E. Kornblut, “Democrats Rip Bush In 8-Way Debate,” The Boston Globe, 9/5/03)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/05/democrats_rip_bush_in_8_way_debate/

No chance he was just being opportunistic in the debate :eyes:

My point had nothing to do with Kerry's position on the invasion. My point was that Dean's fully anti-IWR stance may make things difficult in some parts of the country, because those parts of the country are STILL pro-war in Iraq.

Nebraska, for example, is still very pro-Bush and very pro-war. Nebraska is pretty much a lost cause to the Dems regardless, but someone who voted for the IWR and is now criticizing Bush on how he handled it would likely fare better here (because they were pro-IWR initially) than someone fully anti-IWR.

Please note: I'm not defending anyone who voted for the IWR - I think it was knee-jerk politics brought on by fear. I'm not debating that criticism from the candidates who voted for IWR may be less effective than those that did not. I'm merely pointing out that even now not everyone is against it. In fact, in some states, the majority still approves of how Bush is handling Iraq and feels the IWR and the invasion/occupation were the right decision.

This is a political reality in many of the red states, though many are sure losers for ANY Democrat no matter what. NE went 63/33 Bush/Gore in 2000, and Bush's approval ratings are still high here, much to my dismay.

Without any Congressional interjection, Bush would have just quickly made up his shit and launched a war. The vote forced him to work with the UN which exposed his bullshit push for war at all costs. The vote also was the only hope at providing a solution to the problem of WMD and lifting the sanctions and the no-fly zones by getting inspectors back into Iraq. Going to war the way Bush did it was wrong; but that was his decision, not the members of Congress.

Some didn't! Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, and Congressman Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich among the many Brave!

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."
-- Howard Dean 6/23/03

Puzzling, no? Did he 'forget' he wasn't a member of Congress?

Or did he just feel he needed to 'sex up' his opposition to the war?

Do you actually believe that Dean thinks he cast a vote in Congress on this? I mean really?


It's a good quote to score points on a message board, but otherwise it's worthless.

That's good. I'm sure you'd be just as forgiving if Kerry made the same false claim :eyes:

No I don't think Dean thinks he cast a vote in Congress. And I don't think he misspoke because otherwise why be so careful to say the bold part:

"I find it hard to believe that I'm the only major candidate running, who's in reasonably good shape in the polls, who voted No on the Iraq Resolution."

He was awfully careful with his words in order to exclude Kucinich. And I guess just saying he opposed the war was not enough. Dean wanted to make a distinction between himself and Kerry, who was leading in the polls at the time. He couldn't make a distinction on their positions, because their positions and statements on this issue are so similar. That left him with the IWR vote, but since Dean didn't cast a vote, there is no real distinction. So he decided to lie about it.

I think youre right Fean though that he did use his words carefully to exclude Kucinich. I hope I dont get hell for this but it seems to the eye that something looks funny. Only major candiate? like Kucinich isnt and at the time Graham was running too. I am not gonna raise hell over this but this :eyeballs: me.

Their positions are so similar? LOFL!

I don't want to go into the -- I think the case you made yesterday speaks for itself. For those who look for a smoking gun, there is really a kind of smoking gun -- I mean, it doesn't have to be the gun itself that is smoking. It can be evidence which makes clear the effort to move the gun around before it's actually smoking, and I think you made a very powerful case with respect to that, and that is important here. And people need to look at it dispassionately, nonpartisanly and with the security interests of our country in mind.--Kerry, speaking to Powell in a Senate hearing http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/wwwhwashnews130.html


FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html


Kerry believed that this nebulous evidence of an "effort to move the gun around before it's actually smoking" was a causus belli.

Dean thought the evidence was lacking.


To settle this once and for all, let's see what Kerry had to say to Larry King about whether Dean was for or against the war:


KING: The new issue of "TIME" magazine, you told them and they expressed surprise that you are not surprised that Governor Dean and how well he's doing. You're not surprised?

KERRY: No, I'm not surprised, because the war was very divisive and he was the only person on that side of it...



Why trust what your or my opinions say? The candidates speak for themselves.



Edit- highlight quote passages.

There's no reason to expect people to believe Dean would have voted "No" just because he says so.


There's no reason to expect people to believe Dean would not have voted "No" just because you say so.



He's on the record a month before the IWR vote saying that Chimp hadn't made the case for war:

10/06/02
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html



That's a pretty good indication of his intentions. We can believe what he was saying before the vote took place or what you are saying now, a year later, with 20/20 hindsight. Which is it going to be?

Almost all Democrats were expressing concern about Bush and his war plans. To act as if Howard Dean had some sort of superior visionary abilities is absolutely ludicrous.

Sept. 2002 - John Kerry

"We must also change the way we interact with the world. For people who have suggested that unilateralism is "just the American way," it's time to acknowledge that more and more, our allies are our eyes and ears around the globe and will play a critical role in our intelligence operations. We need partners. We should work on our public and private diplomacy more thoughtfully, sensitively, and intensely to develop both.

I support the administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991. But the administration's rhetoric has far exceeded its plans or groundwork. In fact, its single-mindedness, secrecy, and high-blown phrases have alienated our allies and threatened to undermine the stability of the region. As both a soldier and a senator, I learned that when it comes to war, our goal must not just be regime change, but lasting peace. We have won the war in Afghanistan without securing the peace. This administration has failed to make its case on the international stage or to the American people for the rationale of starting the war or for the means of ending it. We cannot afford to put the security of our allies, the region, and ultimately ourselves at risk for the vague promises we have heard to date. We must do better."

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2002_sep_oct/17_terrorism.html

Oct 2002 John Edwards

"How then is it that one year later, what could and should be the world's fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is seen as our fight alone?

It is not a cultural problem. Recent public opinion polls show how closely aligned European and American people are when it comes to security. We both regard terrorism and an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction as the two top threats.

The problem is that in word and deed, the administration frequently sends the message that others don't matter. It rightly demands that our allies back efforts vital to America's interests, but then shows disdain for cooperative endeavors and agreements important to theirs. Indeed, it often treats allies as an afterthought, gratuitously rubbing in its contempt with statements like the one Secretary Rumsfeld recently made in Europe, when he said it never even occurred to him to use NATO to aid the war in Afghanistan.

Instead of demonstrating "purpose without arrogance" as the President promised in his inaugural address, the administration's foreign policy projects the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone, which may be the easy way to achieve our short-term ends, but will never result in long-term security.

Our greatest challenges require the active commitment of our friends, allies, partners, and in fact, the world. Unilateral action will not win the war against terrorism. It will not stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

:-(

What was Howard Dean's plan?

Voting to confront the Iraq situation was right.

Bush's lying, arrogance and unilateralism was wrong. He would have done the same thing with or without that vote. The vote forced him to go to the UN which is the reason Bush's behavior and attitude was exposed.

And the American people are never going to elect a President who has no plan to deal with WMD threats.

Btw, here is the foreign policy section of Dean's website. He has lots of information there. Why not read some of it, instead of making a fool of yourself by saying that he has "no plan"?
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

What was his Iraq plan? I don't see anything about dealing with Iraq's WMD. Even 'ol Howard said Saddam had WMD.

And he says:

"defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction."

Saddam was a tyrant. What was his plan and what's his plan for future tyrants?

And frankly, even his CFR speech in June 2003 was a hollow shell compared to the speech Senator Kerry gave in January. Howard Dean has been in Vermont, far away from having to deal with international terrorist problems. He doesn't have the experience and would have a heck of a time understanding the complicated structure of terrorist networks. Kerry wrote a book on it, in 1997. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818159/002-6101743-5306406?v=glance

Section of Dean's website (linked to from his foreign policy page) on Iraq:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

Cant we just vote for Kucinich :evilgrin: heh.

The IWR was a blank check that constrained Chimp not at all. Either vote for and support a bill with some teeth, or vote "No" on the IWR. Those were the realistic choices. And 23 other Senators made that tough choice. What did Kerry know that they didn't? He knew he'd be running for President in a few months. Dean was already running and chose the opposite tack.

And 23 other Senators made the typical Democratic knee-jerk anti-war vote. Honestly, I don't think it was politically courageous at all. And Dean didn't choose the opposite track, that is just laughable. He was all over the map and could have shifted his position as the war unfolded to highlight whatever he wanted. And I have NO doubt that he would have done it, he still might if he gets the nomination.

On one hand, as Kerry pointed out on MTP, Bush had the power and support to go to war anytime he wanted, a la Clinton in Kosovo, although that attack was far more justified than Iraq. And with a Republican majority in the congress with a slavish loyalty to the neo-conservative administration, Bush could've passed any war resolution he wanted. So it's not as if a Democrat voting YES on it would've really had any voice. If he votes NO, it passes. If he votes YES, it passes.

If you're a Democrat, your vote becomes a personal one. Since it has no chance of swaying the Republican majority, what's YOUR opinion? Why vote YES? Because it has clauses in it that limit the war to Iraq, and MANY people feared the war would inevitably spread to Syria and nuke-hungry Iran. It also forced the administration to at least acknowledge the UN's existence. Like Rumsfeld would've voluntarily gone to the UN to show them their evidence. Bringing the UN in made it a bigger fall for the administration when they eventually failed. And Saddam is no Gandhi. He is a terrible man who killed thousands to keep himself in power for 20-30 years. He has just recently kicked inspectors out, and has always toyed with the UN. Do we just vote NO on the resolution and forego any threat of force, thereby saying to him "Oh, keep on with your police state and Kurdish oppression (which Bush I allowed by his false promises in the uprising). It's all cool as long as you don't threaten us."

Of course, voting YES also means that Bush can go into Iraq any time he wants. The UN didn't have the power to stop him. IMHO, Kerry decided to be part of a semi-solution instead of just saying no. The most important Democratic part of the IWR was the limitations of the warzone. Kerry worked with Daschle and others to try and make the resolution better. Knowing it would pass either way, he tried to make the best out of an unstoppable situation. His vote didn't count, really. But in his personal conscience, he wanted to do something that at least remotely resembled a solution, not a back-turning "no".

I fully respect those who voted NO, but I can understand a staunch anti-war person like Kerry on why they would've approved it.

And Dean's "fore-visions" are no better than any other candidates'. Kerry has a more detailed plan, instead of a vague crowd-pleasing formulaic speech.

"For your convenience, Dean for America has assembled all of Governor Dean’s Iraq-related speeches, statements, and background materials on a single webpage."

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

The biggest problem with a "yes" vote for Bush's phoney war, outside of missing the chance of taking it to the people and trying to stop Bush, is that it perpetuated the myth that Bush is a strong leader.

The oldest article on that link is 4/9/03. That provides nothing in relation to his views at the time of (or before) the IWR vote.

Besides, he's obviously not going to include anything on his web site that contradicts his current views. It's likely that no candidate would.