Skip to comments.MSNBC: Analysis of Howard Dean's flip flops
Posted on 12/18/2003 2:35:18 PM PST by jmcclain19
Excerpted from MSNBC
Attack Iraq with U.N. 'permission'
One of Deans rivals, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, has criticized a statement Dean made on Monday in which he said he would not have hesitated to launch an attack on Iraq this year had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force.
But such an attack on Iraq is hard to square with Deans consistent argument that a war was entirely unnecessary.
In his speech on Monday, Dean said, I have never found the evidence convincing that Iraq was ever a significant threat to the United States.
Dean has angrily denounced Kerry and other Democrats who voted for last Octobers congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.
In November of 2002, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1441, declaring Saddam Hussein's regime "in material breach of its obligations" to account for all its weapons programs and warned that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
Despite efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powell last February, Security Council members France, Germany and Russia refused to approve a resolution that would have specifically authorized use of military force.
Deans position on going to war but only with U.N. permission does not square with Deans statement last October that he supported a resolution drafted by Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
Attack Iraq without U.N. permission
The Biden-Lugar measure would have authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq for the purpose of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, not for the purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein.
The Biden-Lugar measure would have given Bush the go-ahead to use force to compel the dismantling or destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.
The proposal would have required Bush to seek a new U.N. resolution, but if the Security Council chose to not pass one and Bush decided that Iraq posed a grave threat to the United States or allied nations, it would have authorized him to order an attack.
Thus, last October in contrast to his current stance Deans position was support for an attack on Iraq, even without U.N. "permission."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
A Bush blow-out over Dean will only result in more conspiracy cr*p about Bush being "selected not elected."
Hey now, let's not bring up the facts. Dean has every right to change his position based on hindsight and slutting himself to the anti-war crowd if he so desires. Who cares what his position actually was? He can change if it makes a difference in getting the nomination or not.
Not all Americans. He just thinks the Dems are stupid enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.