Implicit in this position is that Dean would support invading Iraq unilaterally if he was convinced Saddam was about to get the bomb, and multilaterally if the United States somehow won a vote without a veto this week at the United Nations.First of all, thuggish dictators don't send out engraved cards ("His Most Esteemed Excellency Saddam Hussein is pleased to announce that he will unveil a working nuclear arsenal next Tuesday"), and the accuracy of our, and the UN's, intelligence on Iraq has been, to put it mildly, a bone of contention. See North Korea for a good example of this. So in truth, then, Dean argues that we wait until Saddam has the bomb. The other option, UN approval, also reveals his blindness. As we'll likely see this week, the votes are there in the Security Council (or very nearly) for a multilateral resolution supporting invasion. So this time, in effect, Dean argues that the morality of an action hinges wholly on France's veto power. I wonder where these Democrats were when Clinton ignored the UN and began a pre-emptive bombing in Serbia (we hadn't been attacked yet, after all), the point of which was "regime change" (branding Milosevic a "war criminal" whose regime practiced ethnic cleansing)? Dean's either aware of this and willing to brush it aside for political gain (in which case he's a scoundrel and we should not elect him), or he's way too obtuse to understand the consequences of his stated policies (in which case he's a moron, and we know how Democrats feel about electing morons).
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
More Dean: Then there's Dean's "intellectually honest" position on Iraq: