I was wondering today how Howard Dean could reconcile his two points of view on the War in Iraq and the capture of Saddam. Can anybody debate this inconsistancy?

Howard Dean has expressed repeatedly his disdain for the War in Iraq. Recently Howard Dean congratulated Bush on the capture of Saddam Hussein and went on to say that it keeps our troops in Iraq and around the world safer, but then in the same breath told reporters that he was against the War in Iraq and still is.



And then...



And after all this went on to say that he still oppossed the war.

My question is this: How can Howard Dean say that the main goal of the war "delighted" him and evidenced that statement by saying that Saddam Hussein was a "frightful person", but then say that he still opposses the war?

How can it not be then that if Saddam wasn't a threat and the war not worth fighting, then his capture and holding should be a violation of some law or at least moral code?

If Saddam wasn't worth deposing, then why should Howard Dean be "delighted" by his capture?

Yes, I think Howard Dean was inconsistent, but he was not being disingenuous or hypocritical. For one thing, he didn't get it right about Saddam being the main reason that Iraq was invaded. It was because Iraq allegedly had Weapons of Mass Destruction that posed an "imminent threat" to the United States, among others. But it was the alleged threat to the security of the United States that G.W. used to wage war.

I noticed that in the past few months, the importance of capturing Saddam Hussein was downplayed, that is, when they couldn't find him.

Now it's important again. Please don't get me wrong; it's great that the troops captured this tyrant. As a matter of fact, I believe that it had to happen so that another government could be established in Iraq. As long as there was the possibility that Saddam and his cronies were going to show up again, many Iraqis weren't ready to take the idea of building a new government seriously, probably out of fear.

But it is altogether proper to congratulate the military and, secondarily, G.W. Bush. It is an important achievement. Did anybody really expect Dean to deny its importance?

This is a very consistant approach JL- I feel the same way- he was a horrible dictator, and I am glad he is off the scene, but since he in no way threatened the US and had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, it was not worth the cost of getting him (what are we up to now, 400 billion and 400 US soldiers)- not to get to far into the "is it worth it" since we have that thread going, but this entire war is a HUGE waste of resources with no real payoff for the US, unless you just want the US to be the worlds policeman (yet another thread )-

But you can be happy a bad guy is caught, without supporting the reason for going to catch him, especially when the price is too high and the payoff to low!

It's obvious Howard Dean believes the end - and it is a good end - does not justify the means.

I have no idea why Dean holds the two opinions. He does not articulate very well. However, I also hold the two opinions and do not see any contradiction. So, here's why I don't.

I was/am opposed to this war. I felt no threat, doubted the WMD claims, and was fairly sure that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (Saudi Arabians, methinks). Those, I believe were the reasons for going to war. Not, "get the bad dictator dude". There are plenty (even worse) ones who we leave alone or do business with.

Having gone to war, we found ourselves in a terrible mess. The resistance is strong, and we just can't get out now can we? Because Hussein will come back and we will look like fools, and inept. Iraq would have restored to what it was before. If we have any chance of extracting ourselves from this mess, Hussein must be caught. After all, he was a bad dictator dude. Not as bad as those in Rwanda or China, but I feel good that one is taken off the market.

But the removal of one nasty dictator does not justify the war, unless we are going to wage war on every country where such a person murders/tortures/imprisons political opponents. But we are not doing that.

I'm simply amazed at the right wing's inability to reason.

Americans are in Iraq. Saddam being gone means a potential leader of insurrection is gone. That makes Americans in Iraq possibly safer.

But it doesn't do anything for the safety of American soil.

Meanwhile, Saddam hasn't been in power for months. Did the right wing forget that this mission had been accomplished?

I don't see a contradiction. In fact I am of the same opinions.

Saddam is not a good guy. He let his people endure unneeded poverty, he inflicted untold crimes upon his people.

But is America safer because we placed an army in Iraq? I don't think so. I think an army in the fertile crescent in a good recruiting tool for Islamic fundamentalists. I think Iraq has been so destabilized that that region likely will become a haven for terrorists.

And we lost the moral high ground by rushing to war and pretending that all diplomatic options had been exhausted.

The bad news is that my country went off to war. Since the war happened, it is good news that Hussein was captured in this war.

As some have already put it - there is no real contradiction here.

The assumption that anyone who opposed the recent Gulf War must not despise Saddam or his regime is a very simplistic look on life. To use the concept that 'Saddam was bad and scary' as the only justification required to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians to get rid of him is a bit too much 'monkey see, monkey do' for me, and not the kind of attitude I could condone from my own government.

Eeyore puts it best when he says "The bad news is that my country went off to war. Since the war happened, it is good news that Hussein was captured in this war"

This is exactly how I feel. I opposed my country going to war prior to the invasion, during the war and in the post war period. At no point was I ever convinced that enough justification was there for my nation to go to Iraq, and I was also saddened that the UK made a real contradiction - preaching freedom and democracy yet ignoring the democratic decision of the United Nations because we didn't agree. Despite all this, Saddam has been captured, which is definitely a good thing.

However, I see no bright future for Iraq yet. All I see is western nations ready to intervene and attempt to control the peoples of the Middle East once again.

Dean is trying mightily to rationalize his anti-war stance with his desire to be President. Can't do it.

The majority of the citizens in this country desire a leader who places their safety and security first and foremost. Dean's claim that we are no safer with the capture of SH reveals how little he understands and accepts the changes that have come about in this post 9/11 world. He sounds more and more like the 6 yr old who keeps repeating, 'no its not, no its not'.

Uh, Dr. Dean, yes it is!

And for those who raise the issue of 'what are we supposed to do, take out every tyrant in the world?' Something wrong with that?

It's going to take more than eating our Wheaties to do that.

I would like to see our leaders focus on the domestic issues in our country before we go off on this crusade to save the world, whether it wants to be saved or not.

Dr. Dean is addressing domestic issues. It isn't just the war that floats his boat. I think he'll provide a more balanced approach to the issues that affect Americans personally every day.

It isn't a contradiction by any means. No one denies that Hussein was a horrible man. I believe that what Dean is trying to say is that we should have gotten the job done in Afghanistan before globe-trotting around and disposing of dictators who have questionable ties to terrorism. Is it just me, or has anyone noticed the inherit contradiction that we created this frankenstein in the first place?

DUPLICATE HERE: Is Dean pro-war?