Not content to let the matter rest with Trippi's admission that the fliers were a mistake -- a position many Dean supporters here on Kos have admirably taken -- Dean goes on record with this:
"If the fliers said that General Clark was originally for the war and now is against it, that's accurate," Dean said.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040110_323.html
As I've said before, not only is this wrong, it's dangerous for Dean. If Clark's reported advice to Katrina Swett means he was "originally for the war," despite his congressional testimony and published articles at the time saying we should not go to war, then Dean was also originally for the war.
Dean said in September 2002 on national television that (1) Iraq was a threat, and (2) a unilateral war would be justified with Iraq if Bush said it was an imminent threat and the world community was not willing to back us up.
Dean said that he was getting more concerned about Saddam Hussein, and laid out the standard for George Bush:
"Well, first of all, a strike may be justified. What he's got to say, what the president has got to say is that Saddam has atomic or biological weapons and has the means to deliver them to ourselves and our allies."
Contrary to his current position, Dean did NOT "demand evidence" and ask "hard questions" about the threat. Rather, when asked what Bush had to prove, Dean responded:
"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml
One week after Dean's comments, Bush told the nation that Iraq had biological weapons and could inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. One week after that, Congress passed the war resolution.
Given Dean's comments at the time the war resolution was being considered, and given that he has admitted supporting an alternative war resolution that would have allowed the president to go to war without another vote in Congress, his attempt to paint himself as "anti-war" and Clark as "pro-war" is pathetic.
The truth is, both Dean and Clark were against the war. They both saw a danger in Iraq, and both were willing to give the president the threat of force with a war resolution, but neither would have advised carrying out that threat in the way Bush did. Neither was naive enough to paint this as a black-and-white issue in the Fall of 2002, and Dean should not be doing so now.
And here's the ultimate irony:
At the same time Dean is defending his campaign's attack fliers about Clark's past statements, he is asking his opponents not to focus on his own past statements about the Iowa caucuses because "[w]e've got to stop this gotcha stuff."
Please.
Kos: You warned us in the Fall that this campaign was going to get ugly because of the "assholes" in Clark campaign. Yet, it has been Dean himself who has been the most willing to engage in asshole attacks. Between his repeated false claims that Clark was a "Republican until 25 days ago," and his ludicrous attack that Clark was "pro-war," he seems determined to prove you wrong.