Was McCain implying that he was referring to something else? I didnt think so. . After all, Dean the demagogue blithely dismisses eradicating these two tyrants by saying we shouldnt be there. Why not just say its a good thing and leave it at that? He could expand later, for the 3893902th time on why he would never go to War over anything as mundane as our national interest.
If he feels "misunderstood", he really shouldnt. Most of us "get" it.
Yes. McCain said "the means was the use of American military intelligence". (1) This seems to imply that Dean's point was to say that "the use of American military intelligence" is what offended him, rather than "the invasion of Iraq". (2) It obtusely and probably intentionally ignores what Dean's point surely was (because this is the point of everything Dean says), that the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
Again, surely Dean was not saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify "the use of American military intelligence". Surely he was saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify the invasion. What else would one expect Dean to say?
After all, Dean the demagogue blithely dismisses eradicating these two tyrants by saying we shouldnt be there.
Whether or not one agrees with the content and tone and emphasis of Dean's statement is a different issue altogether. The point is that they were mischaracterized regardless.
Why not just say its a good thing and leave it at that?
Because he's the anointed anti-war candidate and has to toss red meat to all the anti-war zealots out there in order to win the (D) primary. I'm not saying I like this or that it makes me respect him, mind you. Just that he was mischaracterized.
If he feels "misunderstood", he really shouldnt. Most of us "get" it.
I'm not sure that's true.