Replies

Again, surely Dean was not saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify "the use of American military intelligence

But he would never, and has never (except maybe defensively, later) say that it would be justified. He's the (selectively) pacifist candidate, he cant acknowledge anything good to come from US military or intelligence activity..

So if McCain plays obtuse and reads between the lines, can he be faulted? Its always later, and never now, that Dean will say it was a good thing that this happened and that America made it happen. The f*cker shouldnt have it both ways, IMO.

[Again, surely Dean was not saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify "the use of American military intelligence] But he would never, and has never (except maybe defensively, later) say that it would be justified.

Ok, that may or may not be true (I'll take your word for it), but that has no bearing on whether his statement was mischaracterized (which it was).

He's the (selectively) pacifist candidate, he cant acknowledge anything good to come from US military or intelligence activity..

Correct. Still doesn't mean he wasn't mischaracterized.

So if McCain plays obtuse and reads between the lines, can he be faulted?

If that "reading between the lines" is really "putting words in Dean's mouth", then yes, I think so.

The f*cker shouldnt have it both ways, IMO.

Maybe not but that's no excuse for mischaracterizing his statements.