GregsOpinion.com

Oh, and there's this great reading on Dean's Iraq stance by Michael O'Hanlon:

Will Iraq Be Howard's End?

Consider the record. On Sept. 26 this year, in a statement calling for the resignations of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Dean stated that "we are in Iraq now, and we cannot afford to fail." On Oct. 9, in the Democratic debate in Phoenix, he said, "Now that we're there, we can't pull out responsibly." In these comments, Mr. Dean was realistically recognizing the strategic importance of succeeding in Iraq even if he had himself opposed getting involved there. He was also recognizing the political need to appeal to the mainstream American voter who knows we cannot cut and run in this crucial part of the world.

But there is another side to Mr. Dean--the one who must tap into the anger of the Democratic left against all things Bush and against the war in Iraq in particular. In the Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., for example, Mr. Dean stated: "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home." This was nothing short of a prescription for ending the mission and declaring failure.

Worst of all is the new Dean television ad in Iowa. In that spot, he chastises Dick Gephardt for supporting President Bush's Iraq policy, and then concludes, "I opposed the war in Iraq. And I'm against spending another $87 billion there." Mr. Dean does not say he opposed the specifics of the administration's supplemental appropriation, which would be a partially defensible position held by several other Democratic candidates. Rather, he categorically opposes an expense of that magnitude in ads running right now in the Hawkeye State. Unfortunately for the country and for the soundness of Mr. Dean's argument, there is no way to stabilize Iraq and protect U.S. security interests in the region without an expenditure in that ballpark.

To be sure, other Democratic candidates for president--to say nothing of President Bush--have flaws in their own Iraq positions. But Mr. Dean has claimed to be much more courageous and honest in his Iraq views than the competition. He has also used the issue to catapult himself to front-runner status in the Democratic field. For these reasons, he needs to be held to a high standard. Before choosing Mr. Dean as the party's nominee, Democrats and independents need to assess carefully his Iraq position. They also need to ask themselves how Karl Rove is likely to exploit it later next year, when the operation in Iraq could be going considerably better and when garnering the most left-leaning third of the Democratic vote will not win an election.

O'Hanlon is no conservative apologist, either.