Speaking as a Democrat, I was never a fan of Dean. I personally would have liked to have seem Clark get more support from the Democrats, but since he has become so intangled with the Clintons, I doubt the Democrats will try to nominate him.

While I do not agree with all of his stands on issues, I find he is the most intelligent and moderate of the Democratic contenders.

Dean's view seems to be predicated on the idea that "whatever Bush says do, we should do the opposite" and that never works in a national election. No man is every completely right or wrong, and to constantly take stands against every decision merely based on who made the decision is childish.

Dean's position is perfectly consistent. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America. Therefore Saddam Hussein's capture does not make America a safer place. It's a good thing for Iraqis (not a top concern of the administration) and it's a good thing for international justice (even less of a concern for the administration). But it has no bearing on the security of Americans in America.

Just because the president keeps changing the "justification" for the administration as each alleged reason falls by the wayside, this doesn't mean the president shouldn't be held accountable for what he said and how that corresponded to what he did.