Howard Dean pronounces Rove guilty anyway, yet gave OBL presumption of innocence two years ago!
First, his statement on today’s news that Fitzgerald will not be indicting Karl Rove (emphasis added):
DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC’s â€˜TODAY’: â€˜If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn’t belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America’â€¦
LOL – so Howard Dean can pronounce Rove guilty even though Fitz has stated he won’t file charges against Rove, yet when the discussion of OBL’s guilt or innocence came up a few years ago, here’s what Dean had to say:
“I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found,” Dean said. “I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I’m sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you’re running for president, or if you are president, it’s best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it’s not so great to prejudge the judicial system.”
But apparently it’s ok to post-judge it … if a Republican is involved!
(Updated to note: The Concord Monitor link no longer works so here is an alternate link)