A good result does not justify the means by which the result is achieved
At the beginning of the debate on Saturday, Dean went out of his way to re-iterate that he was "delighted to see Saddam gone". He obviously did this to knock down his critics who think that he was "objectively pro-Saddam". But he then went on to repeat his concerns about the invasion and its consequences, including the increased possibility of a fundamentalist Shi'a regime replacing Hussein. This is what he meant by his comments that Iraq may not be better off, in the long run, without Saddam. Some have asked why Dean could say he is delighted that Saddam is gone yet still think it was a bad idea to take him out in the first place. Let's put it this way. I would be delighted to see Bush out of the Presidency. But that does not mean I would support someone assassinating him. Does that clear things up?