Is Dean reading my blog?

I ask because a couple of months back I suggested that Dean should hammer Bush on foreign policy by contrasting it with his father's foreign policy and basically force Dubya to either disavow what his father stood for or say his father was wrong. In other words, set father against son.

Looks like Dean may be trying to do just that. Today on FOX he said the following:

DEAN: I think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a wonderful thing. But the question is, is it a good idea to send 135,000 troops unilaterally to do it?

Let me -- can I just take one second and read something George Bush's father wrote in his book? This is about the first Gulf War. "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter- day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of the international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator, and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war."

George Bush's father had it right. We could have contained Saddam Hussein indefinitely. We were flying over his country. He had no air force. We were bombing him when we needed to, in response to anti-aircraft fire.

I thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq. If we had gone in, we should have gone in with a real coalition, the way that his father did, and not do it unilaterally.