Dean’s doubletalk:(Deans what is Bush hiding on 911 touches nerve!)

[papau]

http://www.theunionleader.com/prez_show.html?article=30223

Dean’s doubletalk

Supporters may want to think again


CURRENT AND potential New Hampshire supporters of the Howard Dean candidacy may want to think twice. Which would be twice more than the Democratic presidential candidate sometimes does before opening his mouth. Dean’s outrageous suggestion that President Bush may have known in advance of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America has been followed by his incredible explanation that, in effect, Bush made him do it.

According to Dean “logic,” since Bush is withholding certain information from the 9/11 investigatory commission, people are bound to speculate. And that apparently gives Dean the right to spread such smears — even to the point of citing the Bush conspiracy theory as the “most interesting” reason for keeping information sealed.

Much of the news media have given Dean a pass on this nonsense but, pressed by Fox’s Chris Wallace and then at last week’s Durham candidate forum by Channel 9’s Scott Spradling, Dean said he doesn’t believe in that theory but, “there are going to be a lot of crazy theories that come out,” unless the administration provides more information.

A lot of crazy theories abound on a lot of subjects, no matter how much factual information is provided. But that doesn’t mean supposedly responsible candidates for their party’s presidential nomination spread them. Many of Dean’s records as governor of Vermont remain sealed. How would Dean like it if one of his primary opponents speculated that the “most interesting” theory for this is that the records indicate Dean beat his dog, kicked his driver, and, well, fill in the blanks. <snip>

[mzmolly]

1. This supporter is glad Dean speaks for me..

I think I'll vote for Dean

[BlueEyedSon]

2. I agree with Dean.

I wouldn't be thinkin' that the Bush admin has something to hide if they would stop actin' like they have something to hide.

[Demobrat]

3. I agree with Dean too.

I also think they doth protest too much.

[webkev]

12. think about your choice

the person you vote for should be the one who has the best chance of winning the General Election

[bahrbearian]

4. Way to Go Dean!......LIHOP !!

[candy331]

7. Bush has nothing to

"fear but fear itself" which has been generated by the mega lies that have come forth from his and his administration lips. Fear was written all over his face in that speech yesteday, you'd better believe it. Why don't some of the other Democratic cowarts join Dean? Where is their voices on this subject? Cynthia McKinney(rep from Georgia) lost her seat in congress for speaking out, shows she has courage, spoke out when it is not favorable to do so and is proving to have spoken correctly day by day.

"Go Dean"

[wtmusic]

5. Touchy, touchy

Just produce the records and the rumors will disappear.

[tsipple]

6. Fantastic!

The Machester Union-Leader is against Dean. That's the best news in a long time.

(Note to DUers not familiar with the MULe: it's a right-wing rag, and fanatically so.)

[Martin Eden]

8. Flame me -- LIHOP is besides the point here

Don't get me wrong -- LIHOP is huge and should be tirelessly investigated and exposed.

My point is that Dean hurts his candidacy by bringing this up because it will be used to discredit him. I'm not saying it's fair to do so -- I'm saying that in the vicious general election anthing Dean says that he can't back up will get extensive airplay in the corporate media, and will focus attention on Dean's supposed gaffes.

Don't forget what they did to Gore in 2000 -- he was skewered for essentially true statements that were later twisted and taken out of context.

If evidence can be found that Dean can use to prove LIHOP, by all means -- go after the BFEE. Otherwise, Dean should stick to accusations that are more easily provable, such as WMD lies, the Plame outing, and corporate cronyism.

If a big deal is made of an issue such as LIHOP that Dean can't back up with evidence that will stick in the court of public opinion, less credibility and attention will be given to the issues in which BFEE is more demonstrably culpable.

My biggest fear concerning Dean is that he may sabotgage his own election with ill-conceived statements that were given little prior thought.

[Code_Name_D]

13. Dean will be hurt by exposing the facts?

My point is that Dean hurts his candidacy by bringing this up because it will be used to discredit him. I'm not saying it's fair to do so -- I'm saying that in the vicious general election anthing Dean says that he can't back up will get extensive airplay in the corporate media, and will focus attention on Dean's supposed gaffes.

This is precisly the additued that many Dems have come to bcome inraged about with the leadership. They will not fight. They WILL not fight. Not becase the facts are not on there side, but becase they so fear the rath of the Republicans that all the facts in the world will not imbolden them. This is cowerdice.

Intresting to note that Clark dosn't seem to have the same problem by bringing up PNAC, a closly related subhject as PNAC calles for "another Pearl Haber." Something of a dubble standerd at work here?

[Martin Eden]

14. fight the SMART fight

I'm of the opinion that Dean and the other candidates should go after bu$h much more than they have. They should forcefully and continuously bring up specific allegations about PNAC, cooked intelligence & outright lies concerning WMD, conflicts of interest, and the Plame affair.

Sure, they've done some spouting, but they need to keep putting these issues on the table so that close and widespread public scrutiny will result.

There are no half measures when making allegations of criminal or treadonous conduct. Dean mentioned LIHOP almost casually, then backed off.

If there is enough credible and tangible evidence to make LIHOP stick, by all means lets slap that smirking bitch and get his ass impeached.

But bringing it up then backing off is a political liability, and charging full speed ahead with such allegations is a big gamble -- you better have the proof to make it stick.

You've got to choose your battles, and make sure you have the ammunition to win.

[Code_Name_D]

18. My responce.

But bringing it up then backing off is a political liability, and charging full speed ahead with such allegations is a big gamble -- you better have the proof to make it stick.

Oh I can agree with some of this. For the truth to be effective, you must be persistent. But is it a gamble? I don't agree that its a gamble at all. If you respect the facts, and let the facts define your argument, then the evdince will serve in there own good time. In the mean time, you ask questions. And questions are a lot harder to debunk than simple accusation. Becase they hang there, in the air, awaiting answers.

My all means, chose your battles carfuly. But if you are not going to use what we know of LIHOP, then what will you use? Perhaps sometihng that is "less inflamitory" or seeminly "less partisen?" Perhaps you might attack him for using a fake chicken?

But part of picking your battles, must include the benifits as well. The greater the benifits, the more risk shall come with them. That is why the DLC is so week. They have become so risk-averse that there victories don't mean very much.

[kclown]

15. Not if * is going to respond like he did yesterday

Did you see the conference?  That question really threw him.

[ithacan]

9. Bush downgraded terrorism as "too Clinton"

This kind of thing is so in character with the arrogance and out-of-touch-with-reality nature of the Bushies' decision making process that I can't believe anyone finds it incredible.

I'd be surprised it if weren't true.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The Union Leader is one of the most rightwing newspapers in the country

Does anyone remember Ed Muskie crying outside the UL's offices after it published a smear about Muskie's wife?

[wabeewoman]

11. I find it interesting how so many of these 'reporters'

attack the messenger instead of looking to see if the message could have some validity. Why aren't they asking the questions about Bush and what he knew and when? I wish I were an author because there are several pulitzer prizes out there waiting to be wrote.

[Ramsey]

16. Willful misunderstanding

Dean is not smearing Bush over 9-11. He is not saying he believes in LIHOP. He is smearing Bush for obfuscating, obstructing, and generally witholding information from the 9-11 panel, after trying to keep it from every happening in the first place. Dean is saying this makes people wonder why he is doing that, what is he hiding. He is saying conspiracy theories are the extreme version of these questions. Dean is talking about transparency. A stance which the vast majority of people at DU happen to agree with!

I suppose though that his nuanced discussion of this issue doesn't make a happy soundbite, so it was distilled down by a wilfully ignorant and sycophantic media into: "Dean Says Bush Knew!"

[Martin Eden]

17. Do you have the full context of Dean's remarks?

I'm interested to know whether he was actually putting LIHOP out there, or mentioned it primarily in the context of BushCo's culpability in fostering speculation about an administration clouded in unprecedented secrecy.

[Martin Eden]

19. Found it myself

Here it is:

Caller: "Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling?"

Howard Dean: "Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 911.

Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he is suppressing that report?

Howard Dean: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission."

Here's a Buzzflash commentary that does an excellent job of defending Dean in this matter (and undermines some of the arguments I've posted in this thread. However, I'm still of the opinion that Dean's off the cuff statements -- including LIHOP -- will hurt him more than help him):
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/12/far03006.html

[blm]

20. Is Dean now saying the theory is 'crazy' or what?

How is it that people ever believed this guy is a straight shooter when he never really answers questions straight.