Dean's 'Urban Legend'

[ModerateMiddle]

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: October 13, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/opinion/13SAFI.html

Yeah, yeah, I know Will is a right wing pundit and all. But a whole lot of right wingers read him. Maybe more than right wing.

And he's got a point.

snip:

The persistence of a quotation he insists is an "urban legend" is evidently infuriating Howard Dean.

At lunch last week in the Washington bureau of The Times, the reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg identified herself and started to ask a question. Dr. Dean immediately interrupted: "I want to quickly jump on you for a sec here," he said sharply, and referred to an article she had written based on an interview with Senator John McCain in which yesteryear's maverick took issue with a reported remark of Dr. Dean's.

"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted. "McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."

What was the "that"? Dean angrily denied being "soft on the death of Uday and Qusay. That was something McCain said, and it got quoted in my story and I've been a victim of it ever since. McCain said I said it. We talked and called the station and said we never said any such thing."

snip...

Before joining Dean in castigating McCain for putting words in his mouth, I went to Google and keyed in "ends justify the means" and "Dean." To my astonishment, amid the 368 hits was this Associated Press dispatch by Holly Ramer from Manchester, N.H., dated July 22, 2003:

"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

snip...

But it is not Dean's way to explain "what I meant was . . ." His eagerness to expunge from the record his snap judgment about the killing of Saddam's sons — to claim falsely "I never said any such thing," to suggest it is a McCain concoction, an "urban legend" — tells us that he is a man who treats a toothache by biting down on it hard.

By repeatedly denying the words ever came out of his mouth — thereby imputing inaccuracy to the A.P. reporter and blatant dishonesty to McCain — he compounds the original blunder that all too tellingly revealed his mindset.

[AP]

1. I'm not a Dean fan, but I DETEST Saffire. I wouldn't trust a thing that...

...came out of his pen. I will strike the knowledge of this article from my memory merely because it came from Saffire. You will never see me refer to this ever.

I'm serious.

[ModerateMiddle]

4. Chances are that it will be repeated

by someone else who was at that editorial board meeting/Washington bureau. Because it's a bizarre thing to do.

[madfloridian]

11. WHAT? You think what we did was right?

n/t

[ModerateMiddle]

17. Holy moly

I'm giving up on this thread. Some of you people don't know how to fucking READ an article. The point was NOT what Dean had said, but that he went to this editorial luncheon and demanded that a reporter "set the record straight" or whatever. To quote Safire, he said he was going to "jump on her for a sec". He wanted to DENY having said "the means do not justify the ends".

[killbotfactory]

21. Learn to read, indeed

McCain twisted his words into saying that killing Saddam's sons was not a good thing, or a victory for the troops, way out of mainstream, etc...

Dean was saying it was a good thing but didn't justify the war.

The article is retarded right wing tripe.

[drfemoe]

85. Watch Me . no me . no me meeeeee

This is a media GAME.

This is an old story from http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=565">The New Republic 7.23.03
which as usual the 'enemy' (or those paid by advertisers to make a stink so people will chose their side show above all others)
uses to acheive it's own need for a twister in a tea cup.

From Safire: "On the day this A.P. story appeared, McCain was asked on MSNBC
for his reaction to Dean's reaction to the killing of Saddam's murderous sons:"
(here they will define Dean's 'reaction' using McCain's 'opinion')
(those clever media guys)

If this is important enough to anyone here to grab by the twister tail, then read http://deandefense.org/archives/000387.html">the full story

[dsc]

2. Excuse me

Dean is right here. First we should note that there is evidently something between people and but. I wonder what that is. But more to the point it is clear he was talking about whether war on the entire county of Iraq was the best means of removing those people from power. Do you think it was? Dean has said repeatedly it isn't. But he didn't say killing those two people were the problem and McCain did say Dean said that.

To use an illustration. That would be like saying Kerry opposed the killing of some evil VietNameese war criminal since he opposed the war in VietNam.

[pruner]

3. I think McCain is jealous of Dean

at this point McCain is nothing but a footnote in the history of presidential politics, whereas Dean actually has a chance to become president.

[ModerateMiddle]

5. Explaining what he meant is very different

from claiming he never said it.

This is not the first time he's done this.

[pruner]

8. I was referring to the bitter tone I sense anytime McCain comments on Dean

n/t

[ModerateMiddle]

12. the point of the article

wasn't that McCain made a dismissive remark about what Dean had said, it was that Dean was ADAMANT about denying having MADE the remark.

[pruner]

15. I understand what the "article" is about…

but that doesn't make my comment any less true.

FYI, I put the word article in quotes because Safire is not a newswriter, he's an editorialist.

[dkf]

20. He denied making that remark in regards to Uday and Qusay.

that is the difference.

I think he should have just said that McCain twisted his words and left it at that.

[AP]

13. McCain probably just wants a Democrat to get nominated who can win

No?

[ModerateMiddle]

16. hahaha I have no idea

I can think of a few Dems he would definitely prefer over Shrub!

[ozone_man]

44. Maybe he wants a Republican type Democrat?

A McCain Democrat (Clark)?

[ModerateMiddle]

74. It wouldn't surprise me

if in his heart of hearts McCain would like to see either Kerry or Clark as the Dem nominee, and very likely as President. I don't think McCain thinks very highly of W.

[dsc]

10. This isn't explaining

it is reading. He never said, as in the words aren't there, that the deaths of Oday and Umay (sp), were not good things. He said, as he had repeatedly, that the means (war in Iraq) isn't justified by the ends (removal of Oday and Umay). Again it is crystal clear from what even Safire chose to quote. The fact that both McCain and Safire can't or won't read English is hardly Dean's fault. Dean is correct when he says he didn't say that the death of Oday and Umay were unjustified or that using the military on them was unjustified. He just plain didn't say that.

[killbotfactory]

6. Killing Saddam's sons doesn't justify this war

Dean pointed that out and is accused of being soft on the death of Saddam's sons, whatever that means. lame.

[madfloridian]

7. I did the same search, no Holly Ramer. Proud of Dean for saying it.

"When asked about the fire-fight between U.S. soldiers and Saddam’s ruthless sons, Uday and Qusay, Dean wondered whether "the ends justify the means."

This is a great thing for Dean to say. There was no excuse for our actions in blasting the whole building, overkilling them, displaying the bodies, etc.

Dean was perfectly right to say this. We should not have done that.
If you think so, you need to reexamine your priorities.

[madfloridian]

9. Do you think we handled it right about the sons?

OMG I hope not! This is not the America I used to know. I come to a Democratic board, and I see a fine candidate smeared by a right wing writer for saying the right thing????.

[ModerateMiddle]

14. My point, in case it wasn't crystal clear

is not that Dean said it, it was that he DENIED having said it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. What exactly was Dean being accused of?

It seems to me that he was being accused of being "soft" on Uday and Qusay Hussein. Dean denies he said what he is being accused of, and on reading the quote, he was TOTALLY RIGHT.

He never said that Uday and Qusay should not have been killed, he said that killing them does not justify the war.

He said "the ends do not justify the means" where "ends" means "the death of Uday and Qusay Hussein" and "the means" is illegal war against the Iraqi people, as is made clear by the quote from the Saffire article.

What exactly was McCain saying that Dean said? It seems that McCain is the one who is denying what was said, NOT Dean.

[w4rma]

18. There seem to be two different versions of the Holly Ramer story.

Please join me in writing to the editors of the New Republic ([e-mail]) in protest of Spencer Ackerman's unfair posting in the TNR primary, "Means Testing." If we put enough pressure on TNR, perhaps they'll learn to report more responsibly. In addition, I suggest we set up a TNR watch dog website to publicize this kind of irresponsible reporting. We should invite supporters from the other campaigns to reply to unfair criticism of their candidates as well (This will make non-Dean Democrats go to the site and read our replies. Even though TNR doesn't care much what we think or say, they will care if our points are being viewed by the rest of their readership as well.)

visit www.tnr.com to view Mr. Ackerman's posting in the TNR primary.


Below is the letter I wrote. Please write your own letter with your own criticism, even just a few words, to the editors. Letters should be less than 200 words with your name, address, and telephone number. After the letter, I've given more information.


Dear Mr. Ackerman,
Your criticism of Howard Dean on 23 July 2003 was entirely unfair. Dr. Dean was asked whether he thought the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons were a victory for the Bush administration. Dr. Dean answered that it was not a victory for the administration, and added, "It's a victory for the Iraqi people." This is comparable to the comments by the other candidates that you have provided. Your article, in neither presenting the context nor the full quotation provided by the Associated Press, fails to represent its subject honestly. I don't know which is a more disturbing possibility: that you did not look carefully enough at the AP story, or that you purposefully omitted crucial parts of the Governor's comments for your own rhetorical agenda. Your readers deserve far better treatment and an apology.

Thank You,
G. P. Huded


There are two very different versions of the AP story by Holly Ramer that Mr. Ackerman has based his criticism on. The version entitled "Dean chides fellow Dems for belatedly questioning war" presents Dean's comments in what appears to me the logical order, followed by comments made by other candidates. The other version entitled "Dean scolds fellow Democrats for belatedly questioning war" begins on a somewhat biased note, saying Dr. Dean "shrugged off the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons Tuesday, saying 'the ends do not justify the means.' He scolded Democratic rivals for backing the conflict." However the "means do not justify the ends" comment does not appear in its entirety until the last paragraph of this version of the article (though in the other version, it is the first quotation attributed to the Governor in the fourth paragraph). So, two versions of the same article present vastly different depictions of the same event. In the one I suspect Ackerman has seen, the means-end comment is taken out of context and placed in the lead, without the full context explained until the very end of the piece. Unless Dr. Dean first said the ends don't justify the means, and then criticized his opponents, and then finally said it was a victory for the Iraqi people, the AP version is misleading. From the content of the comments, the logical order (what Dr. Dean probably said) is first (in response the question whether it was a victory for bush) that it was victory for the Iraqi people, and then that the ends don't justify the means (a reference to whether it was a victory for Bush), and then criticism of his opponents. It looks to me like the AP botched the order (probably on purpose) and the New Republic ignored the context (also on purpose). Well, it's an outrage how the media distorts quotations like this, and it's time we put an end to it.


This is the article entitled "Dean chides fellow Dems..."
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/203/region/Dean_chides_fellow_Dems_for_be:.shtml

This is the article entitled "Dean scolds fellow Dems..."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/dean.iraq.ap/

Posted by: G. P. Huded at July 23, 2003 05:52 PM | Link

[Eloriel]

19. That's one of the worst written pieces of tripe I've ever read

VERY hard to follow and I'm not sure exactly what Saffire was trying to attribute to whom.

I think we've got a context problem here. I heard Dean make that statement and he absolutely did say that the end (the 2 dead sons) didn't justify the means (the whole damn war). It sounds like McCain took the opportunity to exploit Dean's words by changing the context entirely, as if Dean said/meant that the death of the two sons wasn't a good thing at all.

It's not at all clear to me what the hell the reporter was supposed to have reported which Dean is taking exception to.

The main impression I'm left with is: Gee, wouldn't it be nice if Saffire would turn his fine eye for parsing words and quibbling to the various members of the Bush administration?

Eloriel

[DJcairo]

22. If Dean is the nominee Fox News will find this on video somewhere

and play it over
and
over
and
over
and
over

That's why we need Kerry. He would never say anything so stupid.

[killbotfactory]

23. No, then they'll learn that McCain's characterization of what Dean said

was false.

And it wasn't stupid. It was the fucking truth.

[Rose Siding]

34. The Note on "language-tone-deaf" Safire

"Howard Dean gets the Safire "let-me-set-the-record-straight" treatment. And how.....

It appears to us that Dean did say the literal words, but that their meaning has been misunderstood by the language-tone-deaf Mr. Safire."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

[DrFunkenstein]

25. An Example of Why Dean Is Unelectable

Dean simply provides too much dumb-ass fodder for Bush $200 billion slime machine. The fact that it is dumb-ass doesn't matter. They will hammer it over and over again that Dean is a fringe radical (who isn't even happy Saddam's kids are killed).

Put it together with the endless miles of footage of Dean acting like a raving lunatic. If you think I'm kidding, here is the smallest taste of what middle America would get 24-7 in the months up to election:

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

Ed Gillespie provides the talking points for the next several months:

"Tonight I expect to hear more of the message that drove California voters to oust Gray Davis: protest, pessimism, and personal attacks. The Democrats still haven't figured out that the angry protests so popular with the left wing base of their party is the wrong message for mainstream America."

[sandnsea]

26. And terrorists are soldiers

He really does have a knack for saying the worst possible thing about the hottest, hot button issues.

[w4rma]

27. The anti-Dean spammers are here! DJcairo, DrFunkenstein and sandnsea

Kerry hacks first. Democrats second.

[Sean Reynolds]

38. The definition of SOLDIER - please read sandnsea and others.

Since you all have a hard time GRASPING the true definition of a soldier, let me help you.

sol·dier (sljr)
n.

1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

intr.v.sol·diered, sol·dier·ing, sol·diers
1. To be or serve as a soldier.
2. To make a show of working in order to escape punishment.

Tell me how the above doesn't describe what Dean was saying?

[killbotfactory]

28. What is dumb about Dean's statement?

Did I just walk into bizzaro world where killing the evil children of evil men justify preemptive wars based on lies?

Seriously, WTF?

[Rose Siding]

31. He didn't say it in the language of the insiders

Constructed images do better than people inside the beltway media.

Then he mindlessly pointed out media spin to the media of all the nutty things.

[DrFunkenstein]

86. I Meant Safire's Attack Was Dumb-Ass

But that it didn't matter, because it was part of broad mosaic they are going to easily paint for Dean.

[blm]

29. Dean is legendary for forcing retractions.

That's why I wonder that he hasn't requested retractions on the Times Argus and Weekly Syandard stories that both recount Dean's push for deregulating electricity and that some Dean supporters here claim is untrue. If it's untrue, where are the retractions that Dean would have surely demanded?

[Pez]

30. that's because it's #546,232,498 on the List Of Retractions

i mean really, give the man a break; he can retract only so many things in a day.

is he not human? does he not bleed???

[dsc]

96. The Weekly Standard is an opinion magazine

and doesn't do reatractions. But it should be noted, as you well know, I have shown the very article you keep bringing up was wrong about vouchers and wrong about the sales tax just to name two.

[blm]

103. But, there was verification on electricity dereg. from the Vt. paper

and THAT was the issue I was noting.

If Dean WASN'T for deregulating electricity then why would two different media outlets say he was without any refutation from Dean?

And HOW did Dean get that highest rating for Democrats from the CATO Institute if he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic party?

[dsc]

107. Since I have no clue what CATO looks at I honestly can't answer that

I also wonder about the truth of that claim since it was in that shoddy piece you have put forth. The second article is at best very unclear as to Dean's position, and not clear at all on when he held it. It appears to say he was for it for awhile and then he wasn't. It should be noted that Clinton for a while also favored it to name just one pretty prominate Democrat. It also had to have gotten some Democratic support in California since there was never a time that the Republicans had the entire Assembly under their control. I would like to see the specific bill Dean favored, know when he favored it, and why he ended up not favoring it before I would begin to give an intelligent respone. The Rutland piece did none of that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. The hypocricy continues....

"Kerry 'has never indicated to anyone that he was Irish and corrected people over the years who assumed he was,' Benander said."

Michael Kranish, "Search for Kerry's Roots Finds Surprising History," in the Feb. 2 Boston Globe.

_________________________________________________________________


''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans …"

—Senate floor statement by John Kerry, March 18, 1986, as quoted in Frank Phillips' and Brian C. Mooney's "1986 Statement Counters Kerry's Stand on Heritage," in the March 6 Boston Globe.






http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783/

[Pez]

33. why is it that...

...when attacking kerry it is a.o.k. to dig up a selected quote (with questionable meaning) from 1984 that has nothing to do with policy, but when it comes to dean it's taboo to criticize his "evolving diagnosis" on important policy issues from six months ago?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. What are you talking about?

This thread was started to bash Dean on something that he never said.

Dean's quote:
"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

What McCain suggested:
"soft on the death of Uday and Qusay. That was something McCain said,


Two completely different things.


Now, the reason I posted this bullshit Kerry story is to point out to kplongco that his candidate has denied things that are on the public record and therefore verifiable. Meanwhile, he's excoriating Dean for an obviously twisted interpretation of his quote. What's worse? Denying a falsehood/misinterpretation or denying the public record? I am subtly trying to suggest that perhaps one shouldn't engage in flamebait that is tenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. This notion that some candidates are more "pure" than others is hogwash. Every time someone posts a meaningless flame thread, I intend to point out to the poster that their candidate is just as "impure" as the candidate they are bashing. If you take the time to notice, you'll find that I never start threads that bash any of the candidates. I just try to "finish" them.



On edit- forgot to address this:

What is there about the deaths of the Hussein boys that has anything to do with the "evolving diagnosis" on important policy issues from six months ago..."?:shrug:





Second edit--Pez, here's another example of what I'm talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=59028&mesg_id=59028

Notice a trend emerging here? I could list dozens of examples of this sort of crap that infests this discussion board, typically from a small handful of Kerry supporters.

[Pez]

40. sorry; didn't make the connection...

...between your post and the original post. most of the time threads in this forum go way off into outerspace and end up on an issue entirely unrelated to the original point. i mistook the meaning of your post. sorry!

:toast:

...also not all posters are hostile candidate-bashers... and not all flame-bait is posted by kerry supporters. i think too often people take criticism of candidates as a personal attack and flamewars ensue :-\

this place needs a big ol' shot of Humor.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. No apology necessary.

I agree that most posters are not hostile and that it's not just Kerry supporters. I hold none of what those posters say against Kerry, or the other supporters of his campaign.


:toast:


Note: I try to be humorous but, unfortunately, fail more than I succeed. :D

[ModerateMiddle]

76. Oh, man he DID say it

ends do not justify the means

Yeah, it's been taken out of context. So what? He DID say it, and now he is trying to say that he did NOT say it. His problem is that he puts words too close together. Like the big brouhaha about how he "diss'ed" the hispanic woman at the debate. He didn't, but the proximity of his statements demonstrate that he doesn't appreciate the impact of his words. It was my very first concern about Dean, and it remains a significant concern of mine.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

92. See post #62

for my rationale.

[w4rma]

36. RiF is correct, IMHO (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. As long as we are looking at 'Whoppers of the Week'

First, the section you excised from the Kerry article:

Discussion. The question before the jury is whether Kerry has systematically sought to con Massachusetts voters (a great many of whom are Irish) into thinking that he's Irish. Kerry's spokesperson, Kelley Benander, told the Globe the erroneous Senate floor statement was staff-written and that Kerry neither recited nor saw it. (It's common for members of Congress to submit written floor statements in lieu of going to the Senate floor and saying the words out loud, and these statements are indeed often written by staff members.) Neither Kerry nor Benander nor Jonathan Winer, the Kerry aide who wrote the draft remarks prepared for Kerry when he was lieutenant governor, recall the speech being used. (But they don't seem specifically to recall it not being used, either.) As for the Irish-themed Kerry campaign paraphernalia, Benander said it was meant to attract Irish-American voters, not to con people into thinking Kerry was Irish.

Still, it's striking that the Globe was able to find two separate instances where Kerry's own staff thought he was Irish and a third where Kerry's campaign invited the public to believe he was Irish. (Benander's explanation about the hats and T-shirts fails to persuade because Kerry wasn't visiting an Irish neighborhood. He was at a state convention attended by people with all sorts of backgrounds.) And it is striking that Kerry has never attempted to correct various references to his Irish ancestry that have appeared in the Globe, which is the most important newspaper in his state.

Chatterbox's bottom line is that a political candidate and officeholder is responsible for whatever goes out under his name. So the Senate statement alone qualifies this as a Whopper. As to the larger question of whether Kerry habitually tells opportunistic lies about his background, or anything else, the jury's still out. But you can bet the Globe, and everyone else, will be watching.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079783/

And what about Dean? Which of his 'whoppers' did Slate cover?

"Howard Dean: (W)hen we first looked to the rules for this debate, we were told if anybody mentioned our name, that automatically gave us a minute.

"I'm not going to go back and ask you to change the rules, but I think I'll take 20 seconds just to tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."


Discussion. Dean's Clinton-esque rhetorical construction, "nor do I favor ," arguably signals a change of mind since he "entertained" raising it to 68 a few weeks earlier. But in the context of the accusation from Kucinich, it's clearly meant to mislead. The statement, "I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70" is completely untrue.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

So let's look at it. The 'whopper' Kerry committed is that some of his staffers thought he was Irish. The 'whopper' Dean committed was making a 'completely untrue' statement about his past positions on Social Security in a Presidential debate on national television.

An eerie similarity to Dean's latest false statement: "I never said that. I never said that"

[blm]

48. Kerry wasn't "legendary" for demanding retractions from the press.

Dean is known for it. So...where are the retractions he demanded?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Here:

“Digging for dirt? Kerry camp denies scrounging for skeletons in Dean’s Vt. closet” – Headline from yesterday’s Boston Herald. Excerpt from report by Herald’s Andrew Miga: “In the latest twist to their political feud, Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign yesterday flatly denied a published report it sent staffers to Vermont to dig up dirt on rival Howard Dean and his wife. ‘The American Spectator story is a complete fabrication and we have asked for a retraction,’ said Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander.

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/wannabes/Kerry/kerryJuly2003.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. You are defending 'The American Spectator' now?

Politics do indeed make for strange bedfellows.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. No.

I'm sure the retraction was necessary. She asked for an incidence of Kerry calling for a retraction. I answered.





edit- clarity

[Pez]

55. the full paragraph gives a better idea i think.

… “Digging for dirt? Kerry camp denies scrounging for skeletons in Dean’s Vt. closet” – Headline from yesterday’s Boston Herald. Excerpt from report by Herald’s Andrew Miga: “In the latest twist to their political feud, Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign yesterday flatly denied a published report it sent staffers to Vermont to dig up dirt on rival Howard Dean and his wife. ‘The American Spectator story is a complete fabrication and we have asked for a retraction,’ said Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander. The conservative political magazine, quoting an anonymous Kerry aide, reported last week that the Bay State Democrat, rattled by Dean's insurgency, was ‘sending staff to Vermont to pull together whatever dirt they can find out about not only Dean but also his wife, who continues to work as a physician in the state.’ The article, noting Dean has refused to say if he performed abortions on young women he counseled, asserted that Kerry's research ‘appears to be focusing on Dean's career as a practicing physician.’ Staffers from the Spectator could not be reached for immediate comment. Dean spokeswoman Dorie Clark said the former Vermont governor was not aware of any such effort by the Kerry camp. Benander confirmed that aides to Kerry, who hired Clinton White House opposition researcher Mike Gehrke last spring, have begun scouring the public backgrounds of Democrats on the White House campaign trail as well as President Bush. ‘We are certainly getting up to speed on the public records of all the candidates in the race, including our own,’ she said. ‘We also thoroughly scrub John Kerry's background to prepare him from attacks from George W. Bush and his right-wing allies.’ Tensions between the Kerry and Dean campaigns have run high in recent weeks as Dean has risen among the ranks, threatening Kerry in New Hampshire and topping the rest of the Democratic pack in fund raising for the past quarter.” (7/11/2003)

edit: they ar researching all candidates-- including kerry himself-- which is standard procedure for responsible campaign teams.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. No, it doesn't.

blm was asking for Kerry calling for a retraction. I gave the pertinent tract of the paragraph.

[blm]

68. That's because it was OUTRAGEOUS.

He's not made himself a gadfly about retractions for years like Dean has, and YOU know it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. And McCain's suggestion that Dean was "soft" on the deaths of

Uday and Qusay isn't OUTRAGEOUS?

C'mon, now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. McCain's 'straight talk' looks like a pretzel to me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

73. And so does Safire's. n/t

[blm]

83. That wasn't my fight. My fight is with Dean and those who excuse

his past by saying the press got it wrong, when Dean is known for forcing retractions. If an article was wrong, Dean would have thrown a fit to correct it.
So if a prominent or widely disseminated article stands uncorrected, then it's safe to assume the article is correct.

Get used to the fact that YOUR guy pushed to deregulate electricity, RIF.

[DrFunkenstein]

87. Way To Selectively Read

"Kerry's spokesperson, Kelley Benander, told the Globe the erroneous Senate floor statement was staff-written and that Kerry neither recited nor saw it."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

88. Uh, huh.

Chatterbox's bottom line is that a political candidate and officeholder is responsible for whatever goes out under his name. So the Senate statement alone qualifies this as a Whopper. As to the larger question of whether Kerry habitually tells opportunistic lies about his background, or anything else, the jury's still out. But you can bet the Globe, and everyone else, will be watching.



It seems that there's a history developing here. Kerry doesn't know anything about the floor statement. Kerry doesn't know anything about "The Fax" at the last debate. Etc... This habit of blaming it on staffers reminds me of someone...

[Pez]

89. for the love of nutterbutter peanutbutter sandwich cookies...

...the fax was that biatch stickfluff's thing. all the candidates give press releases to all media sources, including cnn. she just chose that because, again, she is a biatch.

that is not something to be blamed on kerry or his staff. that he didn't know onstage exactly what his staff was writing backstage, and couldn't read fluff's mind to see into the future that she was going to use it during the debate can't be blamed on kerry or his campaign. aaaaaaaah!@#~ no more!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

90. Mmmm. Nutter Butter.....

[Pez]

94. my favorite cookie.

respect the cookie.

:D

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. CNN kills two birds with one stone

CNN knew they could hurt both Dean and Kerry with the debate fax stunt. As for Woodruff, it just make her look like an ignorant dupe for her corporate bosses.

[Pez]

95. also would anyone be talking about woodruff right now otherwise?

no, because she is a stupid biatch; even without this. man, what a tart.

RECALL WOODRUFF.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Aso, fwiw:

It appears to us that Dean did say the literal words, but that their meaning has been misunderstood by the language-tone-deaf Mr. Safire.http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. It appears to them that Dean did say the literal words.

And then what did Dean say?

"I never said that. I never said that"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Are you thick?

Dean's quote:
"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

What McCain suggested:
"soft on the death of Uday and Qusay. That was something McCain said,


Now tell me, how these are the same thing. Show me exactly where in Dean's quote that he is "soft on the death of Uday and Qusay."

This ought to be good.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. McCain is an idiot and a hypocrite

and you'll never to get me to defend anything he says.


Why did Dean say: "I never said that. I never said that" ?

Why not just explain what he meant in the original statement, to show that McCain mischaracterized his words? I think we all agree that the ends do not justify the means, and that killing Saddam's sons does not justify this evil war.

Dean had an opportunity to stand his ground against McCain -- the legendary 'straight-talker' ( :puke: ). He had an opportunity to make a moral statement about what 'the ends do not justify the means' really means and how it applies here.

How did Dean use this opportunity? He said: "I never said that. I never said that"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. By saying "I never said that. I never said that."

He is referring to anything that was "soft" on Uday and Qusay's deaths. Why quibble over whether he should have said "Let me set the record straight" or "I never said that?" It's the same damn thing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. Lying and telling the truth are the same thing?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. "Figure of speech."

figure of speech
n. pl. figures of speech
An expression that uses language in a nonliteral way, such as a metaphor or synedoche, or in a structured or unusual way, such as anaphora or chiasmus, or that employs sounds, such as alliteration or assonance, to achieve a rhetorical effect.


Christ!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. "I never said that" is a unqualified categorical statement,

not a 'figure of speech'.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. You're right..

Now take that categorical statement and place it against a misinterpretation of said categorical statement. The "I never said that" refers to the misinterpretation, not the original statement.


Got it now?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. On further analysis

"Now take that categorical statement and place it against a misinterpretation of said categorical statement. The "I never said that" refers to the misinterpretation, not the original statement.


Got it now?"

Dean did make a flat, unqualified statement, denying that he said what was attributed to him.

He did not explain how he was misinterpretated.

He did not use this opportunity to demonstrate how crooked McCain's 'straight talk' really is.

He did not use this opportunity to educate the American people the truth and morality of the statement: "the ends justify the means".

He did not stand by his words and show courage.


PS -- there is no reason for you to include belittling comments like 'Got it now?' in your posts. Just state your case.
If it has merit, it will stand on it's own without any snide comments.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. "...and more analysis..."

1. Dean did make a flat, unqualified statement, denying that he said what was attributed to him.

This is where you go wrong. He's denying the mischaracterization of his words, not the words themself.

2. He did not explain how he was misinterpretated.

How do you know this? Read the article. Apparently the entire conversation on Dean's part was this:
"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted. "McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."
What an odd conversation. What did the reporter say to Dean after he said this? What was Dean's subsequent rejoinder? It stresses the limits of credulity to believe that the entire conversation between Dean and the reporter was the aforementioned quote. The reporter is being disingenuous and leaving the reader without context for the conversation. It's impossible to make a valid judgment without the entirety of the conversation. Maybe Dean did say how he was mischaracterized, or maybe he didn't. The relating of the conversation is obviously truncated. You may be able to read the tea leaves but I can't.

3. He did not use this opportunity to demonstrate how crooked McCain's 'straight talk' really is.

See #2.

4. He did not use this opportunity to educate the American people the truth and morality of the statement: "the ends justify the means".

See #2.

5. He did not stand by his words and show courage.

See #2.


My point is that the article is severely lacking in detail. You're saying that Dean didn't do this and didn't do that. How do you know? I can guarantee you that the conversation didn't go like this, as portrayed in the article:

Dean: I want to quickly jump on you for a sec here. I never said that. I never said that. McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . .

Safire: <crickets>

Notice how Safire never quotes himself in the article. According to him, Dean came up to him and made a denial and then instead of responding Safire leisurely walked over to his computer and "Googled" his key words. Bullshit. Safire probably said "What are you talking about?" And then Dean said something that we'll never know.

It's a hit piece and it's bullshit.




PS- Sorry for the condescending remark.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. I don't blame you for defending your guy

and I think both of us have fully expressed our viewpoints.

You state your premise here:

He's denying the mischaracterization of his words, not the words themself.

It's just a premise that I don't accept

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

72. So you're fully satisied that

William Safire is presenting the facts accurately? His hit-piece is accurate and fully discloses the "conversation" between him and Dean, in your opinion? You tend to side with Safire over Dean? Safire has no agenda?


That's a premise that I can't accept. You stick with Safire. I'll stick with Dean on this one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. You can try to get me to defend Safire, or McCain, or Bush or whoever

but I'm not going for it. Dean's campaign (as I believe you have admitted to in this thread) is not afraid to ask for a retraction when the governor has been misquoted or misrepresented. So if we see a call for a retraction here, I will consider the possibility that Dean did not say what was reported. If they don't ask for a retraction I will consider it confirmation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. Didn't say what?

Be specific. With links.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. Umm we are talking about a column by William Safire.

It is quoted and linked to in the original post.

You say:

"William Safire is presenting the facts accurately? His hit-piece is accurate and fully discloses the "conversation" between him and Dean, in your opinion? You tend to side with Safire over Dean? Safire has no agenda?"

I respond:

"You can try to get me to defend Safire, or McCain, or Bush or whoever but I'm not going for it. Dean's campaign (as I believe you have admitted to in this thread) is not afraid to ask for a retraction when the governor has been misquoted or misrepresented. So if we see a call for a retraction here, I will consider the possibility that Dean did not say what was reported. If they don't ask for a retraction I will consider it confirmation"

Now you ask me 'Didn't say what? Be specific. With links.'

I'm sorry, you seem to have lost me here. Aren't we both talking about the same William Safire column?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

79. "If they don't ask for a retraction I will consider it confirmation."

A retraction of Safire's article?
A retraction of McCain's statement?
A retraction of Dean's statement?


What do you need to see Dean ask to be retracted to "un-confirm" your suspicions?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. You implied this article did not present the facts accurately

"William Safire is presenting the facts accurately? His hit-piece is accurate and fully discloses the "conversation" between him and Dean, in your opinion? You tend to side with Safire over Dean? Safire has no agenda?"

so I'll let you guess which article I meant. BTW: the post you responded to is entitled 'we are talking about a column by William Safire'

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

81. Got ya.

So, unless Dean asks for a retraction of every article or editorial that spins an unfavorable view of him, you'll consider the allegations to be true.


Got ya. I'm bookmarking this thread. Never complain about coverage of your candidate again, unless he publicly asks for a retraction. See ya.

[stickdog]

106. Because Dean never said what McCain dishonestly attributed to him. (NT)

[Mairead]

42. How can anyone think this isn't clear??

"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

How can anyone fault Dean for this? He's right! It was not a victory for Bush except in the most trivial sense, and it damned sure didn't justify the invasion or massacre! I'd much rather have had those thugs Uday and Kusay get away clean and wealthy than to have had poor Ali get his arms blown off and his family slaughtered.

How can anyone here say Dean wasn't right! Can we please be less madly partisan?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Of course the ends do not justify the means --

that is something Howard Dean said that I totally agree with. It is a moral message that needs to be repeated more often in our society.

So why did Dean say: "I never said that. I never said that" ?

[Mairead]

51. My guess would be McCain's remark

"For instance, Mr. McCain cited Dr. Dean's remark that `the ends do not justify the means,' in reference to the death of Saddam Hussein's sons. `I was astounded,' the senator said. `The ends were to get rid of two murdering rapist thugs and the means was the use of American military intelligence.' "

It seems fairly clear that McCain was 'interpreting' what Dean said while claiming to quote him. Dean clearly said killing those two slimeballs didn't justify the invasion and massacre. McCain's trying to recast that into Dean saying that killing the slimeballs didn't justify using military intell. So it seems to me that Dean's quite right: he didn't say McCain's version of 'that', he said something very different.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. I completely agree that McCain mischaracterized

what Dean said. That's why I don't understand why Dean denied that he said it, instead of attacking McCain for mischaracterizing him.

[Mairead]

100. Probably because he meant the deep-structure 'that', not the surface

I.e., he was thinking about the meaning rather than the words. I mean, the only way we ever know what the word 'that' means is to look back to the nearest topic. It's not a very informative word all by itself. :)

I agree it was a poor rhetorical choice on Dean's part, but understandable on some level. Or at least it feels understandable to me. Perhaps he thought the meaning of 'that' would somehow be obvious to everyone.

[gully]

82. I TOTALLY AGREE. I agree with you and the statement by Dean.

:thumbsup:

[union_maid]

58. I don't get the whole thing

What part of what Dean did or didn't say was supposed to be terrible? That's what I don't understand. There are one or two things that Dean has apparently said that I'd love to have clarified, but they relate to policies he'd implement if given the chance. What did he say here that was such a problem? If he said anything, that is...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. What part?

The part where he said "I never said that" about something he said.

[union_maid]

63. Oh

Seems like nitpicking to me, unless it's a huge pattern.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Nitpicking?

It's sub-atomic particle picking.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. Part of a huge pattern? Of denying he said what he said?

"Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.): I've said many times that I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015—raise it by that time to about age 70.

"Howard Dean: I am very pleased to hear Bob Packwood because I absolutely agree we need to reduce the—I mean, to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track."
—CNN's Crossfire, Feb. 28, 1995


"I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
—AFL-CIO Democratic presidential candidate forum, Aug. 5, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086804/

------------------

Dean also took issue with a characterization by a TV interviewer that he had been a "strong supporter" of NAFTA, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. Dean acknowledged that he had supported NAFTA, but took exception to the "strong" part. "I never did anything about it," he said. "I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down in the street demanding NAFTA. I simply wrote a letter (to President Clinton) supporting NAFTA."

The Gephardt campaign subsequently called attention to a transcript of a Jan. 29, 1995 "This Week" show in which Dean told a different interviewer that "I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA."
http://www.n-jcenter.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/NationWorld/03LegislaturePOL03091503.htm

-------------------

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603



GEPHARDT: Howard and I just have a basic disagreement. He said in, I think, 1993 that Medicare was the worst federal program ever. He said that it was the worst thing that ever happened.

He also supported, at our darkest hour--when I was leading the fight against Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, he was shutting the government down--Howard, you were agreeing with the very plan that Newt Gingrich wanted to pass, which was a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

Now, you've been saying for many months that you're the head of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I think you're just winging it.

This is not the view of Democrats, in my view.

This program has been under attack from the Republicans since the beginning. And we need a candidate against George Bush that can take the fight to him on it, not someone who agreed with the Gingrich Republicans.

WILLIAMS: Governor Dean?

DEAN: That is flat-out false, and I'm ashamed that you would compare me with Newt Gingrich. Nobody up here deserves to be compared to Newt Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

Those tiny nits grow up to be lice

[Cocoa]

84. reasons why I think this is B.S.

1.it's Safire; he doesn't really care about this, it's just giving Dean the Al Gore treatment.

2.It's hard to follow; I can't find the article Safire is talking about; I Googled the phrase he mentions and couldn't find the article; plus I don't trust Safire's ellipsis.

3.The subject of the "controversy" is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, Dean can say whatever he wants about Uday and Qusay. I happen to agree with what he seems to have said, but I don't care if he denies saying it, it's a non-issue. I don't think Dean or any of the candidates is going to continue the practice of assassinating people and parading their bodies for political gain. I don't think Dean will be getting into situations like our Iraq situation anyway.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. Reason why I think this isn't BS

It's part of a larger pattern of Dean mis-statements and denials

[dsc]

97. Yeah between Safire and Dean

I chose to belive Dean. Or do you believe Hillary is a congenital liar, and that Nixon wasn't a crook (two very high profile statements Safire is on record as having made)?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. That's not our choice.

Our choice is between Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosely Braun and Sharpton.

As far as Howard Dean's credibility, I've posed alot of questions on that subject here at DU, and see the response for yourself.

[dsc]

99. It is you who brought up history

and frankly I have just about had it with you Kerry supporters. I could literally post hundreds of shitty articles on Kerry from the Boston Globe. I haven't yet but I have gotten to the point where I will. You keep posting right wing liars (and that is what Safire is) I will start doing the exact same thing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. Please stop threatening and act -

if there is something negative about Kerry you know about, I'd like to hear it.

[Rowdyboy]

102. So we waste hours and 100+ posts fighting between

Dean and Kerry when the enemy is George Bush. What a despicable waste of passion. Way to go, guys-my dog ain't in that fight.....

[DianeK]

104. i'm with you, rowdyboy...

this has got to be the silliest waste of time i've seen here yet! i mean..come on..are we talking now about the meaning of is?

[stickdog]

105. Isn't Safire supposed to be a linguistic stickler?

What a hypocrite.

He knows perfectly well that the words "in general" taken together with the quote's context most certainly DO remove the quoted sentence from an answer to the specific question about killing Saddam's sons.

Look at the context of Dean's quote:

`It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.'

Certainly the educated linguist Safire must know that Dean was not talking about Saddam's sons -- as McCain disingenuously contended -- but the Iraqi War in general when he said that "in general, the ends do not justify the mean."

So what the hell is Mr. Safire's issue again -- other than the fact that he is a raging hypocrite and that the next time he writes a boring throwaway about one of his linguistic pet peeves that we should toss it into the garbage?