If you don't believe a theory, why promote it?

[Zomby Woof]

"How is what I did different from what Dick Cheney or George Bush . . . did during the time of the buildup of the invasion of Iraq?" the former Vermont governor said Tuesday night aboard his campaign plane. "There were all these theories that they mentioned. Many of them turned out not to be true. The difference is that I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out." - Governor Dean

So that makes it okay, kids! Spread rumors, as long as you disavow them after uttering them! Responsible, and slick, eh?

This, in a nutshell, is why Dean has gained the reputation as a loose cannon with questionable integrity.

Look at this statement. He is saying that basically, he did something as wrong and irresponsible as Bush and Cheney themselves, but by "owning up to it", and "not believing the theory I was putting out", that makes it justified. :crazy:

This, like the example I offered with his "campaign finance reform" that isn't, is another reason Howard Dean should never be president. He uses some kind of inverted simultaneous double-standard. This goes beyond the usual prevaricating of your standard politician.

Dean's guiding philosophy in his campaign:

"What they do is wrong, but I am going to do the same thing as an illustration on WHY it is wrong, and then by virtue of saying so, that makes it okay!"

I for one, am looking forward to more of these slippery rationales. :D

[Jim Sagle]

1. Everyone knows 9-11 was an inside job, yet we're not allowed to say so.

This was Dean's way of saying so.

He dun good.

[booley]

2. I didn't get that at all..

I'm not a dean supporter (i'm actually not a supporter of anybody until after the nominations) but I read the transcript of what dean said.

He was using that theory as an example of the stuff people are saying. His point was, unless Shrub lets the investigation into 9-11 go on unimepeded, these "theories" wil only accumulate like they did for the kennedy assasination.

[Droopy]

3. Dean should have kept his mouth shut on this one

I've seen many people here wishing that more people knew about LIHOP. Look what happens to a guy when he just hints at it. I think Dean exercised poor judgement on this one, but I don't think it disqualifies him.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

20. You mean, like Libertarian, maybe.

Interesting.

[dsc]

5. I hope you aren't being deliberately dishonest

but no computer does that much editting. It is crystal clear what Dean said. He was using that as an example of what happens when you don't release things like the report on 9/11.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

22. The wacko theory about our radar pointing the wrong way?

Or the one that Washington, DC is always protected by 2 squads of fighters at Andrews AFB....except on 9/11?

Sorry, you're new here. You might want to do some research on what really happrened on 9/11. We got plenty of threads and some excellent timelines to point you too (www.cooperativeresearch.org).

MIHOP, LIHOP, or gross negligence....3000 Americans died and Bush was CIC on 9/11/01. We can't get Dimson under oath to tell us what he knew, because his Republican buddies are protecting his sorry ass bigtime. I'd say he deserves to be impeached...don't you?

[dsc]

26. He did no such thing

The people giving it legs are those people who refuse to release the report.

[frustrated_lefty]

8. Do you disavow LIHOP?

[spychoactive]

12. ok a dumb question...

what does LIHOP signify?

i am new here, sorry

[Droopy]

13. Let It Happen On Purpose

In regards to 9/11. Bush knew and he let it happen, assumingly to get us into to war and implement the PNAC strategy.

[oasis]

21. PNAC. Project for a New American Century. A neocon think tank.

www.newamericancentury.org

[frustrated_lefty]

14. It means

"let it happen on purpose." This is opposed to MIHOP..Made it happen on purpose.

[BurtWorm]

15. Let it happen on purpose

I.e., the theory that Bush knew 9-11 was going to happen (maybe not in exact detail and on 9-11, but something big) and let it happen on purpose for some nefarious political purpose.

Personally, I don't subscribe to that theory. I think fundamental incompetence and amateurishness are much more likely to account for the Bush people missing all the signals. But here I am explaining it to you because you asked!

[JailBush]

17. Watch the video.

If you think Bush's actions on 9/11 reflect incompetence, track down the video of Bush in a Florida elementary school on that fateful day. That is indeed an incompetent bozo you're watching - but his inaction reflects far more than incompetence. Bush wears the face of a man who was prepared for what happened, then just shrugged it off as he read a book about a pet goat.

[BurtWorm]

19. Bush is a bozo period.

Maybe that's what Dean thinks too. But here we both are talking about a theory we don't subscribe to because it's out there. Are we evil bastards, or what?

[oasis]

18. Let it Happen on Purpose. The Bushistas ignored 9/11 warnings for

political advantage.

[Myra]

9. I think it's a mistake that hurts the chances of hearing the truth.

Much like when Jim McDermott, one of our best members of congress,
said that Saddam's capture was timed to help Bush. When McDermott
said it I defended him here, and didn't see the harm with him
blurting out the truth. But after deliberating about it some more,
and reading commentary (in Seattle Weekly, which is a sucky
publication but they had a point), I do see the harm.

And the harm is that when there's no supporting evidence
the blurter has to back down. When the blurter backs down it
has a chilling effect on the whole subject. It makes it that much harder to ultimately get to the truth because then the truth
seeker is in "that" discredited conspiracy theorist category.

That's where McDermott and Dean put themselves, even though I share
their opinions. But I'm not a gov't official or running for prez.
So I can openly speculate without the same consequences.
It's best for a gov't official, or candidate, to back up such
claims with evidence.

Dennis Kucinich tends to take some pretty gutsy stances.
He was way out front with Diebold for example.
But from what I've seen he can back them up, so doesn't back down.

[JailBush]

16. You hit the Seattle Weeky right on the head!

You wrote, "Much like when Jim McDermott, one of our best members of congress, said that Saddam's capture was timed to help Bush. When McDermott said it I defended him here, and didn't see the harm with him blurting out the truth. But after deliberating about it some more,
and reading commentary (in Seattle Weekly, which is a sucky
publication but they had a point), I do see the harm."

The Seattle Weeky is a propaganda rag. I read the article you refer to, and it's a classic example of Seattle Weekly propaganda. They write stuff that endears them to SEattle liberals, then they turn around (still pretending to be on the reader's side) and say, "Wait a minute - maybe this candidate is hurting OUR cause by speaking the truth!"

Geov Parrish and one of his fellow media whores were quick to stomp anyone who suggested that Paul Wellstone might have been the victim of foul play - and that theory wasn't even being promoted by any political candidates!

"And the harm is that when there's no supporting evidence
the blurter has to back down. When the blurter backs down it
has a chilling effect on the whole subject."

I'd have to go back and read McDermott's words. I had the impression that he was shooting from the hip, but I still think it was cool (and I'm not a big McDermott fan). The point is, HE PLANTED A SEED OF DOUBT IN THE PUBLIC'S MIND. And his theory wasn't at all outrageous considering what we know about George Bush, Inc.

And NOW, the media are reporting that the Kurds captured Saddam Hussein, which generally supports what McDermott said! My only complaint is that McDermott backed down, at least to some extent.

If a Democratic presidential candidate doesn't suggest Bush may have been involved in a 9/11-related LIHOP or MIHOP strategy, I'm going to be steamed.

[Myra]

27. Yeah JailBush. Seattle Weekly sucks *and* Dean screwed up.

>The Seattle Weeky is a propaganda rag.

Which is why I said it's a "sucky publication."

Then I said they had a point. And they do.

When someone makes a claim with no evidence; it's a smear.
Bush smears people with impunity.
Dem candidates and pols can't get away with it.
Actually they shouldn't get away with it; neither should Bush.

So, if we ultimately want the truth to come out about a subject,
and I think both McDermott and Dean were talkin' truth,
then the truth teller needs to have some credibility.
Blurting things out, with no evidence, often forces the blurter
to backpeddle, which damages their credibility, which plays right
into the liar's hands.
Especially when the blurter is a gov't official or a presidential
candidate.
Then the liar's crow about it.
And that hinders the truth.

It's rookie shit. Picture Dean standing in a presidential debate,
with no further evidence, and sputtering about how Bush knew.
I just know Bush knew...take my word for it.

[sandnsea]

You're 100% right

Back things up with evidence. Some kind of evidence somewhere. Or shut up about it.

[stickdog]

44. The blurter has to back down only if he has no balls.

Luckily, that's not a problem with Dean.

[JailBush]

10. Dean is not my favorite canddiate, but he scored big on this one!

At present, I tend to favor Dennis Kucinich. But Howard Dean ranks high on my list, and he deserves abundant praise for slinging mud at Bush and hinting at conspiracy theories.

Grow up, gang - 9/11 WAS a conspiracy! (Look up the definition of "conspiracy" in a dictionary.) We simply don't know who the conspirators were. But George Bush, Inc. obviously exploited 9/11 for all it's worth, and there's abundant evidence to support LIHOP, and possibly even MIHOP. And some people think Dean should keep his mouth shut because he can't PROVE it? Bush and Co. have probably committed 10,000 crimes that we can't prove - because we don't have access to the documents, phone logs and e-mails.

People who think Dean's attacks are blowing up in his face need to get a grip. Have you not noticed the Bush administration's defensiveness? Why do you think the media call Dean crazy? For crying out loud, it's a smear campaign! I've run for public office three times, and the media have used the same tactics against me. Should I emulate all the stupid Seattle liberals and just cave in and keep my mouth shut?

And if the public remains too STUPID to get it, then there's really no hope for this country. It's now or never - either someone wages a gutsy campaign and beats Bush, or we get another four years of George W. Bush or Republican Lite.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

[Zomby Woof]

33. Dean IS Repub lite!

But JailBush, more to the point, you said you would be steamed if the Democratic candidate doesn't push LIHOP. Well, Dean DISAVOWED LIHOP. Read his quote! He tries having it both ways, and promulgates the theory, then disavows it.

Is that what you want? Waffling? Talking out both sides of his mouth?

Btw, I lived in Seattle for 15 years until recently, so I know the underbelly of the political scene there. I know what a hack press the weeklies are, even the over-vaunted Stranger. I know how bad The Times is - I worked for a media-oriented company during that strike who did business with them.

And I know that if Dean were from Seattle, he would be another Paul Schell or Ron Sims - hacks and phonies all of them.

[Melinda]

11. Would you link to the purported quote, please? Thanks!

[Zomby Woof]

30. The clip of it

And the text of that clip have only been saturating the newspapers for days now. It's everywhere.

[Scott Lee]

36. Suspicious!

But what else am I to expect from the gallery of the rabid Dean opponents?

"The difference is that I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out." - Governor Dean"

I'd bet that was an innocent pronoun confusion (he was speaking as if he were Bush and Cheney), but that would be far too docile an explanation to placate your gut need to smear Dean with any tiny, insignificant flaw you can find.

Bon chance! Keep scrounging!

[OrAnarch]

23. Awesome statement. :)

Threw out a popular theory without asserting it himself, yet getting it mainstream from the mouth of a presidential candidate. Good technique, none the less. Rove may have a match in Trippi, as certain past statements hint.


BTW, context is all important...reading the context of the quote really shows how harmless it was to his campaign and how potentially harmful it would remain to Bush's

[frustrated_lefty]

24. Bingo

[BurtWorm]

25. Exactly.

Why throw out a theory you don't believe in?

A) You were asked about it and it's out there. Kind of like the way DUers explain LIHOP/MIHOP because they know what they mean, not necessarily because they believe in either one.

B) Stick a little knife in the Bushists however you can and let them bleed. Death of a thousand cuts.

[Nazgul35]

37. they call that...

reading skills....maybe the repug destruction of our public schools is starting to take affect....

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Myra]

31. :) Wow. You just managed to insult almost every group here!

Very economical post.

:thumbsup:

[rumguy]

35. what was said?

[drfemoe]

29. whew

I would like to see the original ...quote... too.

This sounds like it might be even better.
The original statmenet was a challenge to dub-u to cooperate with legitimate investigation into the matter. One result would be fewer people speculating about unproven theories. (There will always be conspiracy hunters.)


But it sounds like he is calling the media to task as well. --Don't miss the fact that no one in the admin actually claimed they were advacing Ira* theories in the same sentence as the theory itself.-- The MEDIA seem to be missing this item of interest. They have had to report one scandal after the next, but continue to participate in making them 'non-issues'. We know what happens to reporters who ask 'unhelpful' questions. Maybe Dean is giving them a little reminder?

[spychoactive]

32. thank you kids for answering my question...

this time of day i was almost expecting to get ripped for not knowing...

how about HIHOP...helped it happen on purpose???

i just can't imagine that crew possessing the intelligence and resources, they almost had to have had help to do it seems...

i guess the answer to the original question probably is: percieved political advantage...

one love
spike

[rumguy]

34. He didn't spread a rumor

He merely gave an example of one theory he had heard, and then tied that into the lack of any real investigation into 9/11...saying the lack of any real answers to these real questions leads to theories like that...

[mouse7]

38. Dumbya creating atmosphere for tinhats is an issue

It goes like this. If an incident is fully investigated in a transparent manner, questions people haveabout an incident are answered by the full revelation of all data and evidence regarding an incident. If all facts are there on the table for anyone to see and anyone can go look them in a public library, doubts and questions about said incident go away.

If an incident has a whole lot of information relating to it hidden or never investigated, doubt and questions are allowed to build regarding the information all people have been told regarding said incident.

Let's call this the 2 + 2 = 4 incident.

If a complete and transparant investigation is held that shows there was this number 2 and another number 2 and they were added together and they made 4. The people looking at the incident can see 2 and another 2, then see they add up to 4.

What if it's the x + y = 4 incident. They hide the fact there is one two and never actually investigate the fact another 2 is involved. All they say is that we have a 4. Well, how do we know the government had a 2? Could have been a three or a one. Would the inverstigator have profitted from a 3 being involved instead of a 2. That would seem to indicate it would have been a three, right? They also never actually found out what the y might have been a 4 and this could REALLY be the 2 + 4 = SIX incident.

Not doing a complete investigation causes doubt and ruins the trust a govenment has with the governed. Dean is right to criticise the existance of these "tinhat" theories whether he believes them or not. They are a symptom of less than transparance govenment process that breakdown the social contract that societies must have to function effectively

[drfemoe]

39. Since this part of the post ...

"How is what I did different from what Dick Cheney or George Bush . . . did during the time of the buildup of the invasion of Iraq?" the former Vermont governor said Tuesday night aboard his campaign plane.

.. appears to have been printed or published somewhere, are you hesitant to provide the link, or was it an oversight? If you are hesitant to provide the link, could you explain why? Since it is the fundamental basis of your post, the source document seems relevant.

[poskonig]

40. It sounds like Dean made a hypothesis.

Just because one has a theory doesn't mean its true. In science, for instance, one can draw up several theories to explain a piece of phenomena.

[madfloridian]

41. I liked what he said. Many others did as well. It got people thinking.

Basically this is what he said. Several others that week got courage to speak on things. Thomas Kean verified what he said....that 9/11 was preventable. He is one tape with that.

Here are his quotes from the LA Times, and it sounds like what I heard:
"The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more
than a theory … it can't be proved, is that was warned ahead of time
by the Saudis," Dean said in the interview. He did not elaborate.

He defended the comment Sunday when asked by Fox News about his remarks. "We
don't know what happened," Dean said. " … I can't imagine the president of
the United States doing that. But we don't know and it'd be a nice thing to
know."

Dean continued: "What we do believe is that there was a lot of chatter that
somehow was missed by the CIA and the FBI about this, and that for some
reason we were unable to decide and get clear indications of what the
attacks were going to be. Because the president won't give the information
to the Kean Commission, we really don't know what the explanation is." ......"

He is saying if you keep things secret, people wonder. It was clever, and he really did not say that much. Kean said about the same thing.

I saw Bush sitting in that classroom. I think they could have saved the people in the 2nd tower, and it breaks my heart. Read Kristin Breitweiser's testimony, and she feels the same way. Her husband was in Tower 2. If they knew it was an attack, they should have evacuated the 2nd tower. They could have.

But Bush sat reading about goats. I do not think that is ok.

[drfemoe]

42. one report I read

when I went looking for the sources on my own .. called it a "loony left" theory. This dismissal of information is par for corporate media. .. it's just the loony left fringe .. while they do everything they can to keep it a fringe topic by going along with the cover-up and ignoring *'s refusal to turn over the evidence!

Just can't teach an old hamster new tricks. . spin . spin . spin .

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LizW]

47. Clear and concise statement

Thanks for that, stickdog.

[curse10]

45. Great post ZW

:-)

[TeacherCreature]

46. way twist his words

You never talk about a theory you don't agree with?

[HFishbine]

48. Saying one does not believe a theory and

saying it's untrue are two completely different things. Dean is leaving the door open to the possibility that the theory may yet be proven to be correct. A wise way to keep the issue out there while not allowing himslef to get backed into a corner.

[TopesJunkie]

49. Stretch!

Oh, that feels better.