Column on Dean

[Guest JMA]

It's in Franken's book for all to see

Yeah. I saw it there. However, it was first all over the net.

[Guest MikeSC]

WALLACE: Governor, there is this continuing question, even in your own party, about whether you're fit, whether you're up to being commander in chief. And I want to ask you about a radio interview that you did earlier this week. You were asked about the president suppressing information about what he knew pre-9/11, and here's what you said.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

DEAN: The most interesting theory that I have heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

WALLACE: The most interesting theory is that the president was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Why would you say that, Governor?

 

DEAN: Because there are people who believe that. We don't know what happened in 9/11. Tom Kean is trying to get some information from the president...

 

WALLACE: Do you believe that?

 

DEAN: ... which doesn't -- no, I don't believe that. 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.

 

WALLACE: I'm just curious why you would call that the most interesting theory.

 

DEAN: Because it's a pretty odd theory. 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 what 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.

You know what's ironic?

 

You keep on burying Dean with your attempts to refute me.

-=Mike

...Read the last bolded section of the piece

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

He was referring to what he just said regarding "DEAN: Because it's a pretty odd theory. 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 what were going to be. "

 

BUT YES, ANYTHING TO DEFAME DEAN. GO BUSH 2004!

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

He was referring to what he just said regarding "DEAN: Because it's a pretty odd theory. 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 what were going to be. "

 

BUT YES, ANYTHING TO DEFAME DEAN. GO BUSH 2004!

Geez, are you ever NOT sodomizing Howie?

 

You keep burying him.

 

He is still saying Bush knew ahead of time --- he's just being snide about it now.

 

Goodie for him.

 

He's still unelectable --- I just worry how you will handle it when the inevitable occurs.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Geez, are you ever NOT sodomizing Howie?

 

I would echo that statement for you and President Bush.

 

He is still saying Bush knew ahead of time --- he's just being snide about it now.

 

Source, please. Don't "interpret" his words, either; find the speech or interview in which he says explicitly that he believes that.

[C Dubya 04 0]

To preface this, I am definitely not a Dean supporter. I think that he flip flops on a lot of issues, and that is a dangerous characteristic to have in a President.

 

That being said, I think it's quite a stretch to make the leap and say that Dean is saying "Bush knew ahead of time". Dean's point is that any theory can be put in place, and it is impossible to prove or disprove without all of the evidence. And Bush clearly did not disclose significant portions of the evidence to the public.

 

No sane person could possibly believe that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen and allowed it.

[Guest Cerebus]

No sane person could possibly believe that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen and allowed it.

People used to say that about FDR...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Were they really sane?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Because the president won't give the information to the Kean commission we really don't know what the explanation is.

 

Couldn't the President be subpoenead (pardon the spelling) in that regard?

 

Mind you, I don't think that Dean is stating that the President knew ahead of time, only that he is withholding information that could help the investigation. Which is suspicious, in any means, but that's not the point.

 

No sane person could possibly believe that Bush knew the attacks were going to happen and allowed it. 

 

People used to say that about FDR...

 

Conspiracy theorists are having a field day with 9/11. Personally, I think that the United States missed some crucial information. Was it intentional, or just plain stupidity on the part of both the CIA and FBI? I don't know yet. Not enough information.

 

The point I want to make is that Dean is trying to make the statement that the President has not given all of the information he has available to give to the Kean Commission, which looks suspicious. Is he accusing? No, at least not yet. And I hope he doesn't, either, because that would be political suicide.

 

For those wondering...I support Dean

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Couldn't the President be subpoenead (pardon the spelling) in that regard?

 

No.

[Guest MikeSC]

Geez, are you ever NOT sodomizing Howie?

 

I would echo that statement for you and President Bush.

I called his signing the Medicare bill idiotic and his signing of McCain-Feingold a horrible decision.

 

Right there is more criticism than you've had for Dean.

He is still saying Bush knew ahead of time --- he's just being snide about it now.

 

Source, please. Don't "interpret" his words, either; find the speech or interview in which he says explicitly that he believes that.

The one you posted does that. Duh.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

How many libs call themselves liberal? Liberals confuse the terms moderate or centrist for liberal. I know there are some VERY left-wing people on this VERY board who refer to themselves as "moderates" yet they are far more to the left than the "conservatives" on this board are to the right. A liberal saying they aren't a liberal --- and liberals bitching that a liberal isn't liberal ENOUGH --- doesn't mean they're NOT a liberal. It means Dean isn't a Socialist.

I identify myself as a Liberal. And I'm pretty damn proud of that fact. Who exactly are these posters who confuse "liberal" with "moderate"?

 

In any case, conservatives have been known to do the same thing (see O'Reilly, Bill), so it's not just a left-wing thing.

O'Reilly has said he is a conservative. He said he's not a Republican (which isn't true, mind you). You can be a conservative and not be a Republican. O'Reilly is a populist wannabe.

 

And what people here? Well, Paragon of Virtue pops to mind immediately.

-=Mike

Zuh? I'm just looking through the thread when all of a sudden my name pops up as a moderate wannabe commie red pinko fag liberal. Whatever. For some reason I knew that when JMA asked you to name some Liberals in disguise I'd be brought up. I'd ask why, but I don't really care.

 

-=Dan=-, who knows that high school kids have political views that are messed up when HE's the ultra right wing conservative in class, at least as far as America goes. I guess that's just typical of anti-authority teenagers. In a Catholic school though, I'm pretty much the ultra left wing liberal on most social issues who *gasp* thinks gay people should be allowed to marry. Most of them haven't heard of "naming a source" either. It's pretty funny though, I have a good time.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Let's look at the Ivins screed linked:

Well, first of all remember that I linked to it saying that it was a blatantly partisan editorial.

 

How many libs call themselves liberal? Liberals confuse the terms moderate or centrist for liberal. I know there are some VERY left-wing people on this VERY board who refer to themselves as "moderates" yet they are far more to the left than the "conservatives" on this board are to the right.

 

You've never seen me go on about state issues, I take it? I suddently turn into a cold Republican when it turns into homeless handouts, illegal immigrants, teaching school in other languages, etc.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

[QUOET]I called his signing the Medicare bill idiotic and his signing of McCain-Feingold a horrible decision.

Don't forget those nifty steel tariffs.

 

Now I have to get back in line for my weekly dose of Kool-Aid...

[Guest Cerebus]

All this talk about labels...This sounds like a stupid after school special but why can't we think what we think and talk intelligently on a message board about it and not get slapped with a name that restricts it...you know forget I said it. Jobber is a closet conservative, Mike SC is an arch-conservative, Tyler is a lock-step liberal, KKK is an angry white guy, I'm an authoritarian, and Marney is a facist.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

All this talk about labels...This sounds like a stupid after school special but why can't we think what we think and talk intelligently on a message board about it and not get slapped with a name that restricts it.

What's the fun in that?

 

...you know forget I said it. Jobber is a closet conservative, Mike SC is an arch-conservative, Tyler is a lock-step liberal, KKK is an angry white guy, I'm an authoritarian, and Marney is a facist.

 

No, you're a Palestinian Christian. Don't forget it either...

[Guest Cerebus]

All this talk about labels...This sounds like a stupid after school special but why can't we think what we think and talk intelligently on a message board about it and not get slapped with a name that restricts it.

What's the fun in that?

 

...you know forget I said it. Jobber is a closet conservative, Mike SC is an arch-conservative, Tyler is a lock-step liberal, KKK is an angry white guy, I'm an authoritarian, and Marney is a facist.

 

No, you're a Palestinian Christian. Don't forget it either...

Sir! No Sir!

 

[Firestarter 0]

Howard Dean is the only guy who goes to the Beverly Hills area for a gravitas implant. He went to the St. Regis Hotel, a mile from Rodeo Drive, to deliver a major foreign policy speech, and suddenly Dr. Angry turned into the Rev. Dull and Worthy.

 

The guy who has been inveighing against the Iraq war as the second coming of Vietnam spent his time talking about intelligence agency coordination as if he had been suckled at the Council on Foreign Relations. The guy who just a few days ago stood next to Al Gore as the former vice president called Iraq the worst mistake in American history has suddenly turned sober... the speech was respectable and serious. Coming on the same day as President Bush's hastily called news conference, it affords us the opportunity to compare the two men's approaches to the war on terror...

 

George Bush fundamentally sees the war on terror as a moral and ideological confrontation between the forces of democracy and the forces of tyranny. Howard Dean fundamentally sees the war on terror as a law and order issue...

 

Bush believes that God has endowed all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the most important of which is liberty... he speaks of the war on terror as a conflict between those who seek to advance liberty to realize justice, and those who oppose the advance of liberty... Bush believes the U.S. has a unique role to play in this struggle...

 

Judging by his speech yesterday, Dean does not believe the U.S. has an exceptional role to play in world history... he emphasized that the U.S. should strive to strengthen global institutions. He argued that the war on terror would be won when international alliances worked together...

 

Dean is not a modern-day Woodrow Wilson... he spoke of international institutions as if they were big versions of the National Governors Association, as places where pragmatic leaders can go to leverage their own resources and solve problems.

 

The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.

 

At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible.

 

In the world Dean describes, people, other than a few bizarre terrorists, would be working together if not for Bush. In the Dean worldview, all problems are matters of technique and negotiation.

 

Dean tried yesterday to show how sober and serious he could be. In fact, he has never appeared so much the dreamer, so clueless about the intellectual and cultural divides that really do confront us and with which real presidents have to grapple.

- Dreams and Glory by David Brooks

 

A good article (in the New York Times, surprisingly enough) which clearly delineates the probable choice confronting us in 2004. Either vote for the moral illiterate who doesn't even understand the nature of the war, let alone how to win it, or vote for President Bush. Pretty simple.

 

NB: all boldface mine.

[BX 0]

[Guest Cerebus]

Wow The Modern World has gets less funny EACH time I read it! And the Republicans are thriving on innuendo huh? This is funny coming from the Democrats who are hinting he knew about 9/11...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Wow The Modern World has gets less funny EACH time I read it! And the Republicans are thriving on innuendo huh? This is funny coming from the Democrats who are hinting he knew about 9/11...

Actually, this is coming from one internet political cartoonist who I sincerely doubt believes anything as ridiculous as that.

 

I like the picture of Karl Rove, because he looks like a gumdrop.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow The Modern World has gets less funny EACH time I read it! And the Republicans are thriving on innuendo huh? This is funny coming from the Democrats who are hinting he knew about 9/11...

I remember years ago when I would read his stuff regularly I usually got a few laughs a month, but these few that have been posted here aren't all that good...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The Scalia ones from Tom the Dancing Bug are always my favorite in this genre. What a bad-ass.

[Justice 0]

Well, if you want something utterly hilarious, then go here. I never thought I'd see anything like this before.

 

Edit: And since we got cartoons going....

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Either vote for the moral illiterate who doesn't even understand the nature of the war, let alone how to win it, or vote for President Bush. Pretty simple.

I find it similar to choosing between Colin Powell and that General Boykin fella who sat and told his church that "our God" is stronger than theirs and how we're fighting Satan, etc etc etc.

 

Do I want the more cautious guy, or the hardheaded determined guy? I don't agree with the determined guys ideology on the issue, but he'll probably get it over with faster. In the end though, it's like that old line...

 

"You're a loose cannon!"

"But I get results!"

 

I don't agree with Bush's financial policies. I don't agree with his social policies. I don't agree with the high amounts of secrecy in which he shrouds himself with and I especially don't like doing it at the expense of turning US relations with various countries back 15 years. I don't like buggering with Canada just because their government isn't so involved in the process of marriage and they won't make people rot in jail for trying weed. I don't like increasing spending and cutting taxes at the same time.

 

And I'm not exactly hard to please here. I'm not asking for universal health care or Socialism. Interior conservatism has it's place but conservatism is nearly dead in the rest of the western world (OMG KOMMUNIST EUROPE~!**!*~*~), and neoconservatism foreign policy has resulted in the rest of the world claiming America is a bully. And I'm not just talking about France here. It's pretty sad when Americans are told their constitutional rights are not valid beyond "free speech zones" ON US SOIL because there's so many people who disagree with the man so vehemently that they'll appear and voice their displeasure.

 

If I have to gamble the end of these situations against the infintessimal possibility another 9/11 might happen (and I think it exists under a Bush administration as well, we're just telling each other it doesn't until we believe it), then I'm willing to take that bet.

[Firestarter 0]

If I have to gamble the end of these situations against the infintessimal possibility another 9/11 might happen... then I'm willing to take that bet.

I'm sure your smug complacency would be a great comfort to those who would die in the next 9/11, and their families and friends. But I'm glad the President has a different view on the matter:

 

"My job is to keep America secure. That's my job. I've got a solemn duty to do everything I can to protect the American people. I will never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. Terrorists attacked us. They killed thousands of our fellow citizens. And it could happen again. And, therefore, I will deal with threats - threats that are emerging and real... I acted because... I have a duty to protect this country. And I will continue to protect the country, so long as I'm the President of the United States."

 

And that is precisely why President Bush will be re-elected in 2004.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm sure your smug complacency would be a great comfort to those who would die in the next 9/11, and their families and friends.

And again, the idea that it won't happen and can't happen under a Bush term is just something you're telling yourself for comfort. You probably thought it wouldn't have happened the first time, either.

 

This isn't a world coming together and doing something about it's dictators and scum like it should be. Like it could have been*. This has been an operation that's very clearly directed by the US served in a "our way or the highway 'cause you can't do anything about it" attitude that neoconservatives have thought should have been happening a long time ago, but is diplomatically destructive.

 

* And I'm not saying that we needed to woo governments that were obviously out to see us fail in the first place, such as France. And at the same time, some of our current "allies" which are here to score brownie points should be properly identified as part of the problem (i.e. Saudis.) What I'm saying is that it's difficult to talk about a "coalition of the willing" while at the same time declaring anyone who doesn't commit to be aiding terrorism.

[Firestarter 0]

And again, the idea that it won't happen and can't happen under a Bush term is just something you're telling yourself for comfort.

I'm not telling myself anything of the sort. No one I know is telling himself anything of the sort. No one on this board or anywhere else has ever said anything of the sort. Where did you come up with that idea? Just pulled it out of your ass and decided to attribute it to "current conservative opinion" because you thought it sounded stupid enough?

 

The fact remains that another terrorist attack is far less likely to occur if the President's policies continue to be enacted. Since all the Democratic candidates disagree sharply with the President's policies, the logical conclusion is that terrorist attacks are far less likely to occur if the President is re-elected. QED.

 

You probably thought it wouldn't have happened the first time, either.

And how have you reached that conclusion? Have I said anything, anything at all, to make you believe that? Or is it just because I'm a Republican, therefore I must be stupid, therefore I never thought anything like 9/11 could happen?

 

This... attitude... is diplomatically destructive.

Oh, good. What the world needs most is fewer and better diplomats, and much less diplomacy. Diplomacy gets people killed, and I prefer war. It's more honest, far more effective, and the body count is always lower.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The fact remains that another terrorist attack is far less likely to occur if the President's policies continue to be enacted.

How do you know this? We kept having our Terror Alerts bumped to Orange in the past few years, with the government swearing honest to God there could be a terrorist attack sometime soon. It never happened, but who's to say it couldn't have?

 

It's also sad that you no-sold everything else I said from the cutting & spending to the Free Speech Zones. I don't know if it's because you have nothing to say about this or you simply prefer to keep gushing about what a hero George W is. So let me continue along those lines and show you why the Democrats are right that we need to hand more over to allies and the Iraqis. I believe what I'm saying here is factually correct, but since you're the person with the Defense Department hookup, you can correct me if what I'm saying is dated or wrong:

 

The US Army has 31 brigades.

 

The government usually likes to have 1/3rd of the brigades in battle, 1/3rd on standby, and 1/3rd resting.

 

We are currently using 21 of the brigades in the war on terror.

 

Okay, now I'm done with that. What happens if a North Korea or some other country attacks us? We don't have the resources. We don't have the troops to fight that.

[Justice 0]

Okay, now I'm done with that. What happens if a North Korea or some other country attacks us? We don't have the resources. We don't have the troops to fight that.

Uh, point in case: North Korea barely has enough food to feed its people at the moment. If anything, it would be a nuclear attack, and the response to that is pretty obvious. We aren't at risk of being attacked or invaded by any nation because geography argues against it: You'd have to get past the strongest Navy in the World to have a shot at it.