http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20031211.shtml Dean's urban legend Robert Novak (back to web version) | Send December 11, 2003 WASHINGTON -- It was bad enough when Howard Dean, interviewed on National Public Radio Dec. 1, spread a conspiracy theory that George W. Bush ignored Saudi Arabian warnings of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was worse Dec. 7 on "Fox News Sunday," when the Democratic presidential front-runner neither apologized nor repudiated himself for passing along this urban legend. None of Dean's frantic opponents for the nomination immediately took him to task, not wanting to defend the hated Republican president. A week later, however, they contemplated whether the doctor posed too easy a general election target for President Bush. Al Gore's surprise endorsement boosts Dean among Democrats but surely does not make him more electable. A half-hour after Dean alarmed party regulars over television Sunday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on NBC titillated worried Democrats by hesitating at closing the door for 2004. Although her prospects of being nominated for president remain minimal, normally sober Democrats are looking toward Mrs. Clinton in 2004 because of apprehension about what Dean could do to the party. Unlike George McGovern in 1972, Dean's core problem is not ideological. It is loose lips: fabricating the story of a patient impregnated by her father, seeking support from pickup truck drivers with Confederate flags, and seemingly exulting in his draft deferment for a bad back. Nothing so worries old-style Democratic politicians, however, as proclaiming the apocryphal warning from Saudi Arabia. In his Dec. 1 interview on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show," Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . ," Dean responded, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." This received scant media attention (except for Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer), but Democratic politicians shuddered. Dean was given a chance to back off six days later by Chris Wallace, debuting as "Fox News Sunday's" moderator. "I don't believe that," the candidate said, then added: "But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know." He concluded: "Because the president won't give information to the Kean Commission, we really don't know what the explanation is." After playing to Bush-haters who listen to National Public Radio, Dean repeated the same canard to Fox's Sunday morning mainstream viewers. None of Dean's opponents raised the issue during Tuesday night's debate in Durham, N.H., but moderator Scott Spradling of WMUR TV did. Dean still defended publicizing what he now called a "crazy" theory. Where did Dean pick it up? A Dean spokesman told this column it was "out there." A rival Democratic candidate's campaign suspected it came from "some blog." The Russian newspaper Pravda published reports that Jordan's and Morocco's intelligence -- not Saudi Arabia's -- gave the CIA advance knowledge. The World Socialists circulated a story that the Saudi royal family knew of the attack in advance. Somehow, the urban legend penetrated Dean's mind. "It's McCarthyism in reverse," one 35-year Democratic political veteran told me. "Dean doesn't understand that he's accusing Bush of something worse than an impeachable offense. It's treason." He and several other Democrats that I contacted all expressed the fear that Bush's political operatives will shred an opposing presidential candidate that undisciplined. As worries about Dean's nomination rise inside the Democratic establishment, hopes of stopping him diminish -- particularly after the Gore endorsement. To slow Dean even temporarily, Rep. Dick Gephardt must stop him in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 19. That's why these worried Democrats were stirred by Hillary Clinton Sunday on "Meet the Press." After an impressive performance answering Tim Russert's policy questions, the former first lady would not flatly promise to turn down a presidential draft. "The nomination -- it's not going to be offered to me," she insisted. "But if it did happen?" asked Russert. "You know, I have, I am -- ," she stammered. "I think the door is opening a bit, Senator," Russert concluded. "Oh, no, it's not," Clinton shot back. Finally, when pressed to say she would "never" accept the 2004 nomination, she said, "I am not accepting the nomination." That was ambivalent enough to intrigue Democratic worriers. It's a slender reed, but still reason for them to think that Hillary Clinton might be there if Howard Dean self-immolates by next summer. They are thinking such thoughts because their prospective nominee is spinning wild conspiracy theories.
speaking of conservative articles about Dean. did anyone catch that George Will column about Dean yesterday? that was perhaps the weakest thing I've ever read.
It was bad enough when Howard Dean, interviewed on National Public Radio Dec. 1, spread a conspiracy theory that George W. Bush ignored Saudi Arabian warnings of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was worse Dec. 7 on "Fox News Sunday," when the Democratic presidential front-runner neither apologized nor repudiated himself for passing along this urban legend. The lesson here is that it is a bad thing to lie while running for president but it is OK after you get elected.
I saw the debate. Dean said that he did not believe the rumors, but until Bush quits trying to suppress the results of the 9/11 investigation it will lead to the spread of rumors. As we saw Novak helped the Bush Whitehouse out Plame, a CIA agent working to prevent the spread of wmd. I suppose it is no surprise that Novak wouldn't hesitate to write stuff like this if he thought it somehow helped the reelection of Bush and increase support for the occupation of Iraq. As Novak as widely seen as a stright forward shill for the Whitehouse, expect more of this as Dean grows stronger. It will be a dirty campagn for sure.
do you think this only comes from one side of the political fence?? and how is this "dirty?" this isn't personal life stuff...this is a comment on something absolutely within the realm of white house politics. this is commentary on comments made on news shows and in debates...if you think that's dirty, you ought to check out some of rimrocker's favorite articles!
Novak is the same beeyotch who helped the Bush administration takes its revenge on the CIA operative couple that outed the "Niger yellowcake" falsehood. So he's about one notch above vermin. And by the way, Dean is dead-on about 9/11. If FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking us to completely change the national mood for war, why shouldn't we want to know what the Bush administration isn't telling us? They haven't told the truth so far. What are they hiding? And if they aren't hiding anything, why the secrecy? The same old chestnut: "National security."
It's dirty because he took a phrase and deliberately disregarded the context and surrounding phrases to portray Dean as saying the opposite of what he actually said. He wasn't saying this is what I believe, he was saying this is out there and if Bush doesn't provide good informjation about what really happened then these kinds of things will continue. I will admit Dean is not the greatest crafter of sentences and his lead in as this being the "Most interesting" was perhaps a poor choice of words, but it's clear from the following thoughts what he meant. And if you're going to hang Dean on language issues, I assume you'll apply the same strict standards to Bush. Also, please point out some of my favorite dirty articles. (I don't think I've posted anything from Penthouse Forum here, but I'd still like to know what you mean by the reference.)
Even reading through the shrill that is Novak, his criticism of the Saudi comment is valid. That was a very serious allegation. Treason would be too kind a term if George did know. To toss a goodie out like that, even with the qualifier of "well i don't believe it but here's what i've heard" is chicken sh*t politics. He's feeding the urban legend and making the connection. And he knows it. He shouldn't do this unless he's very sure he's right. And he should be prepared to defend that comment -- and name sources, if he's going to toss it into the debate. As I've said before....there's so much stuff for which ol' George deserves to be smacked, that this stuff is uncalled for. Oh...and one more thing. Hillary in 2008! (Y'all could do a lot worse).
my point was that this is politcal commentary/criticism...just like the kind you post here nearly every day.
that's the entire point that's being made...and i think it's pretty legitimate...you do a better job of stating the point than Novak did.
I see nothing wrong with Dean bringing it up because he's exactly right. And Novak's wrong (per usual) by completely misrepresenting Dean's comments.
I'm waiting for Novak to endanger the security of Howard Dean's wife, considering that's been his m.o. Maybe he'll publish the drive she takes to work or something.
Yeah, Valerie Plame is really zealous in guarding her anonymity. that's why she posed for the January issue of Vanity Fair...
right about what?? he drops it out there...and then just leaves it sitting there. it's a HUGE bombshell if it's true...it's treason by the president of the united states of america. and he drops it casually...and then when questioned on it says, "well, that's just what i heard." reminds me of junior high.
He's right that there are people that believe that and Bush isn't doing any favors by either not allowing a full investigation into 9/11 or not releasing the results of an investigation. Novak completely misrepresented what Dean said, however. But, he's an ass anyway.
i don't know...but he did he not say this??": In his Dec. 1 interview on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show," Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . ," Dean responded, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."
