And then a few days later he said he didn't believe that. He said he heard this. I see no problem. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt you, basso, ima_drummer2k or bnb would either.
seriously?? i mean give me SOME credit...i try to be fairly objective, my political leanings notwithstanding. i just think it's intensely careless to go around dropping suggestions that the president knew this stuff like we're talking on a bbs message board. particularly from someone who was an elected official and who is seeking the highest office in the land. i'd call that a mistake.
on second thought...fine...let him keep saying crap like that. he'll mcgovern himself to a landslide.
Yes, he did say that. And if you go to the whole transcript he's using it as an example of the kind of wild story that develops when there is stonewalling from the white house on the issue.
Right up there with the OBL-Sadam-9/11 link that the WH dropped on us on the the way to war. Or Iraq's reconstituted nukulur program. Or ... But then again breaking international laws via a pre-emptive war is not as serious as say a domestic crime like treason (which btw is a real f*cking stretch since the incompetence card could be played).
I'm not taking any credit away from you, I know you're one of the more objective conservatives, both here and in real life. I just meant that this is really such a non-story that Novak has turned into a story by pretty much flat out lying. If it was a liberal hack who wrote this, I'm pretty sure you'd be on our side (and, admittedly, we'd probably be on your side).
Caller: Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not stonewall it? Dean: Yes. There is a report, which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11. Rehm: Why do you think he's suppressing that report? Dean: I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far--which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved--is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not. And eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that should go to the Kean commission.
Word of advice, everytime you see a guy with a questionable rep like Novak put a bunch ellipses in the middle of a quote in one of his hatchet jobs, check the transcript. What makes it even worse is that this is a ripoff of a week old Charles Krauthammer piece. So he loses more points.
I should have credited you. It frustrates me so that something we went over just a few days ago gets brought up again with the same predictable reponses that I neglected to mention your contribution. Thanks.
He did know what he was doing. He was making the point that until we have an open investigation that chases down and reports ALL of the facts, people will come out of the woodworks with all kinds of unsubstantiated rumors like the example he used. Those of you who are acting like Dean believes this nonsense need to take a remedial reading comprehension class or learn to get over your selective perception.
I think the continued press this gets from conservatives is evidence that none of us accept that this was some sort of innocent slip by Dean. I don't think he believes it's true, yet he's trying to have it both ways. besmirch the integrity of the administration with reckless charges, and deny he was making the association. it was calculated for effect, and conservatives are calling him on it. liberals call "refreshingly direct" conservatives see as deviously reckless.
If the conservative press was truly concerned about this evidence, then why not present all of the evidence instead of relying on ellipses? For the record, I don't think it was an innocent slip by Dean either. However, we differ on the charge he's making. The way I see it is he's trying to pressure Bush into a full accounting of 9-11, knowing of course, that Bush (Rove) will never allow that to happen. This allows Dean to ratchet up the criticism on the issue from here on out and no matter how much the Bush guys cry "National Security!" it's going to look more shallow and venal the more people look at just how this investigation is proceeding. This will be a "wedge" if you will, into Bush's reliance on and exploitation of 9-11. Bush has skated for three years without any real criticism and certainly without any concerted opposition. That's about to change.
Apples and oranges. The next year is going to be nasty and butal from both sides. Of course, Dems have the advantage in that we'll be on the side of truth and all things good.
He said that before he was questioned about it. On NPR they asked him about what Bush knew and he said the he heard a theory and clearly mentioned he wasn't saying the theory was true, but that there was an interesting theory that Bush was warned about 9/11 by the Saudis. When he was questioned by someone trying to make an issue out of a non-issue he said it again. Howard Dean never came close to asserting that the President knew about 9/11 from the Saudis before it happened. He didn't say anyting at all wrong in the NPR interview and the more people want to try to make something of it, the more the original interview will be played and the more people will see that it was no big deal. Dean told the truth. That is an interesting theory out there. I don't believe it, and Dean never said that he did either. He did claim prior to saying it that it was just a theory and that it should not be considered a fact.
