I suppose it's only fair that I criticize boneheaded comments from Democrats as well as from Republicans. This gem comes from an article in Today's Post:
Dean, for instance, recently spoke of a "most interesting theory" that Saudi Arabia had "warned" Bush about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor.
"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."
Oh, I feel much better now. To be fair, there's an interesting theory -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- that Howard Dean is a moron, or a vampire, or both. Now, who knows what the real situation is?
I will give our President equal time, though. In this interview with Diane Sawyer, Bush was pressed about the WMD issue:
Diane Sawyer: ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. ... stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
President Bush: So what's the difference? ... The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you.
Did we always have such crappy politicians?
Posted by cradle at December 18, 2003 10:46 PMI imagine that not nearly so many comments that are made on the campaign trail are actually quoted as not, but everything that is, is normally taken to one extreme of spin and/or the other fairly quickly. I got a chuckle out of Dean deciding to not make apologies for this one.
I am going to wait until he is elected to compare Dean's crappiness to Dubya.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 18, 2003 11:46 PMI suppose there is a difference but that's really grasping at straws.
I don't think it's responsible for someone who is such a public figure to seriously acknowledge such grandiose claims without any sort of eviddence cited. Sure, I don't trust GW, but I don't think he'd give tacit approval of a terrorist attack just to get the public riled up enough to support his defense spending initiatives.
As far as my lack of significant disapproval of Dean's comments goes, though, I don't think you should apologize for talking about something that you don't believe when you disclaimer it by saying that you don't believe it. Inattentive people will overblow the significance of the comment but I think there is only a minimal amount of responsibility that someone can have for that.
Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2003 3:00 PMI don't want to let Dean off that easily. I'm making up an example that's more black and white than what we have here, to clarify my point.
Suppose, in 2000, Bush had said during an interview, "Now, there's an interesting theory -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- that President Clinton had Vince Foster murdered."
People would probably have raised a fuss, and rightly so. It's one thing to introduce unsubstantiated theories if the subject matter isn't as serious. I could say there's an interesting theory that we'd be living under German rule today if the assasination attempt on Hilter had succeeded. It's just a theory, and it can't be proved. There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. But Dean's making a serious accusation.
Posted by: David at December 19, 2003 6:06 PMHoward Dean is the Democratic GW Bush.
I'm still waiting for the Republican Bill Clinton...
Posted by: Tom at December 19, 2003 6:58 PMAt the beginning of the campaign for the Democratic nomination, I was a Dean supporter. Lately, I had been wavering. Now I simply cannot vote for him.
Posted by: Dan at December 20, 2003 1:41 PMI want to add something else.
At a campaign appearance in Iowa on Sunday, Dean asked his opponents to end their attacks on him, saying, "It's not necessary to tear down the other opponents."
Anyone who has followed the campaign with only a passing interest knows that Dean hasn't exactly been shy about attacking his opponents.
With each passing day, he becomes an increasingly unattractive candidate.
Posted by: Dan at December 21, 2003 9:36 PMI'll still be voting for Dean if it comes down
to him and Bush.
Tom said, "I'm still waiting for the Republican Bill Clinton..."
I'm still waiting for the democratic Bill Clinton. ;)
Posted by: Maureen at December 22, 2003 2:17 PMMaureen: Score!
Posted by: David at December 22, 2003 6:17 PMOf course I'd vote for Dean in the general election. But I wouldn't be watching the returns that evening to see who wins. I'd be watching to see how the results compare to the landslides of 1964, 1972, and 1984.
Posted by: Dan at December 23, 2003 1:04 AM