The following series of ten (10) posts named "DECONSTRUCTING [Howard] DEAN" is my deconstruction of the transcript of the Democratic National Committee Chair's interview on NBC News' Meet The Press from last Sunday, May 22, 2005.
Use the "View Archives" search (above) to view the conclusion of the interview, or "DECONSTRUCTING DEAN: On Embracing Socialism and the Future."
Enjoy.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. The Republicans say on Tuesday that if the Democrats do not stop filibustering their judicial appointments made by President Clinton--President Bush, they will change the rules for the filibuster. What will that change mean?
DR. DEAN: I think the change will be dreadful for American democracy, and I think it's going to be, frankly, very bad for the Republican Party. One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country. If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, and it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve. [No, it means they’ll have a vote on whether or not those judges will serve the federal judiciary.] We've confirmed 205 of his judges. He wants those last 10, so they're willing to change the rules to do it. [Just like you’re willing to abuse the rules to block them.]
But it has much worse implications. The president has a Social Security plan, which is kind of out there. He basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron. [American taxpayers?] Privatization is something the American people don't support by a very large margin. [We’ve never yet voted on or tried it.] Without extended debate, he can march marshal his party and just ram it right through. [Debate requires two parties sharing ideas, right?] They already ram things through the House. We need more than one party in charge. [Then stop losing elections. That’s another “genius of democracy.”] And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever. [Those who didn’t vote for the President still could have voted for more Democrats in Congress. That was the actual critical vote here.]
MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans say the filibuster rules being changed would apply to judicial nominations not to legislation like Social Security.
DR. DEAN: That's what they say now. What possible indication is there they won't change their mind later? [Answer: That you’re the only person who’s raised the idea.] We could not have predicted when the Republicans were killing 25 of President Clinton's judges when President Clinton was in office [“killing,” AKA, voting NO during an actual up-or-down vote in Congress], we couldn't have predicted that they were going to resort to this [AKA, responding to the congressional quagmire Democrats have suffered upon these judicial vote proceedings] when they got into office. The problem with this, frankly, for the Republicans, is, first of all, Congress is at its lowest popularity rating since – actually since 1993 when we were in power. [Not according to every national election since 1998, which is the only legitimate test (not some random poll of the week).] And secondly, this is an advertisement to the American people, who suspect it--suspect something may go wrong when only one party is in charge. And one party is pretty well in charge in Washington. [Thank God for Democracy.] This is the last opportunity the Democrats have to say anything about public policy. It is a very big mistake, I think, for America. But it's a huge mistake for the Republican Party to do this. [Mr. Dean, when do you plan to explain your response to the actual point that was raised?]
MR. RUSSERT: Do the Republicans have the votes to do it?
DR. DEAN: I don't know. They say they do. I have no way of knowing what the vote counts are in the Senate. [Howard Dean (H.D.), 5/22/05: “If the filibuster is gotten rid of… it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve.”] But, again, I hope they won't. [Yet you know they’re going to try the nuclear option with Social Security?] Someday, the Democrats will be back in charge again. [Despite losing four consecutive national elections by increasingly larger numbers.] Do we want a Democratic Party that's in charge of everything? Well, you know, I suppose it's my job to say yes. But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power. [So we can have even bigger stalemates?] It's better when even those people who didn't win the election have something to say. [No, Mr. Dean, you win elections to have more authority. That’s the entire point.]
MR. RUSSERT: Republicans will say that the Democrats are speaking a different tune now than they did when they were in control. Robert Byrd, when he was a majority leader in '79, said, "Now, we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past."
And the filibuster used to need 67 votes. They [Democrats] changed it to 60.
DR. DEAN: Mm-hmm. [Powerful response.]
MR. RUSSERT: Pat Leahy, your colleague from Vermont [whom Dick Cheney once told to go “F” himself], said, "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators."
DR. DEAN: Well, here's the problem. Look, I have nothing against up or down votes on people. [H.D., 5/22/05: “If the filibuster is gotten rid of, the extended debate is gotten rid of in the Senate, first of all, and it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve.”] I think that's a good thing. The problem is that--I'll give you an example. When I was governor [good example so far], I felt like everybody was my boss, whether they voted for me or against me, they paid my salary, and they would participate in the hiring process. So when I went out to town meetings and so forth and so on, I heard from everybody, all takers, whatever they wanted to lay on me. President Bush, for example, goes to these town meetings and doesn't allow Democrats or Independents who disagree with him into the town meeting. [Bold-faced lie.] He has a crew of people who keep them out. [I attended a Bush campaign speech in late October that Bush-protesters also attended. They wore non-vulgar, anti-Bush t-shirts. One had a non-vulgar anti-Bush sign.] This is a little bit like that. Don't those of us who didn't vote for the president, the 48 percent of Americans [who lost], don't we have some say? When the Republicans were in power [they’re not anymore?], they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench. [This is another lie. Besides, this was after having a VOTE, Mr. Dean – which is the point of the question.] They didn't do it with the filibuster, they did it by bottling them up in committee and not allowing them to move forward.
MR. RUSSERT: The numbers are pretty similar actually. [HA!]
DR. DEAN: OK. They're similar. [Whoa! So you just admitted you lied. Had Mr. Russert not called you on it, you’d have been perfectly content with your bold-faced lie conjured from thin air.] Now, the Democrats are doing the same thing. [H.D., 5/22/05: “When the Republicans were in power, they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench.”] I think of course the party in power is going to argue against it. But if you look at what's good for America, not what's good for the Republican Party, what the Republicans want to do is not good for America. [Which you just admitted Democrats used to do.] I would argue that it's not very good in the long run for the Republican Party either. You can't cut the minority, especially if the minority is a very large one like 48 percent, totally out of everything. [They’re not trying to. They’d love for the minority to vote yes or no for these judicial nominations.] It's a matter of checks and balances. [*Remember this reference for later.*] Look at the terrible things that are going on in Congress today. You have a Republican leader who has been admonished three times by the Ethics Committee, and his response is to get rid of the Ethics Committee [nice attempt to change the subject because you’re rambling] or render them inoperable. Now, those kinds of things are less likely to go on if you have....
MR. RUSSERT: But that's been changed back.
DR. DEAN: Yeah, but now he's up for a fourth reprimand and he's being investigated by the district attorney. [(1) An investigation or admonishment isn’t an indictment or conviction; and (2) Maybe if the Ethics Committee actually had valid claims, they wouldn’t be regarded as a nuisance or hindrance from actual progress.] The point is not to bring up Tom DeLay [then why did you?], which I'm sure we will, and his ethics problems [AKA, “Mr. Russert, please change the subject to Tom Delay, I studied for that question!”], but the point is, those things are less likely to happen if you have two parties that have something to say about what goes on in Washington. Right now the Republicans control everything except for this group of Democrats in the Senate who do raise issues about these particular 10 judges who we don't think are qualified to sit on the bench. Ten out of 205--it seems to me that a president on either side is not likely to be right 100 percent of the time. You do need an opposition party [AKA, obstructionist party]. That's what we're trying to build. This is going to make it harder.
[Bear in mind the general question was whether Democrats are being hypocritical, based on their past actions and statements about this issue.]
MR. RUSSERT: Tom DeLay--you raised him [incidentally, of course]; he was at a dinner on May 12 being honored by Republicans and conservatives. He had this to say about you, Howard Dean. Let's watch.
(Videotape, May 12)
REP. TOM DELAY, (R-TX): Democrats around the country are growing more and more alienated every day because they see that the once-great party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has become the party of Howard Dean.
(End videotape)
DR. DEAN: Well, you know, there are so many ethics problems here that I thought I'd actually have to write them down. [Good one! I’m sure you’ll explain this well.] He has been--the majority leader has been admonished for offering campaign money to a congressman's son to get a congressman's vote, providing an energy company with a seat at the table in exchange for campaign contributions, using the Department of Homeland Security to track down the private plane of some political enemies; now, he's under investigation for taking a golf vacation in Europe, $100,000, paid for by lobbyists. He's said that judges he disagreed with ought to be impeached. [“Admonished”: 4; Indicted/Convicted: 0] This is a culture of corruption and abuse of power in Washington. [Like filibustering to block congressional votes on judicial nominees with whom you disagree politically.] This is what happens when one party is in charge of everything. We need a change here.
And it's not just Tom DeLay. Look what's going on in the rest of the administration: paying journalists to write positive articles about unpopular policies; allowing lobbyists to sell access, like Jack Abramoff in the White House; hiding scientific reports when they come out with their mercury bills, for example, that show that mercury is much more devastating, and hiding that report in order to get that out there. [Remember this mercury story because Mr. Dean apparently studied for this topic, too (despite its irrelevance).] These things are not good for America, and this is abuse of power. And, you know, Tom DeLay is welcome to say whatever he wants about me, but I don't think people like that ought to be leading Congress, no matter what party they're in. [People who are admonished for unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and other non-crimes?]
MR. RUSSERT: But, Governor, you did on May 14 say something about Tom DeLay that raised a lot of eyebrows. Let's watch Howard Dean on Tom DeLay.
(Videotape, May 14)
DR. DEAN: I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "Serve his jail sentence"? He--what's he been convicted of?
DR. DEAN: He hasn't been convicted yet [which is why people serve jail sentences], but he is also, in addition to the things that I just mentioned, under investigation in Texas by a district attorney down there for violating the campaign finance laws of Texas by funneling corporate donations, which is illegal, into certain campaign activities. [Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?] This gentleman is not an ethical person [because he's repeatedly investigated by political opponents?], and he ought not to be leading Congress, period. And it is endemic of what happens in Congress when one party controls everything.
MR. RUSSERT: You said in December of 2003 that we shouldn't prejudge Osama bin Laden. How can you sit here and have a different standard for Tom DeLay and prejudge him?
DR. DEAN: To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging him. [H.D., 5/14/05: “I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers.”] The things that I just read off--offering the congressman's son campaign money, providing Westar, the energy company, with a seat at the table in exchange for contributions, using the Department of Homeland Security to track down the private plane of political enemies--those are things that he has already been adjudicated for [and convicted for how many?]. Now, the question is: Where is this going to end up? I think there's a reasonable chance that this may end up in jail. [A reasonable chance? That’s why he should serve a jail sentence?] And I don't think people ought to do these kinds of things in public service. I do not think they ought to do these kinds of things in public service. [What? Deny that you defended Osama Bin Ladin from American prejudgment while prejudging Tom Delay?] And I don't think Democrats should, either.
MR. RUSSERT: But shouldn't that be for a jury to decide and not you?
DR. DEAN: A jury will decide that. [Whoa! Sounds like more than just a reasonable chance now. Mr. Dean, what’s MY horoscope say?]
[That’s now the second assumption of H.D.’s that he’s tried to pass off as factual – the first being that Republicans will use the nuclear option with Social Security reform. Count along as you read!]
MR. RUSSERT: Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat [and great “Tigger” impersonator], said, "That's just wrong. I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."
DR. DEAN: As I said before, we're not speculating here. [H.D., 5/22/05: “[Delay] hasn't been convicted yet.”] Three of the things I've mentioned he has already done and been admonished for by the House Ethics Committee. [As criminal?] Look, Harry Truman was campaigning in 1948, and a guy went up and said, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" And HarryTruman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and the Republicans think it's hell." [Well, it’s true Delay hasn’t been indicted for anything. But that’s hell to Democrats, not to Republicans.]
There's a lot of problems in Washington now. You know, for example, the administration withheld information – essentially lied to Congress – when they were passing the Medicaid prescription bill. They concealed the cost. Even the Republican conservatives were outraged, as they should have been. [Evidence?] You can't do this. You've got to be ethical in government. [So far you’ve already been caught lying or contradicting yourself at least four times on this show alone.] I think one of the things that we're going to insist on is ethics in government. [Like letting Terri Shiavo starve to death after bitching about being dragged to a special session for the debate.] I'd like some real political and campaign and electoral [because you keep losing] reform as part of the Democratic Party platform as we offer a different vision to the American people. [That Americans have turned away increasingly since 1998.] I think honesty in government is important, and it's something that's lacking in Washington right now.
[Howard Dean, 5/22/05, in the first fifteen minutes of his Meet The Press interview:
* “If the filibuster is gotten rid of, it means the president can put 10 judges on the bench that we believe are not qualified to serve."
* “I have no way of knowing what the vote counts are in the Senate."
* “Look, I have nothing against up or down votes on people."
* “When the Republicans were in power, they kept a much larger percentage of President Clinton's nominees to the bench."
* “The point is not to bring up Tom DeLay, which I'm sure we will, and his ethics problems…."
* “To be honest with you, Tim, I don't think I'm prejudging [Tom Delay]."]
MR. RUSSERT: But in order to have a civilized debate about these kinds of issues, a robust debate, can we be doing this to each other in the political process? Here's the Democratic National Committee Web site this morning. It is, in effect, a mug shot of Tom DeLay. You can see his height in the back with inches there, a serial number, 18821. Is that appropriate, a mug shot?
[Too bad Mr. Russert didn’t also ask why the Democratic National Committee never apologized for its sponsorship of a mock assassination of President Bush on Air America Radio, which the DNC funds.]
DR. DEAN: I don't think it's appropriate for Tom DeLay to be in Congress, Tim. I really don't. [And the DNC publicly insulting, mocking and condemning him for crimes for which he hasn’t been indicted – is the “ethical” solution?] Some of his own party has suggested he step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. [I bet 95% of them is from New England.] I think he ought to at least step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. [Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Why stop him from doing his job in the meantime? Talk about potential abuse of power! Have a problem? Just accuse someone you don’t like of something and demand (s)he sit down until you prove him or her guilty!] We didn't start this. [How can you say that with a straight face?] Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing and we're not going to stoop to the kind of abuse of power, but we are going to be tough as nails. [You’re the one criticizing Republicans for ruling and ruining this country every other sentence. That’s being divisive. Ironically enough, your very statement about not being divisive – is divisive. (AKA, Republicans = Bad! Democrats = Good!)] This is a fight for the soul of America between the Republicans and Democrats.
[H.D., 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”]
We have an agenda that calls for pension reform, it calls for leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it. [Which are…? Still waiting to hear from your party.] It calls for real jobs. It calls for closing the deficit. The last president – the only president in the last 35 years to balance the budget [thanks to Republican control of Congress] was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. You can't trust Republicans with your money. [1) Bill Clinton did; and 2) Howard Dean, 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”] The country is at a crossroads. Are we going to be ethical in government? [Not if you’re in charge!] Are we going to stand up for fiscal responsibility? Are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility?
The president keeps talking about freedom for Iraqis. What about the freedom for Americans to decide their most personal dilemmas in that family? [What about them?] Speaking of Tom DeLay, 14 judges made decisions in the Terri Schiavo case to allow that family to work out their problems through the court system. Tom DeLay didn't like it. He talks about now impeaching judges and removing them if they disagree. We need to retain American democracy. [Which includes Checks & Balances, to which you alluded earlier.] That means everybody has to be part of that American democracy, and, yes, that even includes Democrats and Independents who may not agree with the president. [And Republicans in Congress, as elected by the citizens of this country.]
MR. RUSSERT: So you will not retract or apologize your comments about Tom DeLay?
DR. DEAN: Absolutely not.
MR. RUSSERT: This is what you told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "[Dean] said Democrats need `message discipline.' He said they should for the present forego the satisfaction of attacking House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics problems ... and focus on attacking Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts."
You're not taking your own advice.
DR. DEAN: Well, I am in this sense. That was a couple of months ago, and this has been an issue that's been in the news with the Jack Abramoff scandals [second time you’ve named-dropped to change the subject], and it's been so in the news that you can't not comment on it. Again, another scandal that's going on, the Republicans, Jack Abramoff, [OK, all Republicans or one guy?] one of the president's leading fund-raisers, now being investigated [not indicted or convicted] for essentially selling influence to get into the White House and a variety of things like that.
MR. RUSSERT: One of the president's leading fund-raisers...
DR. DEAN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: ...or one of Congress' leading fund-raisers?
DR. DEAN: My understanding is that he was one of the pioneers for the Bush campaign, in addition to being one of Congress' leading fund-raisers.
[Let’s investigate this. So far I don’t put much stock in Mr. Dean’s understanding of facts.]
MR. RUSSERT: And close to Tom DeLay.
DR. DEAN: And close to Tom DeLay.
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned Social Security. You were up in Ithaca at Cornell. "Dean pointed out that while he would not endorse this, if Social Security were left alone for" 10 "years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now."
DR. DEAN: It's probably a slight mistake that the reporter made. It's actually about 35 years, but that's right. If we did nothing...
MR. RUSSERT: In 2042, the benefits would be about 73 percent of the schedule.
DR. DEAN: That's right.
MR. RUSSERT: So that being said, that Social Security recipients will in effect have a reduction in benefits if we do nothing...
DR. DEAN: That's right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...what are the Democrats going to do to prevent that?
DR. DEAN: Well, the first thing we're going to do is try to get the president to be serious about the issue. [Despite his personal campaigning across the nation to explain his plan for SS reform to the American people.] The president is pursuing these private [personal] accounts. I said earlier, and I'm really not kidding, this is turning Social Security over to the same folks that gave us Enron. [Again, American taxpayers gave us Enron?] We see now what happens to private accounts. [When run by corrupt CEOs or when used for Social Security benefits? Check with Chile on this one, not Enron.] The recent bankruptcy court judges is now undoing the pension funds of the people who work for United Airlines. That means likely that all the other airlines are next, because if you take a $9 billion item off the balance sheet of United Airlines, all the other airlines are going to want to do the same thing. [1) So just appeal until you win; 2) More fortune-telling! Slippery slope much, Mr. Dean?]
So we see this attack on both private and public pensions. [By the judicial branch, which you just vehemently defended in regards to Terry Schaivo.] I don't think we ought to attack the Social Security system. [Neither does President Bush. However, unlike Democrats, he’s willing to offer alternatives.] It is the last line of defense that Americans have when they lose their pensions. [Who’s calling to completely get rid of this system? Do you even know the president’s proposal?] So the Democrats--we will be happy to sit down with the president, but the president has got to stop doing what he always does, which is approaching issues from an ideological point of view. [How is it possible for one not to discuss ideas from an ideological point of view? Is that what’s preventing Democrats from having any ideas?] There's only one reason to put private accounts in Social Security.
The president has admitted they do nothing to help the problem in 2042. [Huh?] And that is they have an agenda to privatize [personalize] Social Security. It helps their campaign contributors and the businesses that support the president, and it also removes the risk from the government and puts it on the individual recipients. And it doesn't, contrary to what the president said, earn any more money once you get through the fees and so forth. [How do you know? Mr. Dean, where’s your crystal ball? Again, check with Chile, who successfully switched to optional, personal pension accounts in 1981.] When the president is willing to really sit down with us, we'll sit down with him, and we'll work with him to come up with a plan to tweak Social Security so that we can fix the problems that are going to happen to it in 35 or 40 years. [Bush is actually campaigning nationwide and holding primetime, televised press conferences to address the issue. When is his invitation good enough for Democrats?]
MR. RUSSERT: When you say tweak, you'd be willing to consider raising the eligibility age, reduction in cost of living, means testing?
DR. DEAN: Well, I don't think you...
MR. RUSSERT: There's tough choices here.
DR. DEAN: There are tough choices here, and when the president indicates that he's serious about making tough choices, we'd like to help make those tough choices. There are also some other things that people have, including Democrats, have put forward that the president has rejected out of hand. The president...
MR. RUSSERT: Such as?
DR. DEAN: Such as raising the cap. Right now the Social Security tax is only on the first, I think, about $85,000 worth of wages. I saw an economic analysis the other day [wow, good source] that said if you remove that cap entirely that Social Security will be solvent.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's raising taxes.
DR. DEAN: Well, the president has said that he only – that's why we [Democrats] don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, thepresident is just going to say, "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." [(1) So you just admitted Democrats haven’t had, and don’t plan to come up with, a plan of their own; (2) You’re implying Democrats’ only ideas would require raised taxes; (3) You’re right: President Bush has said since day one that he won’t raise taxes on Americans; (4) "Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this." Isn’t that exactly what you and Congressional Democrats are saying about personal accounts?] All right, Mr. President, let's sit down and get serious. [Who’s the one campaigning and holding press conferences?] Take privatization of Social Security off the table, and I can guarantee you that Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi will sit down with the president. [*see point (4) above*] They have told me so privately. [Ahhh, so that’s why no evidence supports your claim.] They would be delighted to sit down with the president and try to work this out.
MR. RUSSERT: Congresswoman Pelosi said "We don't need a plan." Is this the Democrats doing, in effect, what the Republicans did with Hillary Clinton? She put forward her health-care plan as first lady. The Republicans didn't offer an alternative but just went at it, criticizing it,and you learned from that politically and that's exactly what you're doing to the Republicans.
DR. DEAN: The problem is that the president won't get off the dime. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Well, the first thing we're going to do is try to get the president to be serious about the issue.”] You know, there was an opportunity for the Clinton folks to compromise with Bob Dole, and we missed that opportunity. I was involved in the health care. I'll take some piece--I'll was--I'll take some responsibility for that. We missed that opportunity. We could have had something. The president can get something done on Social Security, but he has got to stop this nonsense of insisting that we privatize the last bastion of hope for retirees in this country as they see, under this administration, their private pensions get eroded. [Um, it’d be optional.]
[H.D., 5/22/05: “That's why we [Democrats] don't come up with a plan, because whatever plan we come up with, the president is just going to say, ‘Oh, we're not going to do that, we're not going to do this.’ ”]
MR. RUSSERT: And if the president takes private personal accounts off the table, then you would sit down, the Democrats would sit down and everything else would be on the table.
DR. DEAN: I won't sit down, but I'm sure--it's not my job to do that. But the senators and the congressmen have indicated that they'd be happy to sit down if privatization comes off the table.
[Apparently, sitting down is quite popular in Washington, D.C.]
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about some of the things you have said about the Republicans. Here's Howard Dean in January: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
Howard Dean in February: "This is a struggle between good and evil and we're the good." [Howard Dean, 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing."
Do you really hate Republicans? Do you consider them evil?
DR. DEAN: I don't – well, actually that was a little out of context. [I’m sure you’ll explain how, which would be prudent.] But I don't hate Republicans as individuals. [Then why’d you say you do? Were you lying then or are you lying now?] But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”] I hate deficits, as you know. When I was governor, I really was very tough on fiscal responsibility. Deficits in the long run aren't good for the country, and they do lower our standard of living. Every American family knows that you have to pay your bills. [Which Dems would apparently increase to fix social security.] I hate the dishonesty, you know, the idea that you'd put a program through Congress without telling people what it costs, I think that's wrong. [You hate dishonesty? Then please stop lying on this show, for starters.] Some of the things that the president said on our way into Iraq, they just weren't true, and I don't think that's right. [That he was misinformed by international intelligence agencies and world leaders?] So...
MR. RUSSERT: Such as?
DR. DEAN: Such as the weapons of mass destruction, which we have all known about, but the... [After the corrupt U.N. inspectors couldn’t find any (besides evil human beings).]
MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.
DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. [So you were just caught lying again, right after you claimed to hate dishonesty.] But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. [WHAT? Is that why you defended him two years ago? I think you mean Saddam Hussein, Mr. Dean.] That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican [and a Democrat], said it was false. Is it wrong to send people to war without telling them the truth? And the truth was Osama bin Laden was a very bad person who was doing terrible things, but that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. That was the truth. [Because you can see the future so clearly – can you also foresee that Saddam possibly hid his WMDs somewhere else, maybe in Syria?] It was underlined by the 9-11 Commission, headed, again, by a Republican [and a Democrat], a well-respected group of people [apart from those Republicans whom you just alleged are ruining America]. I don't think you send American men and women to war, first of all, without properly equipping them [who voted for war and against safer equipment?], and secondly without telling the truth to their parents about why it is we're asking them to make that sacrifice. So those are the kinds of things that I think are very bad about the Republicans.
Then there's some smaller things that are equally important [as war?]. There was a study--the president has just put out rules for how much mercury is allowed in the air. [I told you to remember the mercury story! Though this is critical information, bear in mind its relevance as you read this: The lingering question concerned what the president said about Iraq that allegedly wasn’t true.] Now, as a physician I know that mercury is a neurotoxic chemical which now has prevented people from eating most of the fish they catch because so much of it is going into the water. The president ignored – excuse me, the – his people ignored a report that said that mercury was much more toxic than they suspected and that the rules that the president was putting out were going to allow more mercury into the air and make things worse. That report just got taken off the table and they went ahead and did it anyway because they have an agenda that's different than protecting the environment. [I repeat, the question regarded what alleged lies President Bush made about the Iraq war.]
I don't like that kind of stuff. If the president wants to do that, he should say to the American people "Look, it's true that mercury's a bad thing and this may allow a little bit more, but it may allow for more jobs." I don't know what his reason for changing his position on mercury or pollution is. [And the American people don’t know what mercury or the environment has to do with your position on Iraq.] Why not be truthful with the American people about why it is and what the trade-offs really are? [Huh?]
If you wanted to send troops into Iraq [finally on point] – you know – I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. [AKA, in hindsight, we kicked ass, so I’m all for sharing the spoils.] Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this. [(1) You just admitted that Saddam torturing people is a reasonable case for war against him; (2) You implied the Gulf War was important because Kuwait is an ally – but wouldn’t it be nice to also have Iraq as an ally? Isn’t that better for long-term peace and stability?] Instead the president said, "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States," and that was just flat-out false. [Although the venerable 9-11 Commission acknowledged that he harbored at least two Al-Qaida operatives who previously attacked the US.] And I don't think that's the way you run a government.
MR. RUSSERT: But John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman all said Saddam was a threat to the United States. [So did Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, the C.I.A. and other heads of state.] That was the belief.
DR. DEAN: Because they were told that by the president of the United States, and there is a wide berth given to the president. [So it’s not a Senator’s responsibility to double-check facts and information alleged by the president before voting on issues – let alone to go to war? How come that method isn’t working with personal Social Security accounts or judicial nominees?] And I think it's justifiable. In a time of threat to the United States, there is a wide berth given to the president. [Mr. Dean, you’re passing the buck.] You trust the president of the United States to give you the information no matter what party they're in. [Just like you trust your elected senators to be thorough with information before they vote on issues, especially the most important one of going to war.] And I think the president was not – did not treat the Senate and the House properly either. [Because he expected them to be competent?]
MR. RUSSERT: Wasn't it the intelligence community that misled the president, as well?
DR. DEAN: Well, I believe, and I think many Americans believe, and I think this has been written about [so it must be true!], that there was pressure put on the intelligence agencies, as John Bolton [name-dropper] was clearly demonstrated to have put pressure on a variety of people in the State Department, to come up with the conclusions that the president wanted. That's what I believe, and I think there's some evidence to that. [Yes, but the question was about irrefutable facts, not Howard Dean’s personal beliefs and conspiracy theories. Mr. Dean seems to believe a lot of things that bear merely “some evidence.”]
MR. RUSSERT: When did the president ever suggest that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?
DR. DEAN: He didn't. [But you just said….] His nuance – his people suggested that. [So why not blame “his people,” being that this is the second time you’ve blamed them instead of Bush. (They’re mercury-lovers, too, remember?)] He suggested that in a nuanced way in many of his speeches. [(1) So now nuance and YOUR inferences supercede facts? (2) And how do you know so many of his speeches if you weren’t allowed to hear them?] He was asked once directly about it and said, "No, I don't have that evidence." [AKA, what he actually said.] But the truth is in every speech, including the ones during the campaign where he deliberately muddled the anti-terrorism war that we're engaged in with the war in Iraq. [We’re not fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq?] They are two separate efforts. [Two separate countries, same effort.] Unfortunately, now because of the president's actions, I would argue that we're in greater danger now because of what's going on in Iraq than we were before. [I think that’s been written about, too, so it must be true!] Now there are terrorists in Iraq. They have migrated there since our troops were there. [H.D., 5/22/05: “I supported his father when his father sent troops to Iraq. I thought his father made a reasonable case. Kuwait is an ally of the United States. Saddam Hussein has invaded it. He's torturing people. We have an obligation as the last superpower to fix this.”]
[These last remarks evidence author Ben Shapiro’s eloquent analysis that, to Democrats, “When facts and feelings clash, facts just have to be changed.”]
