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.”]
No comments:
Post a Comment