SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/8/2003 2:37:31 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Bush Derangement Syndrome
Charles Krauthammer

December 5, 2003

Diane Rehm: ``Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?''
<font size=4>
Howard 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?''
<font size=3>
-- ``Diane Rehm Show,'' NPR, Dec. 1

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: ``Secondary Mania,'' Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven't been looking for new ones. But it's time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that ``the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is ``suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies.

When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state.

Moreover, Dean is very smart. Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who ``clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,'' the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.

It is true that BDS has struck some pretty smart guys -- Bill Moyers ranting about a ``right-wing wrecking crew'' engaged in ``a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing'' and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, whose recent book attacks the president so virulently that Krugman's British publisher saw fit to adorn the cover with images of Dick Cheney in a Hitler-like mustache and Bush stitched-up like Frankenstein. Nonetheless, some observers took that to be satire; others wrote off Moyers and Krugman as simple aberrations, the victims of too many years of neurologically hazardous punditry.

That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.
<font size=4>
Chris Matthews: ``Would you break up Fox?''

Howard Dean: ``On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but ... I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. ... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.''

Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can only get their news from one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor.
<font size=3>
The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple).

©2003 Washington Post Writers Group

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/11/2003 6:07:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
By giving voice to nutty conspiracy theory, Howard Dean is
bringing the political fringe one step closer to the
center.

Crank Yankers
by Hugh Hewitt
12/11/2003 12:00:00 AM

THE WORLD is full of interesting theories.

There's the theory that FDR was warned of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen in order to enrage America and bring us fully into World War II.

There's the theory that LBJ had JFK knocked off on the orders of Texas oilmen.

There's the Raelians' theory that ancient space travelers planted people on Earth; and there are the very interesting theories contained in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" along with the theory that the Bilderberger Group is secretly running the world.

And there is the theory that President Bush is suppressing evidence in the investigation of the September 11 attacks because "he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."
<font size=4>
Of all these "interesting theories," however, only one--the last one--has been uttered by the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean trafficked in this outrageous charge in an interview with NPR's Diane Rehm on December 1. Dean went on to say that it was "only a theory," and backed even farther away in an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace on December 7, but with the exception of a column by Charles Krauthammer, a scolding by Howard Kurtz on my radio show, and a handful of other pinpricks, the national media has allowed Dean to skip away from this walk on the paranoid side.
<font size=3>

On the morning of Tuesday's debate in Durham, the Manchester Union Leader's publisher ran a front page editorial calling for the other Democratic candidates and media to force Dean to apologize for his embrace of the nutty smear, but no such accounting occurred. Al Gore's Lord Voldemort-like sudden appearance and attachment to his new host, Dean, seemed to stun Ted Koppel and everyone else, and the Tuesday gathering was dominated, believe it or not, by Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley Braun. <font size=4>Dean may thus be allowed to play conspiracy nut and get away with it.

Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any administration official were to vocalize any of the assorted Clinton conspiracy memes from the far reaches of the internet, whether about Vince Foster, or the Mena airport, or the list of Clinton associates who have met untimely ends. How furious would the reaction be, and for how long would it endure?

That fury would be justified, by the way, because it is up to the mainstream to protect politics from the fringes of both left and right. But increasingly Dean and some of his colleagues are abandoning this duty.

Both Senators Kerry and Edwards indulged in a little fever when, in Florida this past weekend, they hinted to Democratic faithful that voting machines might be fixed because they were being manufactured by a company whose CEO had contributed to Bush. And Kerry managed to use the "H" word--Haliburton--in the debate Tuesday night. He's an f-bomb away from going Bilderberger on us.

When are the two grownups, Gephardt and Lieberman, going to speak sanity to madness? Or has the crazy caucus grown so large that none dare say "Howard, that's nuts?"
<font size=3>
Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, In, But Not Of, has just been published by Thomas Nelson.


© Copyright 2003, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

theweeklystandard.com



To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/11/2003 4:50:02 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (158) | Respond to of 35834
 
Dean's urban legend
Robert Novak
December 11, 2003

WASHINGTON -- <font size=4>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.<font size=3> 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.
<font size=4>
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.
<font size=3>
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.
<font size=5>
"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.
<font size=3>
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.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/14/2003 3:06:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Whopper: Howard Dean
Oh, that bizarre and irresponsible remark!
chatterbox
Timothy Noah
Posted Saturday, <font size=4>Dec. 13, 2003<font size=3>, at 7:08 PM PT

Scott Spradling, WMUR-TV: <font size=4>Governor Dean, you had once stated that you thought it was possible that the president of the United States had been forewarned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. You later said that you didn't really know.

A statement like that, don't you see the possibility of some Democrats being nervous about statements like that leading them to the conclusion that you are not right for being the next commander in chief?

Howard Dean: Well, in all due respect, I did not exactly state that.
<font size=3>
--Exchange at the Democratic presidential debate in Durham, New Hampshire, <font size=4>Dec. 9<font size=3>.

Julie from Travis City, Mich.: [O]nce we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not--

Dean: Yes.

Julie:--stonewall it?

Dean: There is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

Diane Rehm, WAMU (public) radio: <font size=4>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, I can't--think 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 that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.
<font size=3>
--Exchange on The Diane Rehm Show, on WAMU in Washington, <font size=4>Dec. 1.
<font size=3>
Discussion. In answering Spradling at the New Hampshire debate, <font size=4>Dean failed to acknowledge his Diane Rehm Show appearance, in which he introduced the bizarre and irresponsible accusation that Bush got advance warning about 9/11<font size=3> (ostensibly as an example of the kind of speculation Bush lends credence to by not cooperating with the Kean commission.) <font size=4>Dean's denial that he said what Spradling said he said is false and dishonest<font size=3> if you take the Diane Rehm appearance into account. Spradling's summary of Dean's remarks was more than adequate, with the trivial caveat that Dean said then and there (and not "later") that he didn't know whether the rumor was true.
<font size=4>
Instead of talking about the Diane Rehm Show appearance, Dean pretended, at the New Hampshire debate, that the subject first came up when he appeared on Fox News Sunday six days later:

I was asked on Fox "fair and balanced" News that--

[Audience laughter.]

--I was asked why I thought the president was withholding information, I think it was, or 9/11 or something like that. And I said, well, the most interesting theory that I heard, which I did not believe, was that the Saudis had tipped him off. …I did not believe, and I made it clear on the Fox News show that I didn't believe that theory, but I had heard that. And there are going to be a lot of crazy theories that come out if the information is not given to the Kean commission as it should be.

By the time Dean appeared on Fox News Sunday, someone had obviously pointed out to him that his conspiracy-mongering on Diane Rehm made him sound like a nut. So on Fox, Dean made sure to say what he most crucially had not said on Diane Rehm—i.e., that he did not believe this rumor that he was passing on.

Incidentally, on Fox News Sunday, Dean wasn't asked "why I thought the president was withholding information" or "something like that." He was asked (by Chris Wallace) why he'd made that embarrassing gaffe on Diane Rehm, and whether, in light of what he'd said, he was "up to being commander in chief." Wallace even played the Diane Rehm clip. Two days earlier, Charles Krauthammer had savagely attacked Dean for what he said on Diane Rehm, and pointed out that when Cynthia McKinney made the same accusation in 2002 it ended her career in Congress. So it's inconceivable that in his New Hampshire debate remarks Dean sincerely forgot, or misremembered, what he said on Diane Rehm.
<font size=3>
Ironically, if Dean had answered Rehm's question more carefully, he could have stated truthfully and non-hysterically that the Bush administration did receive various hints prior to 9/11 that something was afoot. These have already been documented. (Remember National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's description of pre-9/11 "chatter in the system," including a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration in July that terrorist groups might be planning hijackings?) Where Dean went astray was in failing to make clear that these advance warnings were not very specific.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/14/2003 9:59:04 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Politics of Saddam
What Saddam's capture means for the 2004 race and the Democratic contenders. Hint: It's bad for Howard Dean.
by Fred Barnes
12/14/2003 6:30:00 PM

LET'S BE CRASS and assess the politics of the capture of Saddam Hussein. No one is boosted more than President Bush, the beneficiary of so much good news this fall (surging economy, 10,000 Dow, Medicare drug benefit). For him, only one more thing has to fall into place to assure re-election. That's a sharp turn for the better in the twilight war against the Baathist diehards and their motley allies in the Sunni triangle of Iraq. The grabbing of Saddam, a pathetic, cowardly Saddam, could lead to exactly that--but not necessarily. A turning point was declared when Saddam's sons were killed last July, only to be followed by an increase in the terrorist attacks on American troops and Iraqis.
<font size=4>
The big loser is Howard Dean--potentially. Dean has embarked on an image-altering effort so he'll be seen as a centrist on foreign affairs. In interviews with the Washington Post and New York Times, he insisted the differences between himself and Bush are not great, mainly about style, not substance. He offered this amazing statement to the Times: "It's all about nuance." In truth, there's rarely been a presidential candidate with a less nuanced approach to foreign affairs.

Dean demonstrated this once again in his response to Saddam's capture. He praised the capture, then claimed that it had created "an enormous opportunity" to adopt what amounts to the Iraq policy of France. First, do "everything possible" to bring the United Nations, NATO, and others into the effort in Iraq. In other words, turn the Iraq situation over to those who not only favored keeping Saddam in power, but also sought to undermine the American policy of regime change in Iraq from the moment it was first announced by President Clinton in 1998. And second, speed up the turnover of power to Iraqis. There's nothing nuanced about that advice. And by the way, Dean claimed last week that he had never called Saddam a "danger" to the United States.

Oddly enough, Dean's rivals for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination echoed his call for a change in American policy in Iraq. Though the capture of Saddam shows the Bush postwar policy is having some success, the Democrats believe this is precisely the moment to adopt a new tack in Iraq.

"It's a magnificent opportunity for the president of the United States to shift gears," said John Kerry on "Fox News Sunday." John Edwards put it this way: "I hope President Bush will use this opportunity to chart a course in Iraq that will bring our allies in a meaningful way to achieve a democratic and peaceful Iraq." Even Joe Lieberman, an unflinching supporter of the war in Iraq, fell in line. "If I were president today, I would go back to the allies, back to the U.N., [and] get them to help us rebuild Iraq."

A few assumptions underlie this advice. One is that the most important step for Bush to take now is diplomatic and not, say, an intensified military offensive to end the terrorist threat in Iraq. Another assumption is that France, Germany, and Russia actually want to be helpful in Iraq, except that they've been rudely brushed aside by Bush. And still another is that the drive for security and stability in Iraq stands a better chance of being successful if the United Nations and friends are in charge. Of course, all of these assumptions are dubious if not absurd.
<font size=3>

THANK HEAVEN FOR JOE LIEBERMAN. Alone among Dean's opponents, he has figured out that the only way to deny Dean the nomination is to go after him aggressively. On "Meet the Press" and during other appearances Sunday, Lieberman emphasized that if Dean's advice had been followed, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. "The world would be a much more dangerous place," Lieberman said. "The American people would have much more to fear." Lieberman will need to repeat this attack on Dean day after day for it to be effective, but there's time. The Iowa caucuses, the first official contest, are not until January 19.

Contrary to convention wisdom, Dean is vulnerable on the war issue even among Democrats, though probably not among a majority of Democrats. But you don't need a majority to win a caucus or a primary. A plurality will do just fine. The only chance of halting the Dean juggernaut is through confronting the candidate frontally. Kerry, too, indicated he might be ready to do this. Unlike Lieberman and Gephardt, however, Kerry is less credible because he waffled on the war after initially voting for the congressional resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq.
<font size=4>
All the Democratic candidates passed up the opportunity to advocate debt relief for Iraq. We're talking about some $120 billion in debts amassed by Saddam. Why not demand that France, Germany, and Russia forgive the debts and give the Iraqi government that takes over next year a running start? After all, the new government won't be able to pay the debts anyway. They've left the debt relief issue to Bush. Not smart.
<font size=3>
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

© Copyright 2003, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

theweeklystandard.com



To: Sully- who wrote (351)12/16/2003 1:08:14 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
From: LindyBill

Here is Dean's Foreign Policy Speech today. He would have
accomplished everything Bush has, only better and easier.

Fulfilling the Promise of America:

Meeting The Security Challenges of the New Century

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

The Pacific Council

Los Angeles, California

December 15, 2003

deanforamerica.com

Message 19599984