Let’s See Who Else Owes Howard Dean an Apology Today

By: Blue Texan
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/21/lets-see-who-else-owes-howard-dean-an-apology-today/

Glenn Greenwald had a very good rundown of some of the epic wrongness back in 2004. Let's add a few more to the pile. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/20/ambinder/index.html)

Tom Ridge:

We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security. Our job is to identify the threat.

Mitch McConnell:

I don't think the American people believe that George W. Bush, the man who's led us so effectively on the war on terror, would politicize something like this.

Bill O'Reilly:

Howard Dean came out, and said, oh, the terror alert's a phony thing, like he knows anything. Like where did you get your intelligence, Howard, Ben & Jerry? Like Dean knows anything. What an irresponsible jerk.

Jim Turner:

CARLSON: In other words, Bush is making up the terror threat for his -- for political advantage. Is this the position of the John Kerry campaign? And, if not, why is this character speaking for the campaign?

REP. JIM TURNER (D), TEXAS: That's not the position of the Kerry campaign. In fact, I heard John Kerry just a few minutes ago disavow what Howard Dean said about the recent alert.

James Carville:

I want to first say I'm in the John Kerry- Jim Turner camp here...But I want you, because you know this, to assure these Democrats and help convince me that they're not doing this because of the disastrous economic news and the disastrous news from coming overseas to try to protect themselves. I don't think they would do that.

Joe Trippi:

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think the administration is practicing manipulative politics when it comes to terror alerts.

Chuck Schumer:

And I think most people -- I mean, you know, Mr. Dean said something that it was political, but I haven't heard any incumbent Democratic officeholder say it was political. I certainly don't think so.

And -- wait for it....

Joe Lieberman:

I don't think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think the president or the secretary of homeland security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons...That's outrageous.

Looking forward to Short Ride blasting Tom Ridge as an outrageous crazy person. Any moment now, right?

raising an alert level and scare people for political reasons is outrageous. Almost as scary as intentionally ignoring a legitimate terrorist threat alert in August 2001 FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

.

How many of us felt the same way, but were told we were unpatriotic to even mention such a thing?

Payback's a bitch!

:evilfrown:

to assure he was proven wrong. In fact, Dean and Kerry were close at this point and I wouldn't doubt that Dean said this KNOWING Kerry as a nominee could not.

And Kerry saying that he doesn't AGREE with Dean on this as the presidential candidate isn't all that different than candidate Dean saying on 2002 MTP that he didn't agree with Kerry's accusation against Bush that he let Usama and AlQaeda leaders go free at Tora Bora. We all knew Kerry was right about ToraBora yet Dean sided with Bush on that publicly....why? Because he likely didn't know for CERTAIN that ToraBora went down exactly as Kerry charged AND he needed to cover his bases in case Bush's story proved true.

Glen Greenwald isn't exactly being totally honest about the circumstances - and I didn't see him attacking Dean when Kerry's position on ToraBora turned out to be accurate in 2005.

Besides, the stories written in 2004 were deliberately skewed against both Kerry and Dean, so the exaggeration of their DIFFERENCES back then are still with us today. Greenwald is apparently hanging his hat on those exaggerations.

I don't think Obama was in Tora Bora then.

Maybe... but I think you meant someone else. ;)

.

George W. Bush stole into office by unlawful means (purging rolls, Diebold machine vote manipulation, etc.) Up until then, he had never, ever shown himself to be a person of character. He lied in order to invade Iraq. His own people who quit the administration said everything they were instructed to do was for the sake of politics -- and yet --

"Joe Trippi:

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think the administration is practicing manipulative politics when it comes to terror alerts."

:banghead: :puke:

and then turned against Dean after Iowa. The costly ads promoting Dean's candidacy that were created by Joe's PR firm were nowhere near as good as those created by Dean supporters on practically nothing. But they did serve to empty Dean's coffers mightily.
Trippi was in that campaign for himself alone and is not one of my favorite persons.
Anyway, that is water under the bridge now.
But I am SO glad to see Howard vindicated, yet again. I, for one, never doubted him on that, and I did/do not doubt Kerry about Tora Bora.

Joe Trippi put himself on my "not worthy" list as well. But Howard....

Howard truly puts country above party. Love that guy.

As a Dean fan from way back, I always believed him to be telling the truth. Democrats lost the 04 election, partly because we allowed Bush to make his biggest failure 911 and turn it into his largest strength. I was pulling my hair out, daily!

matters and against the truth - like on MTP in 2002 when he sided with Bush on Tora Bora, though many of us believed Kerry was speaking the truth about that.

By Aug2004 Kerry and Dean were on the same team (few Dems were then) and Dean was one of Kerry's most trusted surrogates on the trail - I am quite certain Dean made this statement knowing full well that Kerry could not.

early on. And, for that matter Dean should have done so as well. However, Kerry was the nominee. Eventually he did bring up that Bush dropped the ball on 911 - but it was too little too late.

That said, he would have been a terrific President.

their asses if it was coming from the nominee.

And, as far as 9-11, Kerry criticized what he could prove like the Aug6 Brief. You must have completely forgotten that ALL of the best known Dems and leadership were WITH BUSH on 9-11 and Iraq war, and Kerry already had them showing up on TV to side with Bush's position over Kerry's.

Had they been on Kerry's side during that time you'd have heard Kerry's criticisms of and attacks on Bush being REPEATED and furthered. Instead we even had the last Dem president using his summer2004 booktour to defend Bush vigorously from the very attacks Kerry was making.

There was a bigger picture going on then even guys like Greenwald never saw because even they were hanging on the words of mainstream media.

All Kerry had to say was Bush was the party responsible for protecting America on 911, he failed.

Every time Kerry mentioned the Aug6 PDF that was the part of the overall message of Bush's failed leadership.

I love Senator Kerry, but until the end, when he did call out Bush, he ran a weak campaign.

infrastructure and all the bigname Dems showing up on TV to defend Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq. Hell, even Biden was trotted out to side with Bush and encouraged by interviewers to disavow Kerry's positions critical of Bush's war decisions.

He'd be president today if the DNC hadn't collapsed party infrastructure in so many states giving GOP to control the results at every step of the process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

The corporate media had to work overtime to fault Kerry and the campaign - what they did and did not do during that campaign is well documented and has been posted many, many times here at DU - and there is even a thread in the Research Forum that details some of the media's deliberate avoidance of Kerry's counterattacks.

Honestly, if corporate media decided to NOT ALLOW any coverage of Obama's speech on race that countered the weeks of Rev Wright videos and then barely reported the speech even occurred, would Obama have become the nominee?

I think many of you have forgotten that the corporate media atmosphere in 2003-4 was far worse for Dems opposing Bush post 9-11 than it was for Dems opposing Bush post-Katrina. Plus, Dean as DNC chair worked his ass off to rebuild collapsed party infrastructure in long ignored states before the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The nominee taps into the party infrastructure that EXISTS as it cannot be rebuilt in the timeframe of the presidential general election. Kerry was STUCK with the party infrastructure that was collapsed under the neglectful stewardship of previous party chairs, especially McAuliffe's.

He had a mouth and a campaign, both were poorly run.

plain and simple.

Would Obama be president today if his speech to counter RevWright videos were NEVER broadcast - not even ONCE? No way - HRC would be sitting in the WH making BushInc very happy campers, indeed.

If Kerry was as weak as some want to claim, he never would have been the nominee, and BushInc would not have had to work 24/7 to lie and cheat their way back into the WH.

All of Kerry's gains came from HIS WORK, not the DNC's and not the party's best known Dem leaders at the time.

BTW - I hope you're reading this as straightforward rebuttal like our past exchanges. ;)

which I documented HERE on many an occasion. In fact, we probably debated about it in 04. ;) I'm not going to rehash with you though BLM. You're entitled to your opinion.

Ah yes, just like old times! ;)

Peace :hi:

Bush had to lie, cheat, steal and have TeamClinton working to undermine the Kerry campaign in order to stay in office.

Period.

BTW - Dean is one of the few honest Dem leaders who will say that Kerry was TOUGH - far tougher than others dare admit. By buying into corpmedia revisionism, Dem leaders get to cover their own asses that were in servitude to BushInc that entire time and fearful of crossing him and getting on Rove's radar.

We do agree that the DNC was part of the problem, however.

that was a crucial aspect of Bush's leadership that too many Dems shamelessly coddled him instead of daring to stand with Kerry and the truth.

... was one of Dean's earliest campaign bullet points. The Kerry camp stole it - and many other things - from Dean.

because he didn't have enough info back then to cross Bush on that story. By 2003 Dean started questioning Bush on ToraBora, but, it was always a key attack by Kerry from Jan2002 on with many Dems siding with Bush throughout.

You are welcome to prove otherwise, but, that subject was very well covered here at DU during that primary battle.

>>>>
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the military operation in Afghanistan has been successful?

GOV. DEAN: Yes, I do, and I support the president in that military operation.

MR. RUSSERT: The battle of Tora Bora was successful?

GOV. DEAN: I’ve seen others criticize the president. I think it’s very easy to second-guess the commander-in-chief at a time of war. I don’t choose to engage in doing that.
>>>>

No fault of Dean's really...he just didn't have the info to know for sure, and you can't really make that level of attack on MTP without knowing for certain that you have the facts.

I'm surprised at some of the revisionism going on here - longtime Dean and Kerry supporters here at DU have come to an agreement for the most part that both men were undermined and targeted unfairly during that election cycle by the corporate media always ready to smear them and by the most powerful people in their own party.

early on, would have. Most Americans couldn't tell you a thing about Tora Bora. That talking point simply didn't resonate.

would be 'politicized' during election? Has that fact been forgotten? You want to NAME all those Dems who were going to back Kerry up throughout that time? They barely showed up for the OBVIOUS problems, let alone 9-11 attacks. hell, Michael Moore held back on F9-11 and didn't go anywhere near as far as he could - and he's viewed as a polemicist - if a polemicist only goes so far.....how far can a presidential nominee go without Dems conventional DC considers to be our 'experts' willing to provide back up?


Obama was great with all that back up he received from so many top Dems - guess what was going on in 2004, even Joe Biden sided with Bush - and we all know how Bill Clinton used his summer2004 book tour. EVERY bigname Dem considered to have military expertise by the networks was siding with Bush and AGAINST Kerry's position that Bush was not only wrong to invade when inspections were proving force was not necessary, but, also against his criticisms of Bush's military strategy in Iraq.

Name the Dem who wouldn't have had to deal with bigname Dems all over TV defending Bush's decisions they agreed with and supported, and who would have had a DIFFERENT party infrastructure to tap into when they became the nominee by June2004.

Had MORE Dems been willing to POUND on ToraBora as Bush's enormous FAILURE to get BinLaden and most of AlQaeda when they were cornered, it WOULD have made more of an impact.

Impact.... if corpmedia would have broadcast Kerry's speech to Frefighters Convention on Aug19,2004 when he eviscerated the Swifts, their funders and Bush WH....challenging Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts and come out publicly and debate their services during Vietnam instead of hiding behind the lies - THAT would have made an impact and media couldn't get away with claiming Kerry never attacked back - they knew full well he did, but every single news network REFUSED to carry that speech and few even reported that the speech occurred.

You think Obama would be the nominee in 2008 if they refused him the airtime he needed for his speech re RevWright videos that were playing on heavy rotation in news loops?

hit Bush on 911, but by that time it was too late. They'd already "politicized" the event at their convention, to their advantage.

I'm done with the conversation. You go ahead and believe Kerry ran a brilliant, tough campaign if you wish.

continued to do so with hardly any back up. Period. I love ya, mz, but, the facts are NOT something to distort so one can stick to their opinion.

Media wasn't paying attention to anything Kerry said about Bush or terrorism, so I don't expect many DUers were, either.

of his campaign.

Love ya back B! :pals:

Anyone who could connect dots could see it.

Every time there was bad news to announce, it came on the heels of a rise in the threat assessment. Code Polkadot raised to Code Tartan.

On top of being transparent, the whole idea was pathetic. What the hell was it supposed to mean? Did anyone know what they were supposed to do when it went from Yellow to Chartreuse? Stock up on bottled water? Duct tape your Windows? Follow every person who looks vaguely Middle Eastern?

I am still a fan of Dr. Dean.
And he is not a person to rub noses in things. I saw him on Rachel Maddow...I believe...
and he never even once came close to saying "I told you so."

Dean is one of the few public figures I would call a statesman, not a politician.

He was defending Obama more staunchly than Sebelius, whose job should be Dean's, and

better than the 'insider' Dems from whom Obama obviously gets his tainted advice.

Why of why couldn't this man be a part of Obama's administration.

That terror alerts were designed for fear purposes. That's all they were ever good for. You could tell the Bushies were using them that way because anytime the heat was on them in any manner or things were looking up for Dems one would come up. It got to be ridiculous almost immediately.

Howard could have faded into the woodwork if he so desired.

When he retired as DNC chair, he could have gone into just about any field he wanted, with
the possible exceptions of arms sales and big oil, and taken some cushy job with some firm
looking to soend some money in exchange for name recognition.

Instead, he is out there plugging away for issues that affect the common people, not those
who will never have to ask whether they can ever afford to be sick. He is also big on environmental
issues, being asked to the Davos forum in Switzerland in part for his knowledge on that, as well
as being in demand to speak to the British media about American politics.

Speaking plainly seems not to fallen completely out of vogue--just in the American MSM. Howard still
gets asked on American shows--probably as a curiostiy ("There's someone out there still willing to
say what he really thinks? Wow, let's get him on the show!"). Rachel Maddow is an exception, of course.
But intellects as sharp as hers are few and far between (and, apparently, quite forbidden on Fox).

just going to have to drop a neutron bomb on that
state.

Still considering it though, no fooling, but I know
some good folks down there. I'd have to warn 'em first.

Please, Blue Texans, take that state back and hang
some people. You know how. Still love ya. California.