|
|
Got Politics?
So, I hear you might be liking Dean for President. Well, you might not like him so much after you read spinsanity's dissection of his latest antics regarding what, exactly, his stance was on the Iraq war:
This pattern of misleading and contradictory remarks is damaging to Dean's reputation, which was previously hurt by a false claim about Edwards and dissembling about his support for Medicare cuts during the 1990s. It also sets back the debates over Sept. 11 and Iraq, both of which have been plagued with deception and misinformation. While Dean frequently tells his supporters that they "have the power to take this country back," the power to set the record straight lies in his hands alone.
Personally, I think Leiberman (of all people) is the most interesting candidate at this time. He's about as exciting as dry paste, but I've agreed with many, if not most, of his positions so far. We'll see...
You know, Dean is becoming the "Gore" of the 2004 race. You know, get a group of people together and spin his words to make him say things he didn't ansd then attack him for those words.
He says that, "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. ..the trouble is 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."
And when confronted at a later date:
WALLACE: Do you believe that?
DEAN: ... which doesn't -- no, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that.
Yeah, thats him spouting that he thinks that Bush knew before hand.
* the bold and italics are my addition
The second part of the article made me laugh a bit. Dean was supporting the Biden-Lugar for specific reasons. The author of this article dismisses Dean's reasoning because it was "an assertion about a hypothetical." Well, if the situation is a hypothetical, then what is the use debating the support or not? Arguing about a resolution that was not put into place seems pretty silly to me.
Why the frack did he mention it if he didn't believe it?
Posted by: Jon on December 18, 2003 02:02 PM