Was Richard Clarke on Charlie Rose tonight? Did he vindicate Dean?

[madfloridian]

Did he say something like this?

SNIP..."OT, but news flash. Richard A Clarke was just on Charlie Rose lambasting the Bush administration on its handling of the war on terrorism. After careful discussion, Charlie said, "wait a minute. Howard Dean said we weren't safer now that Saddam Hussein was captured. You mean he's right." "Yes, he was right," said Clarke.

But, I thought most thought he was wrong. If this is true, then that makes two saying the same thing. Could it be Dean did not make a gaffe? Could it be he told the truth? Maybe it was a wee bit unfair for him to be blasted so for saying it by his fellow candidates. I guess it was too truthful. That is sad.

[Ksec]

1. watching now and it aint lookin good fer Bash

[goclark]

3. In California

It's not on my PBS station .
What are they saying now?

[Kool Kitty]

2. Well, he did say that Dean was right about

capturing Saddam not making us safer. Dean was right. Tomorrow night's Charlie Rose show ought to be a howler-the guest is Richard Perle. Charlie made sure he said of tomorrow night's show-"And tomorrow night, our guest is Richard Perle-who has a very different opinion of all this". No doubt.

[goclark]

6. Hitler's Perle

Let's hear what the little coward is going to say tomorrow.
He has sent our precious children to war and he is nothing but a bully.

[ochazuke]

7. From Clarke to Perle

Wow, from the White Knight on a horse to the Prince of Darkness in one day.

I hope Rose pins the Evil One with just ONE of Clarke's facts, JUST ONE!

I'm afraid he'll soft ball it. Rose has basically been pro-Iraq-War and a Friedman echo chamber all along.

[madfloridian]

4. Ok, what channel on Dish network is this show.

I found it one night, but can't seem to find it now.

[brainoverload]

9. PBS

Check your local PBS station or look in the 9000s for a non-local PBS station.

[ochazuke]

5. I felt good for Dean tonight

Yes, Clarke totally vindicated Governor Dean. And Dean looked relaxed yet energetic on Tavis Smiley.

We're all gonna be screaming when this things over.


YEAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

[madfloridian]

8. Good! Dean's appearance on Smiley's show airs here tomorrow.

I heard it was great. I am so glad to have someone say he was right. The man says so many truths and get blasted. Thanks for letting me know.

[chocolateeater]

13. Speaking of the Tavis Smiley Show

They have a transcript of Dean's appearance on it. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/20040322_transcript.html
It looks like he did a good job.:headbang:

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Iraqis are safer without Saddam. I think that was

a valid objection to what Dean said, but I'm not sure anyone made that objection. (Iraqis are not happier, though, as they want us out of Iraq, and want life to return to normal minus Saddam. I just watched a LINK TV program detialing this. Iraqis don't have fuel for cooking, are without electricity much of the time, etc. They also must fear crime -- mothers aren't letting their kids go to the playground. But they are safe from Saddam and his goons.)

I don't really recall exactly what was said about Dean's comment, except that the GOP criticized it (Doh!) and other candidates criticized it, which is part of campaigning.

That was one statement Dean made that I agreed with him on. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US, he didn't have WMD, ergo toppling his regime did not make us safer.

[madfloridian]

11. Dean said the US was not safer with him gone.

He said to the effect that the rest of the world might be, though not in those words.

What he said was exactly right. He was not just criticized by the GOP but by other candidates...who nearly laughed at him.

I feel vindicated, too. Though we all knew he was right. No one stood up.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

12. Yeah but people HERE were criticizing dean

However NOW people are praising clarke for the statement he made. I just think it's hypocritical.

[DFLforever]

14. Rather too bad Dean's not the nominee

Then the Dems might profit from Clarke's revelations. It's kind of hard to when you've been suckered by Bush.

[drfemoe]

15. Not only that

but Dean mentioned something about "theories" that woosh might have done more to prevent 9ll. That's exactly what Clarke is saying. So much for "conspiracy theories".

I know at least one RWer who is still saying woosh gets an A for the WOT .. because he "made it a war". Facts mean nothing to some people. It's an amazing study in the variances of human thinking.

[dkf]

16. Jeez, how many things has Dean been way ahead of the curve on.

Dean is a leader. How many times has he been vindicated after being savagely attacked by the media and by people in his own party?

Clarke says Osama Bin Laden has been saying for years that the U.S. wanted to take over an Arab country for its oil and we WALKED RIGHT INTO HIS PROPAGANDA.

Going into Iraq made us weaker because it made Al Queda stronger.

The senators & reps who voted for the IWR weakened this country.

Bush and those who voted for the Iraq war are all complicit and need to be held accountable.

[seaglass]

17. A gaffe is not necessarily an untruth. It's a socially awkward

or tactless remark. Whether it's true or not is beside the point.

If someone says to you, wow, it looks like you put on a few pounds, it might be true, but it's also a gaffe.

I'm not arguing whether it was a gaffe or not, just saying that it's fairly subjective.

[BootinUp]

18. Yep n/t

[RetroLounge]

19. The biggest gaffe was nominating the wrong guy

Dean was correct, we (meaning his supporters) knew it then, we know it now, and it's a shame that he took the heat for making Democrats uncomfortable with the truth.

Someday Democrats will be able to recognize true leadership.

Go Dean!!!

RL

[chocolateeater]

21. We should never make a leader afraid to tell the people the truth.

Sometimes the truth is socially awkward, but it still needs to be said. Besides, if we make it a policy to call the truth a gaffe, just because it's awkward, we can't go after the Bushies for their tactful lies.

[seaglass]

24. It's not a policy and as I said it doesn't have anything to

do with the truth.

Richard Clarke is telling a very painful truth, as of yet I haven't heard him make any gaffes.

[chocolateeater]

30. And Dean also told a very painful truth

when he said, "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." How could he have been more tactful when he said that?

[seaglass]

35. And he told it at the wrong time, that's why it was considered

a gaffe. When a large majority thought the capture of SH was a good thing, he rained on the parade with that last sentence. It doesn't mean he wasn't right but neither you, nor I nor Governor Dean can control the way this remark was taken by the American public.

[madfloridian]

37. There was never a right time, so he just said it.

Ignoring the truth is often more comfortable, but sometimes ignoring it is detrimental to our country.

[seaglass]

38. Personally, I didn't think it was a particularly meaningful or

necessary statement. Nor do I think it would have been a detriment to our country if he didn't say it. We'll just have to disagree.

[yardwork]

52. I think you have it about right.

I agreed with Dean when he made the statement, and still agree with it. The world is no safer now that Saddam is out of the picture. As Clarke said, invading Iraq made the world less safe.

I never saw anything wrong with Clarke's "yeaaaaah" speech either.

[madfloridian]

26. Dean told the truth about Saddam. Not to be equated with insulting.

I think you are comparing two very different things here. His powerful statement that day about Saddam was in no way the same as telling someone they put on pounds.

Our WH resident was allowing Saddam to be paraded all over TV to a point of pure humiliation, searching his mouth for goodness sake. How long does it take to search one's mouth?

There is no comparison between the two things you mention at all.

[seaglass]

32. Please don't take the comparison so literally. I just used it

as an example to point out that a gaffe is not necessarily centered on the truth of the statement.

Please read Lexingtonian's reply below, he/she explained it better than I.

[madfloridian]

36. That comment said the moment had passed for the war issue.

I understood what you said. Of course all gaffes are not connected to truth. Usually, though, that is the term applied so freely to Dean's true statements. Hard not to equate it.

Lexingtonian's statement is that Dean did not realize the time for Iraq to be an issue had passed, that Dean did not recognize that.

A lot of us feel it is the central issue still, draining our country's credibility, our finances, and our good will.

Dean is not politically correct. I hope he never is.

[seaglass]

39. I should have been more precise, I meant the first paragraph.

That explains why the term is so connected to Dean's statements. Dean himself has admitted that he speaks before thinking things through so it's a risk he's willing to take.

I'll let Lexingtonian explain what he/she meant about the Iraq war issue.

[JNelson6563]

20. "Dean was right"

:toast:

Julie

[KittyWampus]

22. No, Dean's Knack For Choosing Wrong Words Will NEVER Be Vindicated

Dean has an absolute gift for choosing the WRONG WORDS... the kiss of death in politics especially talking on a national stage.

Also, his timing sucks.

It wasn't what Dean said was wrong. That wasn't the issue. He just didn't present it properly.

And if you think packaging isn't important when dealing with the public- Think Again.

Packaging is EVERYTHING. Politicians are trying to sell themselves. If you can't put yourself and your policies and opinions out there so people will buy you and what you're saying then that is YOUR PROBLEM>

[HFishbine]

23. That's a very cynical assertion

I can't disagree, but there is no reason why we must accept the status quo that Americans are more interested in packaging than truth. You assert what is currently true; those who support Dean advocate for what we wish were true -- a mature willingness by Americans to hear the truth without regard to packaging.

[madfloridian]

25. That is what is wrong with the Democrats now. Packaging.

Packaging. Packaging it up and making that sound ok. It is not ok. Sometimes the only way to get the truth out is just to say it plainly and simply.

I really never thought it would all come down to packaging vs the truth.

[Lexingtonian]

29. No

In Dean's case it was about picking the right situation, the right moment in the mind of the public to do and say things- he blew it so often it was scary. Arguably his big anti-war bit was just one that he got lucky on- but again, didn't seem to understand when its moment was passed.

At the poles there are abstract thinking (explaining how things originate) and situational thinking (calling things by names appropriate to the occasion here and now). Clinton is excellent at emphasizing the second and adding in just enough of a dash of the first when he speaks in public. Bush and his boys can't do the first and always sound hoaky when they try, Kerry still does a bit too much of it.

[madfloridian]

31. You say the moment has passed for the Iraq War issue.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying it ceased to be an issue.

We just disagree all over the place here. The Iraq Invasion is still the biggest issue on the table. Our credibiity, our financial future, and our safety as a nation is totally at stake here.

The Democratic Party did not want it made an issue. It was far more comfortable for them that way. Thus they called it a gaffe. That is exactly why Dean is truly having a hard time "rallying the troops", as some like to say.

It is hard to rally behind someone who calls the truth a mistake.

[Lexingtonian]

40. well, see,

just the way you choose to phrase it points at the problem. The war is not an issue anymore. There is nothing left for the generals left to do other than withdraw. It's the occupation.

I don't believe that "our credibility, our financial future, and our safety as a nation is totally at stake here" to the extent that you appear to propose. I do utterly agree with you that too much of it was anted up in the gamble made, on the military adventurism that Iraq represents.

You can make the case that too much of your own welfare was put at risk there without your consent. And you are perfectly right to do about it what you have been doing.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans whose lives are more or less invested in being a warrior caste, beyond any political labels and alliances, who insist on proving themselves twice or three times a generation. We would not be Americans without a certain amount of wildness within and testing ourselves against the wilderness occasionally. To be a Party that represents all elements of the society except those who choose to be opposed to it, there has to be some respect and dignity shown each side of any particular argument no matter how the decision falls.

Dean is technically correct about Hussein's capture. But he really decided to point out the downside at a time when most people felt (tacitly) pretty certain that taking away the last real power of the man- to instill fear in his fellow Iraqis- by capturing him might well be the only humanly real accomplishment of the whole War and hundreds of billions of dollars. Dean's assertion was a denial of that truth, pathetic as it might or might not be, at that moment.

And this is a constant motif in the Dean following, as I see it- the idea that there is only one Truth at any given time and only one Source of it. (Give me a penny for every time a Dean supporter has claimed on DU that Dean did something magical to the Party and ignores the selfinflicted wounds that crashed Bush from 60% to 45%, and I'd be making more than most politicians.) It's Leninism short a book from which to lift dogmatisms. The behavior reminds me of some ex-Catholics I know- always in search of dogmatic truths yet as if being right were the one way to salvation.

[madfloridian]

42. Do you think it was ok for the party not to speak out on Iraq?

It sounds as though you think it was harmful to say it, as though it is only "someone's truth." Or perhaps you are saying it did not matter and was not important.

Actually you are defending Bush's position in a way. That his truth is as good as ours on this topic of Iraq.

And again, the usual implications about the self-importance of Dean folks and their truths. That really gets to me. It implies that we "worship" or "adore" or something like that. Actually for most of us, it is respect for the truth that no one was really talking about.

Either Saddam and Iraq were part of 9/11 or they were not. It is not my truth or your truth. They either caused it or they did not.

[Lexingtonian]

44. you keep changing the issue on me

and in the process you keep on trying to fuse all of them into a single one, on which there is Dean's Way and there is Bush's Way. You keep on illustrating my point of trying to turn everything into Leninist issues of The One Big Truth.


Do you think it was ok for the party not to speak out on Iraq?

It never came to a consensus on it. Dictator/Iraqi suffering- true. Democratic government to install- unavailable. WMDs-bogus or near trivial at best. Running low level military conflict and political war-of-nerves with the U.S.- yes. Reason enough to go to war- no. Reason enough to resist war- kind of. The Democratic plan was to let Iraq go the way of Castro's Cuba. (OTOH, the Bay of Pigs got tried by a Democrat.)

It sounds as though you think it was harmful to say it, as though it is only "someone's truth." Or perhaps you are saying it did not matter and was not important.

Why is your truth the Absolute Truth, rather than a relative one?

Actually you are defending Bush's position in a way. That his truth is as good as ours on this topic of Iraq.

Nice guilt-by-associatation attempt, but not true. Btw, simpleminded emotional 'associationism' is a deliberate Republican method in political debate.

And again, the usual implications about the self-importance of Dean folks and their truths. That really gets to me. It implies that we "worship" or "adore" or something like that.

If you need an operative word to plug in there it is "hate" or "vehemently oppose". Idolatries can be negative toward the supposed object- but these seem invariably to be oh-so-complimentary to the egos and abilities of the people wielding them.

Actually for most of us, it is respect for the truth that no one was really talking about.

Yeah, those mau-mauing megaphone blasts of Dean dogmatism throughout November/December/January didn't actually happen.

Either Saddam and Iraq were part of 9/11 or they were not. It is not my truth or your truth. They either caused it or they did not.

Of course this is so. No one has disagreed with you on facts, only on the selective choice and interpretation of them. But as true as this one fact may be, your Republican and war-supporter neighbors don't necessarily consider this one crucial. Their own culture and social order and religion are in crisis, they see the collision of it with the Islamic world, they hope to revive their own by intensifying the conflict. The occasion for WW1 was trivial to all sides, they simply knew This One Was Coming and Now Is The Time For It.

[madfloridian]

45. I stand by all my statements you quoted. They are clear.

Our leaders lied by omission and implication to the people of the US, and they took us to a war/invasion.

We should not have let that happen. You may believe that not addressing the issues is better, since so many Republicans believe otherwise. I think we should address them anyway.

Your last paragraph scares me. I agree that many hold those views. I just thought the role of the Democratic Party should have been to bring out the issues, not allow the other party to take us into the war that was based on lies. I hope you are not saying Iraq was ok because so many wanted a confrontation.

I do not see where I shifted the issues. Dean bluntly spoke out on the Saddam issue. He warned we were no safer here, and he was right. Yes, he should have said it. The issue was telling the truth about a horrible war. I did not shift that.

[Lexingtonian]

47. I didn't expect otherwise

I don't know any other way of saying this or what it will take to get through your denial of it: We simply couldn't prevent this war from happening though so many of us tried earnestly and civilly to do so. And I don't quite understand exactly what you are referring to with "addressing the issues". I keep on saying that the issues that were crucial to you were not crucial to everyone, perhaps not even most, of the people who played a part in the decision making process. Many people were not willing to listen to reason or emotional pleas of most kinds.

What I think about the Iraq War is the same thing as violent fighting inside the family and people I don't like having sex: People Just Do It. It is not inside my power to set very much of the world aright, and I accept that it is so. And: that I am not the Messiah, that it is right that I don't get power to appeal or prevent everything my neighbors do wrong (or, right for themselves). We saw a hysterical mob get its way and the invasion of Iraq. It is regrettable and I carry part of the blame for what was done, even though I opposed the mob's desire and the plan itself. I abhor the inhumanity the mob represented and the inhumanity of the killings and all else that happened. But I am part of that society that had these things done in its name, that behaved inhumanely and irrationally. It pains me and I do what I can to remedy things. But I accept the primary duty of fixing what can be fixed, of not cheaply disclaiming responsibility for the mess, as the price of being human and membership in society- as psychotic as my fellows often are, there is no other legitimate place or work for an adult than in doing what is ultimately helpful to those present or those who will carry on the endeavor we are part of. The world is unredeemed- that is a truth also, as is that we have an obligation to make for what change we can in its condition.

The Democratic Party is not The Party Of The Absolute Truth About Everything. (The Republicans think they are, though.) You want the Party to be The Left and full of truths that are perennials. First of all, that runs counter to the other part of the Party, the Liberals, who consider society and individual human beings as in states of change for which both truth and generosity with inability to cope with the present (and its truths) are necessary, albeit carefully applied. (If there were no change, we could optimize the rules to highest social efficiency and run on ideological autopilot.) Secondly, to assert complete ownership of The Truth is where such an approach must end. That is, though, in political practice to declare intolerance a means and war on the rest of society that doesn't defer to that Truth. That is why I call the Dean movement a Leninist group.

The Democratic Party is simply the coalition of people who want this country to move forward to whatever its destiny is, on the general belief that the past offers nothing that seems desirable. The Republicans are the other way around. But neither can be fully consistent- there used to be white slavery (aka indentured servitude) in the past, and conversely the future holds a country in which there will hardly be a white person to see in public places and its society doesn't sound or behave European.

Both Parties are concerned with where the American People are at this moment, its condition and its consensus and its behavior and its hopes. It's not a pretty sight, of course. Pretty horrible, really, in a lot of places. And you only need to flip to Fox News Channel to see that an awful lot of them have looked around and come to prefer fiction to truth. And that's not just on the Right. Truth proffered without reason to hope is rationale for suicide, reason to hope without truth is a what makes Fox shareholders and Cali drug cartel bosses and Pat Robertson and even Leftist political book publishing houses rich.

You did not connect 9/11 with SH's capture and the 'safer' remark. I doubt Dean did, either- I thought he meant, and feel sure he did, that 'safer' referred generally to the running attacks on the Occupation forces and their various agents by the 'fedayeen' Iraqi groups/cells.

[chocolateeater]

34. So when was the right time to say it?

Why was the situation wrong when he said it during his foreign policy address?

[Lexingtonian]

41. Why rain on peoples' parade?

No one made him give a foreign policy speech at the time he did, or comment as judgmentally as he did on the matter. Why not avoid stating a clear view on subject until all the facts became established???

I'm sure he thought his supporters wanted to hear something of the kind said, though, because the event seemed to them too much of a victory for the Bush people. He kind of forgot that what the Iraqi people thought is what was most important overall.

[madfloridian]

43. You were not aware of Saddam's non-involvement in 9/11?

You seem not to be, or not to care. Like it is more important not to upset the masses with what is real.

[chocolateeater]

46. I suppose you have a point

about raining on peoples' parade, but part of that particular parade was built on lies, and IMHO in cases like that there is not really a good time to point that out. If you tell the truth right away(or wait only a day or two like Gov. Dean did) so people can deal with it and move on, you get in trouble for raining on peoples' parade. If you wait for events to prove your point, then you risk a major failure of leadership, where something bad happened and you did nothing to prepare your people for it.
I do agree with you about the Iraqi people though, it is their country after all.

[mzmolly]

27. You all may think I'm crazy now, but Dean could have an excellent shot at

VP depending on how this Bush thing goes?

Dean or perhaps Graham.

They will need a *reasonable candidate* on the ticket who was against the war.

[Paradise]

28. dean was correct, as usual, and

we won't be safer even if we capture or kill ubl.

[madfloridian]

33. What were Clarke's comments about Spain?

There is no transcript and the video is expensive. Anyone catch them?

[WilliamPitt]

48. Dean needed no vindication on that score

The best attack to come down the pike has centered around Dean’s comment that America is not safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Criticism came from three different directions simultaneously, all of which attempted to make the argument that Dean’s comment meant he has no concept of foreign policy. The weevil in the bread loaf here is that Howard Dean was absolutely correct. Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, no connections to al Qaeda, no conventional army worth a hill of beans, and posed no threat whatsoever to America that was worthy of war. The shaggy man pulled out of that hole certainly deserves what is coming his way because of the way he treated his own people, but to claim that his capture somehow makes America safer does not at all wed to the facts in hand.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122403A.shtml

[Nazgul35]

49. amen Will

I was with Dean on this one 100%...

Anyone who though were are safer....give me some of what you're smoking...

[madfloridian]

54. Thanks, that was a good article you wrote.

That word "shaggy" reminded me of another term Dean used recently. There is only this one reference to it at google:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/173657p-151319c.html

SNIP..."Dean, who raised tens of millions of dollars for his campaign but only won his home state of Vermont, called Rice's comment "ridiculous" - and insisted that Saddam was not a threat.

Saddam was "a pathetic old man who we'd been containing for 12 years by overflights," Dean told "Meet the Press" in a sound bite sure to be used by Republicans who think otherwise. "We had sanctions on him that were paralyzing him."

I expected to see this blasted all over, but I found only this article on a search of terms...."pathetic old man". I did see several people refer to the fact that Saddam may not have been as powerful as we thought. So maybe it was not totally ignored.

Thanks for reminding me of the article. In most ways we are still all in this together,and the road will be rough.

[ozone_man]

50. I didn't need anyone to vindicate Dean,

but I welcome those who are brave enough to speak the truth. It sounds like this Richard Clarke is one and he is right, Dean was right. Dean made it safe to speak out against Bush.

[Exgeneral]

51. Funny how Dean took so much flak from Democrats for that comment

actually, no it's not funny.

[Castilleja]

53. He was right

:kick:

[Lugnut]

55. This is the statement I vivdly recall.

Kerry criticized recent comments by fellow candidate and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean before heading to the Tecolote Cafe to meet with Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., as well as veterans and other supporters.

"For Governor Dean to say he doesn't think America is safer without Saddam Hussein is an astonishing statement of naiveté... To suggest that a world without him does not make us safer is to not understand the world," he said.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1220a.html

[CTLawGuy]

56. Kerry will say

anything that he thinks is popular at the time, no matter how grossly untrue. That is why we are in trouble in Nov.