Anatomy of a Kaus smear (of Dean)

[dsc]

In Kaus files Mr. Kaus wrote the following:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement. And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

The "he" in question was Gov. Howard Dean, who is now on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination by virtue of his angry opposition to the war in Iraq. But Dean wasn't showing much of that anger at the end of June, 2002. In fact, Broder's piece chides Dean for failing to pay sufficient heed to the anti-war sentiments then cropping up on the Democratic left. (At the time, Dean's big anti-Bush issues were health insurance and tax cuts).

There are two interpretations of Dean's transformation from a candidate who said Bush was doing "a good job on the war on terrorism" to the Howard Dean most voters think they know today. One, presented forcefully in Monday's Robert Kagan WaPo op-ed, is that Dean sincerely supported the overall war on terror but thought the Iraq invasion was a misstep, the "wrong war at the wrong time." In June 30, 2002, after all, the military strike against Hussein was more than half a year away.

But there's a second, more troubling interpretation, which is that Dean shifted to a strong anti-war position not because of Bush's Iraq actions, but because he saw that that was where the Democratic party's activist base wanted him to go. In June 30, 2002, after all, it wasn't very hard to see the Iraq conflict looming on the horizon. President Bush had already included Iraq in his "axis of evil." Vice-President Cheney had toured the Middle East to drum up support for an effort to topple Saddam. On June 17, 2002--two weeks before Dean praised Bush's "good job"--former President Clinton delivered a speech criticizing Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Reuters' reported:

end of quote

But for some reason Mr. Kaus chose not to link Mr. Broder's article. That made me wonder. So I hunted and found this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64313-2002Jun28

He had been asked where he would find fault with President Bush, and he replied, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, I can't think of anything he's done that I agree with." He ticked off a list of Bush "outrages," ranging from an education bill he called the "largest unfunded mandate in history" to Bush's "appointment of ideologues to the courts." Heads were nodding in agreement.

And then he added, almost as a throwaway line, "I think he's done a good job on the war on terrorism."

"Are you sure?" responded Vi Neil, a veteran Democratic worker and the wife of Dave Neil, the head of the United Auto Workers in Iowa. "A lot of us think we are wasting a lot of money on trying to find the guy with the beard . We have to find a new way to fight terrorism."

Taken aback, Dean said, "I don't agree with that," adding that he believed that the United States had to strike back against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and arguing that it is not the war, but the Bush tax cut, that has pushed the budget back into deficit.

end of quote

Now let us take note of something. There isn't a single, solitary, syllable about Iraq. Not at that meeting, not in the whole entire column. Not only that, but nowhere does Mr. Broder state or imply that Dean or any other Democrat should become anti war. He certainly doesn't chide Dean or anyone else. Don't believe me? Unlike Mr. Kaus I let you look. Go ahead. All Mr. Broder does is suggest that the Democratic primary electorate was beginning to oppose the war on terrorism.

Kaus just out and out is lying to your face. He took a quote out of context, refused to give a link for us to find the context, and then supplied a made up context. All the while he decries the "cynical liar" Dean. He counts on the laziness of people not to look up the real column. There is a word for that conduct. It is called playing you. Shame on him for playing us. Shame on some of us for being played.

Kaus tells us Dean can't be trusted. It is he who can't be trust.

[dsc]

1. This deserves a response IMO

:kick:

[dsc]

2. one more try

:kick:

[slinkerwink]

3. :kick:

:kick:

[Touchdown]

4. Big difference there.

The war on terrorism is NOT the same as cooking up books to wage a pre-emtive war against a soverugn nation based on the falsehoods that their on cahoots with Al Qaeda. That's been debunked, so Iraq must stand on it's own, separate from the other war. Linking the two is intellectually dishonest.

[Rowdyboy]

5. But he has the prestige of the Washington Post

behind his name and because of that, many people give him credit he doesn't deserve. They will twist everything concievable to their benefit.

[dsc]

6. This isn't Broder's fault it is Kaus'

He is the one who twisted Broder's and thus Dean's words.