Questions of Character - New York Times

Paul Krugman says "I told you so," and tells us why we don't have a better press corps:

Questions of Character - New York Times : George W. Bush, I once wrote, "values loyalty above expertise" and may have "a preference for advisers whose personal fortunes are almost entirely bound up with his own." And he likes to surround himself with "obsequious courtiers." Lots of people are saying things like that these days. But those quotes are from a column published on Nov. 19, 2000.

I don't believe that I'm any better than the average person at judging other people's character. I got it right because I said those things in the context of a discussion of Mr. Bush's choice of economic advisers, a subject in which I do have some expertise. But many people in the news media do claim, at least implicitly, to be experts at discerning character - and their judgments play a large... role.... The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader.

So it's important to ask why those judgments are often so wrong.... [W]hat happened to the commanding figure of yore, the heroic leader in the war on terror? The answer, of course, is that the commanding figure never existed: Mr. Bush is the same man he always was. All the character flaws that are now fodder for late-night humor were fully visible, for those willing to see them, during the 2000 campaign. And President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character, bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media.

Why does this happen? A large part of the answer is that the news business places great weight on "up close and personal" interviews.... [But] most people - myself included - are pretty bad at using personal impressions to judge character.... [C]overage... [is] shaped by what reporters feel they can safely say, rather than what they actually think or know. Now that Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's, we're hearing about his coldness and bad temper, about how aides are afraid to tell him bad news. Does anyone think that journalists have only just discovered these personal characteristics?

Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism. Those who wrote puff pieces about Mr. Bush and those around him have been rewarded with career-boosting access. Those who raised questions about his character found themselves under personal attack.... So what's the answer?.... [W]e really need is political journalism based less on perceptions of personalities and more on actual facts. Schadenfreude aside, we should not be happy that stories about Mr. Bush's boldness have given way to stories analyzing his facial tics. Think, instead, about how different the world would be today if, during the 2000 campaign, reporting had focused on the candidates' fiscal policies instead of their wardrobes.

Comments

[Mike Smith]

I want to believe there is a solution to the anti-intellectualism of the press corps.

How different would the world be if there was a competent press corps in 2000?

How different would the world be if the left had been able to ensure that the press corps had been competent in 2000?

On the other hand, the stories were available. If you cared to know, you knew during the 2000 campaign that Bush's numbers did not add up.

The press corps serves the country and the market for wardrobe stories was bigger in 2000 than the market for budget stories - understandable because Clinton and a booming economy made the budget look easy.

You go to elections with the country you have. Not the country you wish you had.

[Ko]

American journalism is now dominated by broadcast and print media that compete for advertising revenue by catering to popular opinion with sound bites and instant analysis rather than traditional journalistic research and reporting. This journalistic equivalent of junk food offers consumers instant gratification but little healthy substance; both are predictably mediocre and apparently additcting. Given the lack of character and purpose the media itself demonstrates, is it ay surprise it’s unable to judge the character of politicians?

[Bruce Moomaw]

As he frequently does, Krugman flaws a generally correct case with overstatement. The "judicious and realistic" Howard Dean announced that it was an "interesting possibility" that Bush had known about the 9-11 attacks in advance, which (even if you assume that Bush and all his top-level officials are homicidal maniacs) has a certain degree of trouble explaining why Cheney was in the White House while one jetliner was apparently headed for it and Rummy was in the Pentagon when that plane actually changed course to hit it instead. It was when that cretinous comment of Dean's hit the airwaves that he started dropping in the Iowa polls, and thus lost the nomination -- exactly as he deserved.

[evap]

The problem is that the media is, after all, still just a business. If people would rather hear about the candidates wardrobes than their fiscal policies, then that's what they get.

[lise]

Where is the exact source for your attack? Where? Where? Where? Until I find an exact objective source for the quote I am sure your terrible comment is completely false.

[lise]

I was referring to the scurrilous attack on Howard Dean.

[Ari]

The attack on Howard Dean, from a search of New York Times archives, is completely false. Shame for such a scurrilous statement. Paul Krugman's column is superb and not a whit "overstated."

[PaulO]

Bruce Moomaw -

You are what's wrong with this country.

You choose to attack someone who generally tells the truth but occasionally oversteps (Dean), and leave alone those who lie nearly every minute of every day (BushCo) on matters of vital importance.

You make Krugman's point precisely: why won't people look at what actually matters in this country and stop getting caught up in personality?

People like you are the reason these demons got elected and have been allowed to dismantle our once great nation.

[Jonathan Goldberg]

In this context it is mandatory to mention the work of Bob Somerby. At his site, The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com) he started screaming about media treatment of Gore (which he calls the "War on Gore") since 1999. That is, he was pointing out the vendetta ("bias" just dosen't do it justice) in great (even gruesome) detail and in real time. He went on from there.

It's all online. You can go to the site and check his archives; they will tell you exactly who the bad guys (the bad gals are some of the worst) are and what they did to earn them that status.

He mentioned Krugman's column, approvingly, of course. His mentions of Krugman have been consistently favorable.

[lise]

"Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media."

Quite accurate....

[lise]

"Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media."

Quite accurate....

[lise]

"Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media."

Quite accurate....

[lewis carrol]

I've said it three times, and that makes it true.

[lise]

Please forgive the multiple posts. I cannot imagine how this happened; I surely only posted a single time but when I looked there were 3 posts. Sorry!

Paul Krugman has offered us a signal criticism that reporters need to carefully attend to. Much of the reporting leading to the war in Iraq was in effect cheerleading, and has done us a terrible service. But, the same comment is apt for far more contemporary political reporting.

Jonathan Goldberg is correct.

[lewis carrol]

I've said it three times, and that makes it true.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Lise: "Where is the exact source for your attack? Where? Where? Where? Until I find an exact objective source for the quote I am sure your terrible comment is completely false."

Well, here, here, here (courtesy of Timothy Noah):
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095715/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515/

Let me say that it's a refreshingly novel experience to be accused of viciously attacking Krugman, after three years of defending him vigorously against various right-wing attackers ranging from Andrew Sullivan to Megan McArdle (aka "Jane Galt") to (last week) Mark Coffey on his "Decision '08" site. (After I defended Krugman against the ridiculous tempest-in-a-teapot attacks against him for his extremely tiny and unimportant mistakes regarding the 2000 Florida recount, Coffey accused me in an E-mail of being a fanatic who thinks Krugman is "perfect".) But let me repeat: given a target as spectacular as this godawful administration, it's a shame Krugman keeps overplaying his hand by praising the likes of Dean, Michael Moore, and (most notoriously) Mohammmed Mahathir.

And as for Dean: after he actually DID make that cretinous remark -- which actually managed to be more idiotic than anything Bush has ever said, which is saying something -- I reluctantly concluded that if he DID get the nomination, I would have to hold my nose very tightly indeed and vote for Bush. (I've voted Republican exactly once in my 33 years of voting: California State Controller, 1974.) If this is treason, make the most of it.

[lise]

Your statment is, of course, a complete and utter distortion.

[otto]

Krugman:

"Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism."

I wonder what Judy & Co at the NYT made of that.

[otto]

Krugman:

"Let's be frank: the Bush administration has made brilliant use of journalistic careerism."

I wonder what Judy & Co at the NYT made of that.

[obscure]

@Your statment is, of course, a complete and utter distortion.@

Let's be clear. I disagree with Bruce & Timothy Noah here re Krugman.

But Lise, why don't you show some signs of intelligence and SHOW US what is a "distortion" and why.

Otherwise, based on my experience with you, you don't seem at all credible.

[obscure]

@Your statment is, of course, a complete and utter distortion.@

Let's be clear. I disagree with Bruce & Timothy Noah here re Krugman.

But Lise, why don't you show some signs of intelligence and SHOW US what is a "distortion" and why.

Otherwise, based on my experience with you, you don't seem at all credible.

[obscure]

@Your statment is, of course, a complete and utter distortion.@

Let's be clear. I disagree with Bruce & Timothy Noah here re Krugman.

But Lise, why don't you show some signs of intelligence and SHOW US what is a "distortion" and why.

Otherwise, based on my experience with you, you don't seem at all credible.

[Dubblblind]

"The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader."

Honest, likable guy...image of a strong effective leader. Here's our problem, there doesn't seem to be any interest in facts. Con men are likable too, at least at first blush. Bush had a track record going into the first presidential election and it's been consistent. Everything he touches turns to shit. Amazingly this talent of his is so great he is succeeding in turning an entire nation to shit. There is nothing new here and no surprises. If the media was doing its job and giving us the facts instead of the drivel they put out we could have been living in a very different country today.

[obscure]

Lise,

How about advancing an actual argument? Like, show us the distortion and explain why it IS a distortion.

For the record, I'm with Krugman and not Bruce or Timothy Noah here. Indeed, how do we know that Dean was not simply referring to "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S."? Is that not a possibility?

But it helps, Lise, to argue with facts moreso than assertions.

[J Thomas]

I'm troubled about Bruce Moomaw's comment on Dean.

When I checked references (two deep from Moomaw's link) I find the claim that Dean said Bush was suppressing a report, one that possibly said Bush got advanced notice of the attack from the saudis. But wasn't it true that Bush suppressed a report about 9/11? And didn't Putin claim to have given him advanced notice, along with a whole lot of other people? Not precise specific notice, but Dean didn't claim that.

I don't see what's wrong with that quote. Is this a problem with the way I'm looking at it, or with the way Bruce is looking at it, or is Bruce a ruthless partisan?

If Bruce is a ruthless partisan is he a ruthless partisan for some other democrat? Have democrats learned so much about republican methods that they're doing it to each other?

I'd rather think that Bruce got taken in by media spin way back then. Or that I simply have failed to understand the seriousness of the original problem.

[PaulC]

Bruce Moomaw: "[Dean's remark] ...has a certain degree of trouble explaining why Cheney was in the White House while one jetliner was apparently headed for it and Rummy was in the Pentagon when that plane actually changed course to hit it instead."

I think that Dean's remark does indicate a tendency to shoot his mouth off when he should be more careful, but it hardly carries the implications you suggest.

I would contend that it is both interesting and possible that Bush knew some sort of attack would occur without knowing enough specifics about it to anticipate the mass murder or potential danger to members of his administration. Your objections above are only relevant if they knew what would happen at a high level of detail, and Dean never suggested this.

In retrospect, it sure looks like this administration was looking for a crisis moment to justify their Iraq plans. So it seems to pass the means, motive, and opportunity test. Still, for some reason I think it's not very likely they were expecting a serious terrorist attack, but why do I think that? Maybe I'm actually far too generous in attributing even a shred of decency to this gang.

Finally, it's unclear to me that a plane was "apparently" headed to the White House. I believe that was entirely a story made up to explain why the administration went scurrying like roaches when you turn on the light instead of taking an immediate leadership role in the crisis.

[lise]

Have we forgotten how to think and read? Lise is right. Howard Dean was simply saying that therehave been reports that there were attacks planned against America, and we should know exactly how these reports were processed through the Administration. The attack on Dean is simply another trick to make Dean or Gore or Clinton or Kerry the problem whenever the Administration is criticized.

Thank you, Lise. The attack on Howard Dean is another deception, another "swift boat" ploy. Lise is right.

[Lewis Carroll]

I don't have it handy, but I believe if you go back and look at the entire context of Dean's remarks, you'll find that part of his point was that Bush's continued stonewalling of a complete and thorough investigation of 9/11 resulted in the proliferation of all kinds of 'theories' about the attacks.

Yes, it was unfortunate, and I'll grant foolish, to term the 'advanced notice' theory "interesting", but his core point still stands (I think he would have been better off referring to it as 'crazy' or 'loony'). People will always speculate about all kinds of hidden plots and agendas, and this is all the more so when the parties concerned demonstrate a rabid aversion to any kind of thorough investigation.

[Oskar Shapley]

"So what's the answer?"

It's really simple. People disassociate themselves from losers and appease winners.

Once, Bush was the chief-of-state who won in Afghanistan. Later he (initially) won in Iraq. Then he began loosing in Iraq and it brought down his approval.

With approval rates in the 30s it's now politically safe and rhetorically simple to criticize Bush, precisely because he is losing. Even the conservative punditry dares now to question the leader on domestic issues. There would be no opposition of Miers nomination in 2003.

The point is that the long-term results (e.g. decade long insurgency, ethnic conflict in Iraq) of Bush's policies were predictable and all the people with enough foresight were warning against them. But because his policies gave mildly positive short-term successes (beating the Taliban, beating Saddam's Republican Guard), the Bush cheerleaders felt obliged to applaud all his decisions.

[J Pierpont Flathead]

Where are the responsible grown-up journalists resigning from their papers or networks?

Where are the Deans and Professors of the J-Schools writing op-eds in the big papers and calling their alumni to task?

Where are the Deans and Professors of the J-Schools testifying before Congress? Testifying amongst other things that some bloggers conduct excellent journalism and some journalists conduct nothing worthwhile at all?

[A. Zarkov]

I always regarded G.W. Bush (and his father) as lightweights. The Democrats should have been able to beat both of them in 1988, 2000 and 2004. But they didn’t, they failed because they had poor candidates who ran poor campaigns. But they can’t seem to own up to their failures, choosing instead to blame others as when Krugman writes:

” The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy.”

Did they lean their lesson in 2000? No! They almost ran another loser, Dean, who is prone to intemperate remarks. When someone like Moomaw points this out, he gets abuse like:

“You are what's wrong with this country.” [Paul O.]

But Dean did make the following remark (if we believe the transcript):

“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.”

His response when asked by Scott Spaulding about his statement was:

“Well, in all due respect, I did not exactly state that.”

Now Dean is chairman of the DNC.

BTW I think there is a potential copyright problem when you reprint a whole article from a newspaper. I think this very question is the subject of current litigation.

[Saheli]

Eh, I just want to say that I no longer trust a certain kind of character-study of just about anybody, unless I personally know the writer, because of how badly people profiled Gore. I had been following his press and reading about him for 9 years previous, and I just couldn't believe the crap I was reading in 2000. Since then I've had friends who've actually gotten to know him and worked with him, and they confirm that my impressions were correct. I'll make fun of bushisms, because those are a concrete example of Bush's lack of skill and also easy to confirm and deny, but I try not to touch the rest of his personal life and "home" character unless it obviously impacts something relevant. There's judgement involved, of course. I find it far more relevant that he unceasingly goes to bed early than his taste in paper plates or music or clothes, for example.

[Jennifer]

All that Howard Dean was referring to was the need to know how intelligence was processed by the Administration before the attack on America. There was no intimation of any possible conspiracy. The innocuous comment by Howard Dean was turned to an absurdity in another example of attack journalism. And, as Paul Krugman and Lise and Ari and Paul and Lewis have pointed out, it was the few bold political figures who choose to challenge the Administration, who were proven right about this needless war.

[Johnny]

Back during the buildup to the Iraq war, Gore gave a speech that basically said "We need to really think about this whole invading Iraq business, there are other options to keep Saddam from getting WMDs."... The right and the Chris Mathews of the world laid into Al Gore with a vengeance. They wanted this splendid little war, and how dare Gore throw cold water on the proceedings. In hindsight of course, we'd have been wise to listen to Gore, since all the downsides that seemed so crazy to the pundits back then have come to fruition.

Based partly on what Krugman wrote and from other sources, it was clear to me in 2000 that not only was W woefully underqualified to be President, his temperment and beliefs were just plain dangerous to our countries well being. I had figured the long term damage would be largely contained to the fiscal arena and some odious judicial appointments, but little did I know 9/11 would give W the leverage to expand his ineptitude into the international arena.

The situation with the media is so bad now I honestly don't know if there is a solution. The reality of W is slowly dawning on the media, but I don't think for a second that means any kind of "are we partly responsible?" self-reflection on their part.

Perhaps the only hope is that the great middle of the American electorate will wake up to the fact that they got conned. It's not the creeping awareness of the reality of W that is important, its the awareness that it was the disfunctional media was the medium that aided and abetted this whole disaster.

[Mick]

This is just stupid. Here's the whole Dean exchange with Diane Rehm, made in response to a question about why Bush was interested in suppressing the 9/11 Commission report. It demonstrates beyond cavil (God I love that phrase) that Dean, inartfully, was merely calling into question the suppression of the enormous amount of factual investigation in the repor, because by doing so you lend backhanded credibility such absurd theories:

GOVERNOR DEAN: Yes, there is a report which the President is suppressing evidence for which is a thorough investigation of 9/11.

REHM: Why do you think that he is suppressing that report?

GOVERNOR 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 by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories whether they have truth to them or not, and 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 the Keane commission.

[Johnny]

The only thing I don't really like about Dean is, he's got a big mouth. He says too many things that are going to get mischaracterized by the right and the compliant media.

[lise]

A few days ago the Mayor of New York was warned about an attack on the city subway system. Mayor Bloomberg choose to act on the attack although other intelligence recipients thought the information was suspect. The Mayor might have decided not to act. These are in the end judgement calls, that take considerable group thinking, and eventually a decision is made. Knowing what information was floating about in intelligence circles and who received it and how decisions were made before the attack on America might have been helpful more helpful. That is a fair way to evaluate the comment.

[Ari]

So, I understand, the problem is that Al Gore was not glamorous enough and John Kerry was not brave enough, and other Democrats all have personalities we wish they did not have. Then, let's all vote for George Bush and Republicans. So, we voted and guess what we have.

Have any of the critics even bothered to read or think about Paul Krugman's exceptional essay? I do not think so, and please enough with the rubbish about always supporting Paul Krugman even though all the columns are awful. Please....

[Jennifer]

Hey folks, we have a President with personality... We also have turned a wonderful fiscal situation to a terrible deficit; we have tax cuts for the rich and failing pensions for the middle class; we have a war that is causing nightmarish anguish for no reason any American President ever imagined a war; we have a destroyed American city with a government response that would be more effective aimed at Pakistan; we have gasoline and heating oil and natural gas prices that are horrid; we have attacks on the environment at every turn; we have a private health care system that is shutting out more people each day; we have rising child poverty; etc, ect, ect.

Love personality, hate policy, seems to be the message.

[chickensoup]

Yes, it is a world of perceptions we live in, but I don't think that's anything new. I don't think it's a question of "oh, the media is trying to pull one over us". I think it's the people who are affecting the media. (Not my people, nor your people, which is why it's so perplexing. Other people, the majority.)

No, Paul Krugman wants to believe that Americans were hoodwinked into electing Bush. I don't think that's true. I think the American people knew full well what they were getting, just like they knew what they were buying when they bought their SUVs - 15 vertical inches. Well, what can you do about that?

[Julian Elson]

Brad, I just wanted to say thank you for ripping off the New York Times and stealing their columns. I -- and I suspect a lot of others -- have been reduced to typing in Krugman columns in Technorati and hoping people blogged it. Thank you for making this stuff available.

I think Dean might have been a good president. I didn't like his attitude vis-à-vis the Democratic Party (if you don't share my views, you're part of the "Republican wing of the Democratic party." I don't think Dean was a raving lefty, mind you: I think he was a center-left type, like me, but his attitude that everyone else had to be like Dean (or me) to be a "real Democrat" irritated me. Maybe that's too insubstantial a consideration for y'all.).

I think it would be interesting to check how much of the content we see in political coverage of newspapers is falsifiable. Of course, many newspapers either focus on unfalsifiable fluff ("Bush is a decent guy who you'd like to have a beer with") or report trivially true facts about what people said ("John Snow said the Bush administration had a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2006") without standing by them because if you make falsifiable statements, no matter how carefully, you'll end up making a few demonstrably false statements as well, and that can be embarassing.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Re Dean's comment: take a look at his comments in Noah's column at http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515/ . Originally he said on the Diane Rehm Show that the idea that Bush had been "warned in advance by the Saudis" was "an interesting theory...which is nothing more than a theory, I can't -- think it can't be proved". He certainly never said anything about "not believing it". But by 8 days later, at the New Hampshire candidates' debate, he had switched to saying that it was one of "a lot of crazy theories" and that he had "made it clear...that I didn't believe that theory" -- which, as I say, he had absolutely not done. He also said that he had first been asked about the whole question on Fox News Sunday -- at which time he DID deny that he thought the theory might perhaps be true, fully six days after he had actually first made the comment on the Rehm show that he just thought it couldn't "be proved".

Quoting Noah: " 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' [as he said two days later during the NH debate]. 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."

Yup. Dean made an utterly idiotic comment, got told by one of his aides immediately after the interview that it was utterly idiotic, and after that went into frantic and classic political CYA mode, trying to obscure just what he'd actually said. (Without much success, except among those frantic to believe everything he says.)

[J Thomas]

Bruce, have we found out yet whether the saudis sent Bush a warning?

The saudis said they sent us a warning about a couple of the 9/11 terrorists, but the US government says we never got it. Was there some other warning than that?

Are those records still secret?

If Dean claimed that Bush knew all about the plot including which day it would happen, that was definitely premature. But what I read him actually saying looks reasonable.

Soon after 9/11 the Saudi ambassador claimed that "we" (meaning US and saudi counterintelligence units) had all the information necessary to predict 9/11 but we didn't. He said the reason was that we didn't expect them to be that stupid. We didn't "connect the dots" because we were thinking rationally.

Was the saudi ambassador lying? I don't think it's a giant scandal if he was right. Dean clearly thought it was scandalous that lots of evidence was being kept secret that did not affect current national security.

What is your problem with what Dean said? Are you reading in the claim that Bush knew exactly what was going to happen and planned it to happen that way?

For what it's worth, given what we've seen of the Cheney guys I wouldn't put it past them, but there's no proof. It's suggestive that the Downing Street memo said the Rumsfeld plan called for an iraqi attack to be the provocation for us to invade iraq. It didn't specificailly state that this would be an iraqi terrorist attack on the US mainland, but that would certainly fit the administration's repeated claims of a Saddam/al qaeda connection etc.

But I don't see that Dean made any such claim. What did he say that you interpreted as unreasonable?

[jerry]

The problem with journalism is the cash.

When confronted with cash, doctor's came up with codes of ethics and professional boards that could remove a doctor's license. Engineers came up with codes of ethics and they too can lose their license.

Journalists came up with makeup.

[Bruce Moomaw]

J. Thomas: "If Dean claimed that Bush knew all about the plot including which day it would happen, that was definitely premature. But what I read him actually saying looks reasonable." In which case, why did Dean himself switch only a week later to saying that it was a "crazy theory" and that "I had made it clear...that I didn't believe that theory"? As Noah says, this proves that Dean didn't make the more defensible statement that the Administration might have received some highly fuzzy and ambiguous warnings from the Saudis about possible future attacks, which it then failed to follow up on adequately. What he first said, and then denied saying, was that the extreme version (in which the White House knew about the details of the imminent attacks and LET them happen) was perhaps true.

Thomas: "For what it's worth, given what we've seen of the Cheney guys I wouldn't put it past them, but there's no proof. It's suggestive that the Downing Street memo said the Rumsfeld plan called for an Iraqi attack to be the provocation for us to invade iraq. It didn't specificailly state that this would be an Iraqi terrorist attack on the US mainland, but that would certainly fit the administration's repeated claims of a Saddam/al Qaeda connection etc." As I said before, even if you assume that the entire top level of the Bush Administration was composed of homicidal maniacs, why the hell was Cheney IN the White House when that jetliner was apparently about to crash into it, and why was Rumsfeld IN the Pentagon whan the jet actually did hit it? A very slight shift in that jet's trajectory and Rummy himself would today be firmly in the Land Of Things That We Know We Don't Know About.

And, finally -- as is also the deathblow against conspiracy theories that FDR let the Pearl Harbor attack happen -- why did they let the attack SUCCEED, when a treacherous but unsuccessful attempted attack would have been equally good for their political purposes? Granted that we might have captured the hijackers alive in that case and found out from their own lips that Saddam had no connection with the attack, but then we quickly found out anyway that the hijackers didn't come from Iraq. That didn't stop Bush from claiming an indirect connection between Saddam and the entire al Qaeda movement.

So: you guys are still trying to defend -- and Krugman is still ignoring -- an outgageously idiotic comment by Dean which was the key in making a lot of us (possibly including George McGovern) decide to throw Howard from the train. Nor, of course, was it his last one -- witness his DeLay-is-unquestionably-guilty line, for which he was instantly and properly jumped by Barney Frank. The guy is a loose cannon, and a dangerous one for the Democratic Party -- but he would have been a lot more dangerous in the White House.

[Randall]

Thank you for viciously smearing a fine politician, and turning the thread in your trollish direction to protect this awful Administration. You have learned your extreme trollish attack politics well.

[J Thomas]

"... why did Dean himself switch only a week later to saying that it was a "crazy theory"..."

Bruce, you said it yourself.

'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."

He was under intense attack from the Republican smear machine and he was doing damage control the best he knew how. The original statement didn't sound bad and still doesn't sound bad. But by the time the liars finished slandering him about it, people were ready to believe he said something crazy. And you're still doing it.

"As I said before, even if you assume that the entire top level of the Bush Administration was composed of homicidal maniacs, why the hell was Cheney IN the White House when that jetliner was apparently about to crash into it, and why was Rumsfeld IN the Pentagon whan the jet actually did hit it?"

This is idiotic. You appear to be utterly unable to place yourself in the mind of a conspiracy nut, much less a homicidal national leader. If we're willing to assume that Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11 for political gain, why, oh whyever would they refuse to lie afterward about it? I can hardly believe you said that. First, the plotters would know whether the White House was targeted and would not need to move if it wasn't.

Second, Rumsfeld was talking to legislators in the Pentagon, but he was on the other side of the building. The wing that got hit was under renovation with few people working there, it was the only wing with a sprinkler system and it had special structural improvements to help against bomb blasts etc. If we suppose that the plotting called for that wing to be hit, it would have taken a pretty bad SNAFU to hit Rumsfeld instead.

"And, finally -- as is also the deathblow against conspiracy theories that FDR let the Pearl Harbor attack happen -- why did they let the attack SUCCEED, when a treacherous but unsuccessful attempted attack would have been equally good for their political purposes?"

It would not have been equally good. Far from it. The Alamo -- The Maine -- Pearl Harbor -- when have we had a white-hot indignant war over an attack that failed? The last time they failed to knock down the WTC were we ready to go to war? Hardly. Even if you were right that an exposed failed plan would be just as good, so what? I can make the argument that the nazis were stupid to do death camps, that the diesel fumes they used to kill people was fuel they could not afford. But they did it anyway. Homicidal maniacs in high places do stupid things sometimes. You're making up fairy tales, arguing that people must not be crazy because the crazy things they're accused of are inefficent and inhumane.

Bruce, I'm going to pay you the compliment of supposing that you're a clueless liberal who simply has no idea how neocons think or how conspiracy theorists who study neocons think. And not a troll who's saying stupid things to derail conversations that are heading in ways you don't want.

So in that context, please stop telling people how conspiracy theorists and homicidal maniacs ought to think. You don't make sense.

[J Thomas]

"Dean didn't make the more defensible statement that the Administration might have received some highly fuzzy and ambiguous warnings from the Saudis about possible future attacks, which it then failed to follow up on adequately. What he first said, and then denied saying, was that the extreme version (in which the White House knew about the details of the imminent attacks and LET them happen) was perhaps true."

He didn't say that. He didn't say either one. You are taking the Republican smear story and saying it's the truth.

If the media held Bush to the standards of syntax that they held Dean, Bush would never have been governor of texas.

[Ari]

J Thomas, well argued but some folks only wish to smear Democrats. The Republican attack machine has mastered the smear. Lise understood at once, but she may have thought the attack would be withdrawn when these folks only attack more and more meanly.

[J Thomas]

Ari, Bruce Moomaw is not at all a typical troll. I've seen him make a series of rational arguments against various wingnuts. He certainly doesn't smear all democrats, so far it's only been this one.

He appears to care deeply about something I don't see in the text. Maybe he heard the discussion live and the spoken words had meanings that don't show up written. Maybe he was half-asleep in a hypnotic state when Limbaugh was spouting. I don't know. But this is somebody I try to pay attention to. He's written a lot of good stuff and provided good links. So I was real surprised this time when I tracked down the links and it didn't pan out.

[Ari]

Thank you for explaining J Thomas. I apologize then for being harsh to Bruce Moomaw, and will not be so again though I thought the argument he made was not in any way fair. Possibly I have not understood in some way, and obviously Bruce reacted strongly to the comments he cited. In any event, I apologize for my harshness. Politeness is a call of this Blog as a contributor would say at times.

Thank you J and Bruce.

[Ari]

An addition: arguing that there is a need to know how intelligence information is handled by an Administration is entirely justified. Attacks on this simple point are only meant to obscure and turn us away from arguing this need to know. Attack on character masks legitimate arguments, and supporters of this Administration have used such attacks repeatedly.