i don't like bob novak. yes, sometimes he gets some hot information, but when he puts out columns like this, is it even worth it to check?
In his Dec. 1 interview on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show," Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . ," Dean responded, "is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." This received scant media attention (except for Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer), but Democratic politicians shuddered.
hey, look. novak is doing us a public service by pointing out that dean believes in crazy conspiracy theories. and thank god that charles k. exposed it in his column. the thing is that novak left off the first three words of his answer, and those ellipses remove a giant clarifier. now, i guess it's okay in the right to do that when you're trying to make the case for wmds in iraq with intelligence documents (hello, dick!), but c'mon, bob. you didn't save much space by leaving this out:
Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he [Bush] is suppressing that [Sept. 11] report?" Howard 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, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?"
(of course, that krauthammer column about dean suffering from 'bush derangement syndrome' is horrid as well, and it uses some selective quoting from a hardball interview with dean where they joke about breaking up fox news but krauthammer plays it seriously.)
bob then goes on to say that dean is given a chance on fox news sunday to retract his statement where he says that he doesn't believe that conspiracy theory. well duh, bob. he said it the first time.
and then novak goes on and on about how democrats are worried that dean might actually get the nomination (especially with the endorsement of al gore), and all democrat insiders naturally would rather have hillary clinton run. and lo and behold, novak opines that on sunday's meet the press hillary clinton hesitated many times when asked if she would not make a run in 2004:
After an impressive performance answering Tim Russert's policy questions, the former first lady would not flatly promise to turn down a presidential draft. "The nomination -- it's not going to be offered to me," she insisted. "But if it did happen?" asked Russert. "You know, I have, I am -- ," she stammered. "I think the door is opening a bit, Senator," Russert concluded. "Oh, no, it's not," Clinton shot back. Finally, when pressed to say she would "never" accept the 2004 nomination, she said, "I am not accepting the nomination."
naturally, all of hillary's answers to tim russert are different ways of saying, 'no, i am not going to run for president.' here's the transcript with tim russert, and novak's selected quotations are highlighted in bold:
MR. RUSSERT: If one of the leading candidates falters or the convention becomes deadlocked, would you, under any circumstances, accept the Democratic nomination in 2004?SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, I’ve ruled it out. I’m going to continue to rule it out. You know, my view is that we’ve got people who have been competing, they have put their ideas out in front of the American people, the process will finally, finally start next month in the primaries and the caucuses, and someone’s going to emerge from that and I’m going to work for whoever that nominee is.
MR. RUSSERT: So no matter what happens, absolutely, categorically, no?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, I am going to do everything I can to support this nominee, whoever that person might be.
MR. RUSSERT: But just say no. You would...
SEN. CLINTON: I have said no and no and I’m trying to think of different ways of saying no and no. And I hope that in ’08, I’ll be supporting a Democratic president for re-election.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would never accept the nomination in 2004?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, I have said over and over again—and, you know, my view on all of this is that...
MR. RUSSERT: You’ve said over and over what?
SEN. CLINTON: That I’m not running, I’m not in this race.
MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn’t accept the nomination?
SEN. CLINTON: The nomination—it’s not going to be offered to me, that’s one thing.
MR. RUSSERT: But if it is...
SEN. CLINTON: Oh, Tim, you know, I—it’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, but if it did happen?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, I have—I am...
MR. RUSSERT: I think the door is opening a bit, Senator.
SEN. CLINTON: Oh, no, it’s not. Now, don’t you try to make something out of nothing.
MR. RUSSERT: Oh, no, no, no.
SEN. CLINTON: No, no. I’ve said, no. I’ve said no, no, no, no. And I...
MR. RUSSERT: OK, so the door is sealed.
SEN. CLINTON: The door is shut. The door is shut.
MR. RUSSERT: “I will never accept the nomination in 2004”?
SEN. CLINTON: I am not accepting the nomination. I am going to work for whoever the nominee is.
yeah, that sounds to me like she's hedging her bets, bob. don't people check these things? anyway, novak did get one thing right: hillary did pretty well with tim russert.
and what's up with the whole plame thing? sure, the plame story gets no press after a few months, but i still have to hear about vince foster being murdered by the clintons. liberal media, my ass.
Posted by kilgore at December 11, 2003 11:45 PM | TrackBack