The Criminal Deep Throat Bob Novak Criticizes the Candidate, Howard Dean?
Howard Dean's Loose Lips(From www.Buzzflash.com)
by Maureen Farrell
According to Media Monitor, when Senator Alfonse D'Amato appeared on CNN’s Evans and Novak on July 30, 1995, Bob Novak asked him to address then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s concerns that Vince Foster’s death might not be a suicide. "Why have you closed the door on that speculation when there are a lot of indications that it is not a closed case?" Novak reportedly asked, later inquiring, "So how did you know it was a suicide then?" [Assumption.edu]
Just last week, however, Novak confessed his distaste for such speculation, becoming downright indignant when Gov. Howard Dean discussed theories regarding the Bush administration’s stonewalling of the Sept. 11 investigation. "It was bad enough when Howard Dean, interviewed on National Public Radio Dec. 1, spread a conspiracy theory that George W. Bush ignored Saudi Arabian warnings of the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Novak wrote. "It was worse Dec. 7 on Fox News Sunday, when the Democratic presidential front-runner neither apologized nor repudiated himself for passing along this urban legend." [Chicago Sun-Times]
If Novak hadn’t partaken in the morally repugnant outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame and hadn’t been considered a propaganda conduit for the Nixon White House, [BuzzFlash.com] this bluster might be an easier sell. As it stands now, however, his displaced outrage is only slightly more credible than a recycled "Hillary Clinton as Vince Foster’s murderous (yet lesbian) mistress" tale.
The sin Novak cited occurred approximately 40 minutes into Dean’s hour-long interview with NPR’s Diane Rehm. "Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Novak wrote, quoting Dean as saying, "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." Novak also took Dean to task for assertions made on Fox. "After playing to Bush-haters who listen to National Public Radio, Dean repeated the same canard to Fox's Sunday morning mainstream viewers."
In addition to craftily referring to NPR listeners as "Bush haters" and Fox viewers as "mainstream," Novak employed the mother of all propaganda ploys by lopping off choice segments of Dean’s comments, thereby changing the tone. This was the actual exchange:
Caller: "Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling?"
Howard Dean: "Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 911.
Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he is suppressing that 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? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any 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 key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission." [Wamu.org]
While Dean made the grave error of unearthing one of those theories -- a capital crime according to the "Did Bill Clinton murder Vince Foster?" crowd -- he was, in large part, echoing Sen. John McCain’s concern. "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in government," McCain said. As an unidentified observer wrote to andrewsullivan.com:
"Dean wasn't saying he thought it was true. He was just suggesting we could avoid a JFK assassination-like conspiracy-theory-for-the-ages if the Bush Administration was a little more forthcoming. However, that is not the reason for this missive. Instead, I find it amazing that people are so horrified that Dean would raise the issue. Some of these people are the same ones who demanded Vince Foster's death be investigated five times, because they were sure the Clintons were involved. In fact, the Supreme Court is deciding whether photos of Mr. Foster's dead body should be released to an attorney who still claims there was a massive cover-up. I am still waiting for the outrage at the implied accusation that the President of the United States was complicit in a murder. Or how about the continued claims that Clinton put Americans and others at risk in the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq for political cover? Where is the disgust at accusing the President of the United States of a potentially treasonous act? I think we all know what Dean was really trying to say. But even if he was making a veiled accusation, there aren't many on the right with the moral authority and consistency of outrage to convincingly make it an issue."
This shaky moral authority is especially evident in former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer’s favorite ploy -- questioning the sanity of those who disagree with him. A year ago, Krauthammer targeted Al Gore for speaking out against media regurgitation of RNC talking points. "I'm a psychiatrist. I don't usually practice on camera," Krauthammer said on Fox News Sunday. "But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there's a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He [Gore] could use a little help ..."
At the time, Josh Marshall wondered, "Isn't there something tasteless and shameful about a psychiatrist -- or a no-longer-practicing psychiatrist -- lazily questioning a public figure's mental health because he disagrees with that person's political views? [Talkingpointsmemo.com] Krauthammer is still at it, however, this time using his expertise to ascertain if Gov. Dean suffers from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," or "the acute onset of paranoia" in reaction to our court-appointed leader.
"Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status," Krauthammer wrote. "When he avers, however, that ‘the most interesting’ theory as to why the president is ‘suppressing’ the Sept. 11 report is that Bush knew about Sept. 11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies." [Washington Post]
Though Buzzflash recently addressed Krauthammer’s unprincipled attempts to label hatred of Bush "pathological" and Democrats "unhinged," [BuzzFlash.com] Gene Lyons deconstructed his M.O. even further. "A former practicing psychiatrist, Krauthammer’s stock in trade has become describing opponents of President Bush and Iraq war as crazy," Lyons wrote, adding, "It’s a tactic beloved of authoritarians everywhere. Under Stalin, psychiatric hospitals in Moscow and East Berlin bulged with political dissenters labeled mentally ill. So did those in Buenos Aires under the generals." Lyons also observed that, because of this, "most mental health professionals find using psychiatric terms in political contexts distasteful" and added that, given the stigma associated with brain disorders, lampooning "ideological enemies" as "delusional" is "unconscionable," behavior for a physician.
"Dean might have spoken more judiciously," Lyons continued. "But crazy? Then why has the administration been stonewalling the bipartisan commission Bush himself appointed to probe 9/11 intelligence failures, refusing to turn White House briefing documents? [Moose-and-squirrel.com]
Krauthammer’s half-joking, Academy Award wining concern aside, could he and Novak really be that surprised by Dean’s wacky "urban legend"? If comments from high-ranking officials weren’t enough, [Thememoryhole.org] Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post "Bush Knew" headline addressed possible Bush foreknowledge ages ago. And as recently as this July, the Washington Post reported that the congressional report on Sept. 11 indicated two things: 1) That "President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States" and 2) "There was ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States."
Of course, now that Dean’s loose lips have enraged the RNC, we can expect the media and its Bush-embracing buddies to depict him as "reckless" and "irresponsible." [Rnc.org] But lest we forget, Dean’s willingness to speak out against the war in Iraq, even when doing so was considered patriotically incorrect, is a primary reason he is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Moreover, Dean’s latest transgression reminds us that though questions surrounding Sept. 11 are legion [BuzzFlash.com] -- the mere act of raising them is enough to make pundits like Krauthammer and Novak see red.
But we should also never forget that all things being equal (that is, if the left really were as "unhinged" as the right), talk radio hosts and politicians would be squawking on and on about Cliff Baxter’s suicide, Paul Wellstone’s plane crash and Margie Denise Schoedinger’s sad demise. And regardless how often propagandists deem concerns over 911 inconsistencies the province of "the loony left," most of us who are clamoring for truth (and especially those Sept. 11 victims’ family members who’ve formed advocacy groups to try to uncover it) aren’t interested in politically motivated accusations or body count-inspired sagas. Like the caller to the Diane Rehm show, we merely want "a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling."
In a way, however, this surreal political climate makes us long for the good old days, when right wingers wanted transparency in government, too. And, though it was terribly annoying at the time, back then, they were too busy accusing President Clinton of murder to try to censor or psychoanalyze the rest of us.
Link...
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
by Maureen Farrell
According to Media Monitor, when Senator Alfonse D'Amato appeared on CNN’s Evans and Novak on July 30, 1995, Bob Novak asked him to address then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s concerns that Vince Foster’s death might not be a suicide. "Why have you closed the door on that speculation when there are a lot of indications that it is not a closed case?" Novak reportedly asked, later inquiring, "So how did you know it was a suicide then?" [Assumption.edu]
Just last week, however, Novak confessed his distaste for such speculation, becoming downright indignant when Gov. Howard Dean discussed theories regarding the Bush administration’s stonewalling of the Sept. 11 investigation. "It was bad enough when Howard Dean, interviewed on National Public Radio Dec. 1, spread a conspiracy theory that George W. Bush ignored Saudi Arabian warnings of the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Novak wrote. "It was worse Dec. 7 on Fox News Sunday, when the Democratic presidential front-runner neither apologized nor repudiated himself for passing along this urban legend." [Chicago Sun-Times]
If Novak hadn’t partaken in the morally repugnant outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame and hadn’t been considered a propaganda conduit for the Nixon White House, [BuzzFlash.com] this bluster might be an easier sell. As it stands now, however, his displaced outrage is only slightly more credible than a recycled "Hillary Clinton as Vince Foster’s murderous (yet lesbian) mistress" tale.
The sin Novak cited occurred approximately 40 minutes into Dean’s hour-long interview with NPR’s Diane Rehm. "Dean was asked about allegations that President Bush is suppressing information that he was warned about the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Novak wrote, quoting Dean as saying, "The most interesting theory that I have heard so far . . . is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." Novak also took Dean to task for assertions made on Fox. "After playing to Bush-haters who listen to National Public Radio, Dean repeated the same canard to Fox's Sunday morning mainstream viewers."
In addition to craftily referring to NPR listeners as "Bush haters" and Fox viewers as "mainstream," Novak employed the mother of all propaganda ploys by lopping off choice segments of Dean’s comments, thereby changing the tone. This was the actual exchange:
Caller: "Once we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling?"
Howard Dean: "Yes there is a report which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 911.
Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he is suppressing that 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? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any 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 key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission." [Wamu.org]
While Dean made the grave error of unearthing one of those theories -- a capital crime according to the "Did Bill Clinton murder Vince Foster?" crowd -- he was, in large part, echoing Sen. John McCain’s concern. "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the September 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in government," McCain said. As an unidentified observer wrote to andrewsullivan.com:
"Dean wasn't saying he thought it was true. He was just suggesting we could avoid a JFK assassination-like conspiracy-theory-for-the-ages if the Bush Administration was a little more forthcoming. However, that is not the reason for this missive. Instead, I find it amazing that people are so horrified that Dean would raise the issue. Some of these people are the same ones who demanded Vince Foster's death be investigated five times, because they were sure the Clintons were involved. In fact, the Supreme Court is deciding whether photos of Mr. Foster's dead body should be released to an attorney who still claims there was a massive cover-up. I am still waiting for the outrage at the implied accusation that the President of the United States was complicit in a murder. Or how about the continued claims that Clinton put Americans and others at risk in the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq for political cover? Where is the disgust at accusing the President of the United States of a potentially treasonous act? I think we all know what Dean was really trying to say. But even if he was making a veiled accusation, there aren't many on the right with the moral authority and consistency of outrage to convincingly make it an issue."
This shaky moral authority is especially evident in former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer’s favorite ploy -- questioning the sanity of those who disagree with him. A year ago, Krauthammer targeted Al Gore for speaking out against media regurgitation of RNC talking points. "I'm a psychiatrist. I don't usually practice on camera," Krauthammer said on Fox News Sunday. "But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there's a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He [Gore] could use a little help ..."
At the time, Josh Marshall wondered, "Isn't there something tasteless and shameful about a psychiatrist -- or a no-longer-practicing psychiatrist -- lazily questioning a public figure's mental health because he disagrees with that person's political views? [Talkingpointsmemo.com] Krauthammer is still at it, however, this time using his expertise to ascertain if Gov. Dean suffers from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," or "the acute onset of paranoia" in reaction to our court-appointed leader.
"Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status," Krauthammer wrote. "When he avers, however, that ‘the most interesting’ theory as to why the president is ‘suppressing’ the Sept. 11 report is that Bush knew about Sept. 11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies." [Washington Post]
Though Buzzflash recently addressed Krauthammer’s unprincipled attempts to label hatred of Bush "pathological" and Democrats "unhinged," [BuzzFlash.com] Gene Lyons deconstructed his M.O. even further. "A former practicing psychiatrist, Krauthammer’s stock in trade has become describing opponents of President Bush and Iraq war as crazy," Lyons wrote, adding, "It’s a tactic beloved of authoritarians everywhere. Under Stalin, psychiatric hospitals in Moscow and East Berlin bulged with political dissenters labeled mentally ill. So did those in Buenos Aires under the generals." Lyons also observed that, because of this, "most mental health professionals find using psychiatric terms in political contexts distasteful" and added that, given the stigma associated with brain disorders, lampooning "ideological enemies" as "delusional" is "unconscionable," behavior for a physician.
"Dean might have spoken more judiciously," Lyons continued. "But crazy? Then why has the administration been stonewalling the bipartisan commission Bush himself appointed to probe 9/11 intelligence failures, refusing to turn White House briefing documents? [Moose-and-squirrel.com]
Krauthammer’s half-joking, Academy Award wining concern aside, could he and Novak really be that surprised by Dean’s wacky "urban legend"? If comments from high-ranking officials weren’t enough, [Thememoryhole.org] Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post "Bush Knew" headline addressed possible Bush foreknowledge ages ago. And as recently as this July, the Washington Post reported that the congressional report on Sept. 11 indicated two things: 1) That "President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States" and 2) "There was ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States."
Of course, now that Dean’s loose lips have enraged the RNC, we can expect the media and its Bush-embracing buddies to depict him as "reckless" and "irresponsible." [Rnc.org] But lest we forget, Dean’s willingness to speak out against the war in Iraq, even when doing so was considered patriotically incorrect, is a primary reason he is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Moreover, Dean’s latest transgression reminds us that though questions surrounding Sept. 11 are legion [BuzzFlash.com] -- the mere act of raising them is enough to make pundits like Krauthammer and Novak see red.
But we should also never forget that all things being equal (that is, if the left really were as "unhinged" as the right), talk radio hosts and politicians would be squawking on and on about Cliff Baxter’s suicide, Paul Wellstone’s plane crash and Margie Denise Schoedinger’s sad demise. And regardless how often propagandists deem concerns over 911 inconsistencies the province of "the loony left," most of us who are clamoring for truth (and especially those Sept. 11 victims’ family members who’ve formed advocacy groups to try to uncover it) aren’t interested in politically motivated accusations or body count-inspired sagas. Like the caller to the Diane Rehm show, we merely want "a thorough investigation of 911 and not stonewalling."
In a way, however, this surreal political climate makes us long for the good old days, when right wingers wanted transparency in government, too. And, though it was terribly annoying at the time, back then, they were too busy accusing President Clinton of murder to try to censor or psychoanalyze the rest of us.
Link...
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
posted by A. J. Franklin @ 13:37
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home