It's Not About Rove, It's About Bush's Dishonesty, Dem Says -- GOPUSA

It's Not About Rove, It's About Bush's Dishonesty, Dem Says -- GOPUSA

It's Not About Rove, It's About Bush's Dishonesty, Dem Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 24, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says the so-called "leakgate" case is really about President Bush's "dishonesty over the Iraq question."

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Sunday morning, Dean said, "This is not so much about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. This is about the fact that the president didn't tell us the truth when we went to Iraq, and all these guys involved in it -- it's a huge cover-up. That's what they're in trouble for."

It's thanks to former ambassador Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration's "dishonesty" has come to light, Dean indicated.

"Half the stuff the president told us about Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction, the trip to Niger, the purchase of uranium -- we know it's not true," Dean said. He added that the 9/11 commission found "no evidence of a terror connection" between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and that Saddam "had nothing to do with 9/11."

Dean accused President Bush of "pushing that line nevertheless. We know the president wasn't truthful with us when he sent us to Iraq."

[President Bush has said that pre-war intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein was a threat; that the U.S. Congress "looked at the intelligence, and they saw a threat," and even the United Nations saw a threat, Bush said in July 2004, a few months before he was re-elected.]

According to Dean, President Bush's top adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby are in trouble for "attacking somebody who criticized them and disagreed with them."

Although both Rove and Libby have appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's name and CIA affiliation, neither man is in trouble yet.

However, the federal grand jury's term ends on Friday, and if indictments are forthcoming, they'll be issued this week. Speculation about who, if anyone, will be indicted has been swirling for weeks.

Dean was asked what would happen if the federal grand jury does not return indictments. "Will you accept that as the end of the matter?" Stephanopoulos asked the DNC chairman.

"No," Dean said. "Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government."

Election fraud?

On Sunday, Dean pointed to news reports indicating that the recent Iraqi election, where people went to the polls to vote on a constitution, wasn't "completely honest." Dean cited as proof an ABC News report saying that one Iraqi man had filled out seven ballots and stuck them all in the box.

"If that's what we're fighting for in Iraq, we don't belong there," Dean said. "If this election was corrupted, it's time to figure out how to get [the troops] out."

"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos reminded Dean that early indications show "there was no widespread fraud."

Dean responded, "All I know is an ABC correspondent saw it and talked about it on television. That's what I know. Let's find out more. When you have 99 percent of the people voting yes, that's always some indication that things may not quite be exactly as they seem."

The Republican National Committee criticized Dean's criticism of the Iraqi election, saying he "displayed a troubling unwillingness and inability to acknowledge the real progress occurring in Iraq.

"Chairman Dean's criticism of an election where Iraqis turned out in record numbers to approve a constitution illustrates that many in the Democrat party are still focused on pessimism and defeatism when it comes to advancing freedom in the Middle East and winning the war on terror," the RNC statement said.

"Continually explaining what you are against and tossing out negative attacks is not an agenda, despite Chairman Dean's claims."

On Sunday's show, Dean told Stephanopoulos that "Democrats are the party of moral values" and that most Americans agree with those values.

He said those values include "honesty in government": balancing the budget; restoring jobs; "a health care system that benefits everybody"; and a "decent public education system."

"We want ethics legislation and campaign finance reform and health care reform. We will be the party of change, and we're serious about this and Democrats will have to live by these changes just like Republicans. We want fundamental reform in the United States."

Dean said Democrats won't accept corruption in the Republican Party -- or among Democrats, either.

Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
(part of the fake team that brought you jeff gannon, fyi, tools-squared)jj


=================
below: related bits, from
thread of: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/10/18/DI2005101801018.html?nav=hcmodule

Alexandria, Va.: Why wasn't Judith Miller fired as soon as it was discovered that the series of articles she wrote about WMDs in Iraq were false?

She seems to have hidden behind her "official sources" and failed to do any fact checking.

And shouldn't we worry about her motives, especially since we now know that other reporters, like Armstrong Williams, were paid by the administration to report it the way the administration wanted it reported? Don't we need an investigation, separate or expanded from the one Fitzgerald is pursuing now?

Howard Kurtz: By that logic, a lot of other journalists would have had to be fired too.

Let's be clear - Judith Miller didn't falsify anything, and no one is saying she did. She quoted numerous sources, from U.S. officials to Ahmad Chalabi and his allies -- and saying there was evidence that Iraq had illegal weapons. There are all sorts of grounds on which to criticize her, but it's hardly unprecedented for reporters to quote sources who turn out to be wrong.
================
Boston, Mass.: I know I'm a little late with this, but I missed last week's chat (bummer). A week ago last Friday, almost every network newscast covered the inadvertent feed of US soldiers in Iraq being prepped for a Q&A with the president. Do you think that story would have received anywhere near the same coverage 2-3 years ago when the administration was successfully bullying all dissenters? I thought it was a prime example of the herd mentality of the media.

Howard Kurtz: The coaching was so blatant, and so perfectly captured on videotape, that I think it would have gotten a lot of play whenever it happened.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Hi Howard -- Why do we care about blogs? Aren't these just Average Joes sitting around in their pajamas spouting off at the mouth? Why do intelligent, experienced, qualified people such as yourself pay them any attention? And why is your paper's web site now linking to them? You should see what you get when you click on a link from washingtonpost.com to one of these blogs. Inanity, mostly.

Howard Kurtz: One, because average Joes can have insights just as valuable as credentialed journalists. Two, because the most popular bloggers are not just loudmouths in pajamas, but written by lawyers, former magazine editors, professors, even media critics, many of whom have actual jobs and who, more importantly, are provocative thinkers.

=============== they got time to be slime: jj
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Howard, thanks for these chats. Could you speak a little bit about the flap at Armed Services Radio. It seems the Pentagon scripter-in-chief reneged on a deal to put a more centrist (read liberal) radio talk host on the military broadcast network. Some in Congress have observed that a lot of Democratic service personnel are having Rush Limbaugh shoved down their throats by the government and that their should be more balance. What's your take on the "fair and balanced" argument for government broadcasting?

Howard Kurtz: I fail to understand, as I reported last week, why an Armed Forces Radio official told Ed Schultz his program would be carried on the network, only to have that decision overruled at the last minute by a deputy assistant secretary at the Pentagon.
==================

Washington, D.C.: I've been watching the CIA-leak story with great interest because I think the nature of the allegations surrounding it are breathtakingly scary. Maybe my interest is premature before any indictments are made (yes, I know--if they are made), but my point here is that I see this as a really important story. So I have been surprised to see some conservative-type commentators (e.g. Laura Ingraham, David Brooks) touting this as a non-story--something that only people in Washington will ever care about. Is that true? People outside of Washington don't care about this story? How could that be?

Howard Kurtz: Well, it's complicated. I think people care about the outing of a CIA operative as an act of political revenge, but at this point we have a lot of swirling allegations that non-junkies may find difficult to follow.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: The most important story not covered by anyone is the story that Cololnel Wilkerson gave in his speech. The only coverage was that there was tension between Cheney's office and Powell's office. How did the media miss this story?

Howard Kurtz: Dana Milbank, Washington Post, four days ago:

As Colin Powell's right-hand man at the State Department, Larry Wilkerson seethed quietly during President Bush's first term. Yesterday, Colonel Wilkerson made up for lost time.

He said the vice president and the secretary of defense created a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that hijacked U.S. foreign policy. He said of former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith: "Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." Addressing scholars, journalists and others at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson accused Bush of "cowboyism" and said he had viewed Condoleezza Rice as "extremely weak." Of American diplomacy, he fretted, "I'm not sure the State Department even exists anymore."
===============

last one
Washington, D.C.: 1. What did you think of Maureen Dowd's blistering attack on Miller? Do you think a Post columnist would be permitted to blast a colleague like that? Do you think it was done with the explicit approval of the bosses?

2. Handicap this for us: Will the Miers nomination be withdrawn prior to the hearings? Your best guess.

Howard Kurtz: I believe that New York Times columnists, like Washington Post columnists, have complete freedom to write whatever they want. In fact, Times Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins was quoted the other day (about a supposed no-writing-about-Judy edict) as saying she didn't know what subjects her columnists would address until she read their pieces in the paper.

On a possible Miers withdrawal: Even if I were in the business of making predictions, which I'm not, I don't know how I'd call this one.

Thanks for the chat, folks.