|
God Bless This Man! |
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON! It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/14/2003 11:36:52 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
That would be a takedown.
|
God Bless This Man! |
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON! It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
McCain's original reaction to him, by contrast, was way off base. He implicitly put words in Dean's mouth which Dean did not say or intend, intentionally or uninintentionally misinterpreting what Dean's actual point was.
Now what Dean is saying is that he's been mischaracterized. Fine, quibble with the way he's saying it, but let's at least have the common courtesy to admit that he is correct.
Wrong, because if you place "in general" back into the quote, it makes the quote even worse for Dean. That is why he argues that "he never said it" instead of saying he was misquoted. Whether specific or intended, Dean stuck his foot in his mouth.
Why do you say that? I happen to agree with the moral statement, "in general the ends do not justify the means". But even if I didn't, I see no reason why a reasonable person couldn't hold that belief, that in general, the ends do not justify the maens.
That is why he argues that "he never said it" instead of saying he was misquoted.
I don't buy this explanation because I don't accept the premise that "in general the ends do not justify the means" is a statement which anyone would ever have to be ashamed for saying.
Whether specific or intended, Dean stuck his foot in his mouth.
If you're saying he should have chosen words more carefully so as not to give John McCain an easy opening to mis-interpret them for criticism, I would agree.
Was McCain implying that he was referring to something else? I didnt think so. . After all, Dean the demagogue blithely dismisses eradicating these two tyrants by saying we shouldnt be there. Why not just say its a good thing and leave it at that? He could expand later, for the 3893902th time on why he would never go to War over anything as mundane as our national interest.
If he feels "misunderstood", he really shouldnt. Most of us "get" it.
Yes. McCain said "the means was the use of American military intelligence". (1) This seems to imply that Dean's point was to say that "the use of American military intelligence" is what offended him, rather than "the invasion of Iraq". (2) It obtusely and probably intentionally ignores what Dean's point surely was (because this is the point of everything Dean says), that the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
Again, surely Dean was not saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify "the use of American military intelligence". Surely he was saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify the invasion. What else would one expect Dean to say?
After all, Dean the demagogue blithely dismisses eradicating these two tyrants by saying we shouldnt be there.
Whether or not one agrees with the content and tone and emphasis of Dean's statement is a different issue altogether. The point is that they were mischaracterized regardless.
Why not just say its a good thing and leave it at that?
Because he's the anointed anti-war candidate and has to toss red meat to all the anti-war zealots out there in order to win the (D) primary. I'm not saying I like this or that it makes me respect him, mind you. Just that he was mischaracterized.
If he feels "misunderstood", he really shouldnt. Most of us "get" it.
I'm not sure that's true.
This reminds me of George Romney, who said: "I didn’t say that I didn’t say it. I said that I didn’t say that I said it. I want to make that very clear."
The McCain quote doesn't say anything about accusing Dean of "saying that on Television". McCain was the one on MSNBC, not Dean. The Dean quote came from the AP.
Dean just can't handle it. Even with a sympathetic press, he still goes off over stupid stuff like this.
Hope he's the nominee.
Maybe I should start a "Republican's for Dean committee".
But his statement "I never said that. I never said that." is entirely inaccurate. He did say it and it's meaning was twisted by McCain and others. But he did definitely say it.
Whether he did or did not say "that" would seem to depend on what "that" is. Yes, Dean did in fact say (apparently) "It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war... I think in general the ends do not justify the means."
Is Dean denying he ever said that? Safire sort of insinuates that this is the "that" Dean is denying having said, but it's not so clear.
In fact if you look closely at the quotes Safire gives us, what Dean seems to actually deny is that he ever said that he was "soft on the death of Uday and Qusay".
So, given how McCain twisted his words, I'm inclined to give Dean the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "I didn't say that" he just means to say that he didn't mean what McCain insinuated.
In my opinion, he's handling it less than optimally, but there's nothing really to see here.
But he would never, and has never (except maybe defensively, later) say that it would be justified. He's the (selectively) pacifist candidate, he cant acknowledge anything good to come from US military or intelligence activity..
So if McCain plays obtuse and reads between the lines, can he be faulted? Its always later, and never now, that Dean will say it was a good thing that this happened and that America made it happen. The f*cker shouldnt have it both ways, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.