Dean's 'Urban Legend'

The New York Times ^ | Published: October 13, 2003 | By WILLIAM SAFIRE

[.cnI redruM]

The persistence of a quotation he insists is an "urban legend" is evidently infuriating Howard Dean.

At lunch last week in the Washington bureau of The Times, the reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg identified herself and started to ask a question. Dr. Dean immediately interrupted: "I want to quickly jump on you for a sec here," he said sharply, and referred to an article she had written based on an interview with Senator John McCain in which yesteryear's maverick took issue with a reported remark of Dr. Dean's.

"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted. "McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."

What was the "that"? Dean angrily denied being "soft on the death of Uday and Qusay. That was something McCain said, and it got quoted in my story and I've been a victim of it ever since. McCain said I said it. We talked and called the station and said we never said any such thing."

What horrendous McCain smear was quoted in my colleague's story? Here's the passage in The Times, coming after McCain said that Dean's national security positions "are way out of the mainstream":

"For instance, Mr. McCain cited Dr. Dean's remark that `the ends do not justify the means,' in reference to the death of Saddam Hussein's sons. `I was astounded,' the senator said. `The ends were to get rid of two murdering rapist thugs and the means was the use of American military intelligence.' "

My trusting heart went out to Dr. Dean, who considers himself the victim of vicious McCain slander.

I recalled an instance of a manufactured quote in the primary campaign of 1968. After Richard Nixon said "we must end the war and win the peace," George Romney asked "Where is your secret plan?" and Nixon is misquoted to this day as having claimed "I have a secret plan to end the war." (He never said it; I've won bets on this.)

Before joining Dean in castigating McCain for putting words in his mouth, I went to Google and keyed in "ends justify the means" and "Dean." To my astonishment, amid the 368 hits was this Associated Press dispatch by Holly Ramer from Manchester, N.H., dated July 22, 2003:

"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `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,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

On the day this A.P. story appeared, McCain was asked on MSNBC for his reaction to Dean's reaction to the killing of Saddam's murderous sons: "I am astonished. A lot of people have compared me with Governor Dean. I could not disagree with him more to say that the ends don't justify the means. . . . Mr. Dean does the nation a great disservice when he doesn't recognize how wonderful an event this is and how important it is to the morale of the troops."

Dean spinmeisters will abandon their candidate's untenable "never said any such thing" and argue that the words "in general" remove the quoted sentence from an answer to the specific question about killing Saddam's sons. They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that.

But it is not Dean's way to explain "what I meant was . . ." His eagerness to expunge from the record his snap judgment about the killing of Saddam's sons — to claim falsely "I never said any such thing," to suggest it is a McCain concoction, an "urban legend" — tells us that he is a man who treats a toothache by biting down on it hard.

By repeatedly denying the words ever came out of his mouth — thereby imputing inaccuracy to the A.P. reporter and blatant dishonesty to McCain — he compounds the original blunder that all too tellingly revealed his mindset.

Maybe Dean has a secret plan to end the war.

[Dr. Frank fan]

[Again, surely Dean was not saying that getting the Husseins didn't justify "the use of American military intelligence] But he would never, and has never (except maybe defensively, later) say that it would be justified.

Ok, that may or may not be true (I'll take your word for it), but that has no bearing on whether his statement was mischaracterized (which it was).

He's the (selectively) pacifist candidate, he cant acknowledge anything good to come from US military or intelligence activity..

Correct. Still doesn't mean he wasn't mischaracterized.

So if McCain plays obtuse and reads between the lines, can he be faulted?

If that "reading between the lines" is really "putting words in Dean's mouth", then yes, I think so.

The f*cker shouldnt have it both ways, IMO.

Maybe not but that's no excuse for mischaracterizing his statements.

[Nonstatist]

that's no excuse for mischaracterizing his statements

I could reply by saying "thats politics", but actually, that exactly what the news media does all the time, particularly to conservatives.

The reason Dean went apeshirt over this is that its totally plausible that thats what he meant, given his general demagoguing to the insane left. From my point of view, I'll just leave it to Dean to explain that McCain was putting words in his mouth, when in context, it seems totally consistent with most everything else he spouts about.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I could reply by saying "thats politics",

In fact, I agree with this, "that's politics". Doesn't make it right

that exactly what the news media does all the time, particularly to conservatives.

Yep. Doesn't make it right

The reason Dean went apeshirt over this is that its totally plausible that thats what he meant, given his general demagoguing to the insane left.

Could be. Doesn't make it... (you get the idea)

From my point of view, I'll just leave it to Dean to explain that McCain was putting words in his mouth, when in context, it seems totally consistent with most everything else he spouts about.

I have a different point of view. When someone's putting words in Dean's mouth, I'll call them on it. I'll restrict my criticisms of Howard Dean to things he actually says, and does.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."

Journalism does in fact create urban legends, and did so before the advent of LexisNexis.

Some reporter "sexes up" a story by, for example, inverting a quote by Eisenhower's SecDef nominee. Thereafter it doesn't matter that the literal quote was, "What's good for the country is good for General Motors"--in journalism it is forever "What's good for General Motors is good for the country!"