CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Chairman Dean's Dementia

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, said on national television Sunday that it is "false" that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, you said there were weapons of mass destruction.

DR. DEAN: I said I wasn't sure, but I said I thought there probably were. But the thing that really bothered me the most, which the 9-11 Commission said also wasn't true, is the insinuation that the president continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false. The 9-11 Commission, chaired by a Republican, said it was false. [From NBC's "Meet The Press," May 22,2005]

Chairman Dean is, of course, wrong. Contrary to the Yowler's assertion, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States actually supports the fact that Osama bin Laden "had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States." From the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States' Monograph on Terrorist Financing [PDF file], at page 27:

Once in Afghanistan, Bin Laden focused on building al Qaeda into a fully operating
organization. Al Qaeda spent money on military training and support, including salaries
for jihadists, training camps, and related expenses. Reportedly there were also
propaganda and proselytizing-related expenses and costs to support al Qaeda outside
Afghanistan.

Before 9/11 al Qaeda was reportedly highly organized, with a committee structure that
included the Finance Committee. Credible evidence indicates that Bin Ladin played a
significant role in planning each operation and was very attentive to financial matters.
Other than Bin Ladin, the person with the most important role in al Qaeda financing was
reportedly Sheikh Qari Sa’id. Sa’id, a trained accountant, had worked with Bin Ladin in
the late 1980s when they fought together in Afghanistan and then for one of Bin Ladin’s
companies in Sudan in the early to mid-1990s. Sa’id was apparently notoriously
tightfisted with al Qaeda’s money.18 Operational leaders may have occasionally bypassed
Sa’id and the Finance Committee and requested funds directly from Bin Ladin. Al Qaeda
members apparently financed themselves for day-to-day expenses and relied on the
central organization only for operational expenses.

Al Qaeda funded a number of terrorist operations, including the 1998 U.S. embassy
bombings in East Africa (which cost approximately $10,000), the 9/11 attacks
(approximately $400,000–500,000), the October 18, 2002, Bali bombings.

The scary thing is that Chairman Dean and many of his followers may actually believe Dean's vile ranting, even though it is demonstrably false. To avoid the charge that I took dean's quote out of context, I've provided a longer passage from the Meet The Press transcript in the extended post. It is worth reading, if for no other reason than to see more evidence of the uncivil tone used by Chairman Dean when talking about Republicans:

Saddam Truster McDermott Does It Again

The Associated Press reports that Representative Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

Last year McDermott earned the nickname "Baghdad Jim," while visiting Baghdad, for saying that President Bush "would mislead the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

Washington state Republican Chairman, Chris Vance, offered an appropriate response:

Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting, Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott -- and Howard Dean, who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories.

The "Stolen" Election

Political myths can overcome facts through sheer repetition. So writes Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in his article entitled, The Florida Myth, An Urban Legend To Fire Up The Base.

One such myth, the "stolen" election, is already being resurrected for the 2004 presidential election cycle. The theme of the stolen election myth is that blacks in Florida were systematically harassed, intimidated, and prevented from voting in the 2000 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigated these allegations and the 200-page majority report, excoriated Florida's election officials for various acts of misfeasance. Kirsanow claims the report’ conclusions often bore little relationship to the facts.

There's absolutely no evidence that a single person was intimidated, harassed, or prevented from voting by Florida law-enforcement officials.

Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement "misconduct" consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions of the actions of the Florida highway patrol.

There's no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

The myth of a nefarious plot to thwart black voters from casting ballots is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

After issuance of the commission's report, the Justice Department conducted a thorough investigation. The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election.

Kirsanow explains that baseless claims of voter harassment on the basis of race are particularly odious.

They inflame racial tensions by perpetuating a belief that the shameful practices of two generations past continue unabated — that a virulently racist hegemony is forever poised to subjugate minorities.

The consequences of generating suspicion of the electoral process for the sake of partisan advantage are at once insidious and profound. They dangerously undermine the legitimacy of government and encourage rejection of its authority.

The myth is poisonous to society and democracy. Its antidote is a relentless, adamant repetition of the truth.