Howard Dean on Late Edition

Update...now that the whole video has been posted at Crooks and Liars, I can add this screen capture of the only smile I noticed from Howard during this interview. He was appropriately serious throughout the interview, but flashed that smile right when Wolf said at the end, "...always, speaking out bluntly, candidly...". From Crooks and Liars:

They are trying so hard to link Democrats to Abramoff's scandal that on today's Late Edition, Howard Dean almost set Wolfie's beard on fire.
...
Commenter: 8 seconds of dead air time as Wolf lets out a heavy sigh and ends the interview...




Blitzer: Thank you very much for joining us. On the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings which begin in Washington tomorrow, do you think the Democrats should realistically go ahead and filibuster if necessary to prevent his confirmation?

Dean: There are a couple of problems with Judge Alito. First of all, he appears to be outside the mainstream of where most Americans are on privacy for individuals. Not just women's issues, but okaying strip-searching of a 10-year-old, these kinds of things. The other thing which is also troubling is the conflict of interests case where he owned $400,000 worth of mutual funds and was willing to sit on a case involving a company. His order was later vacated. Now he *promised* the American people when he was confirmed that he would recuse himself. So the question I have is when he's answering the questions from Senator Leahy and Senator Spector and others, how are they going to know he's going to tell the truth. Because he did not tell the truth when he said to the Senate Judiciary Committee fifteen years ago that he would recuse himself from cases in which he had a financial interest.

Blitzer: Well he later explained that that was a technical slip-up for which he apologized. That's not a good enough explanation?

Dean: The chief judge disagreed with him. The chief judge removed him from the case and ordered a new judge to hear it. So this is an ethically charged climate in Washington. There's enormous corruption scandals in both the White House involving the chief procurement officer, and Karl Rove, and the Vice President's office, and both the Senate and the House--I don't think we want scandal to begin to touch the Supreme Court. We're going to watch very very carefully what the answers are to the Judiciary Committee. I think there are some very disturbing questions around Judge Alito, and I think we'll be looking forward to seeing what the answers to those questions are next week.

Blitzer: So on the issue of a filibuster, where do you stand?

Dean: Well I don't have a vote on that one. That's going to be decided by Senator Leahy and Senator Reid and others. They'll decide, after they hear the answers, whether Judge Alito belongs on the bench or not and that's what their perogative is in the Senate.

Blitzer: Let's talk a little bit about Iraq. The President sought to reach out to some of his critics earlier in the week, bringing in some former Secretaries of State, including Madeline Albright among others, William Cohen (sp?) the former Defense Secretary during the Clinton administration. Are you satisfied right now that the President's getting enough information from a variety of sources, to better move forward as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned?

Dean: Well, most of the reports that came after that meeting sounded like the President engaged in a filibuster of his own in there. He talked at them for quite some time and then went in for a photo-op, and really didn't bother to ask most of them for their advice at all. So I think that these photo-op idears that he's going to get advice are really nothing more than photo-ops. I think that we're in a big pickle in Iraq--I was *disgusted* when I read in the New York times yesterday that 80% of the torso injuries and fatalities in the Marine Corps could have been prevented if the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense and the President had supplied them with armor that they already had. They had requested that from the field, the Pentagon refused--you know I thought two years ago that Secretary Rumsfeld ought to resign. He ought to resign. These people are not qualified. They haven't served themselves, they don't know what it takes. They ought to protect our troops. Our troops are doing a hell of a job, and they deserve better leadership in Washington than what they're getting.

You know, I was INCENSED when I saw the story--80% of the torso-based wounds that led to fatalities in our Marine Corps. SURELY our Marines are worth something more than that!

Blitzer: About a month ago, Senator Lieberman, the former Democraticic Vice-Presidential nominee spoke out urging his fellow Democrats including yourself to restrain themselves in criticizing the President's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said...

(video clip) Lieberman: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine our President's credibility at our nation's peril.

Blitzer: Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

Dean: Uh, no. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office. He's not reached out to other people, he's shown he's willing to abuse his power, he's not consulted others, and he's not interested in consulting others. And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong. It is incumbent on every American who's patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right, and not go along with the president who's leading us in a wrong direction. We're going in the wrong direction economically at home, we're going in the wrong direction abroad. Looks what's happened in Latin America. This president, while saying that he wants to further democracy and capitalism is *driving* people in the opposite direction. We need real leadership in this country and we don't have it right now.

Blitzer: Are you *blaming* the President on the elections in Bolivia or the elections in Venezuela, is that what you're saying?

Dean: We had an enormous opportunity when this president took office--and he *said* he was going to reach out to Latin America--instead, he has turned them off. He's been high-handed with them, he's rejected them, he's ignored the economic plight of their folks. And so we're getting something that I think most Americans wish we didn't have, which is left-leaning regimes in these places. We need a president who will work constructively and cooperatively with our allies around the world, so that we really can move capitalism and democracy into the world, and not turn off people. When you turn people off, as the most powerful nation in the world, they are obviously going to do something that is not in our best interest and that is exactly what's going on right now.

Blitzer: Getting back to the war in Iraq, you were highly quoted when you suggested, I guess it must be about a month ago, that the war really was not winnable any longer. Later you clarified your remarks. But in the aftermath of the elections, which seem to have been pretty smoothly run--lots of violence still unfolding in Iraq--there are plenty of people who say it's still winnable if certain things take place. Where do you stand on the winnability, if there is such a word, of the war in Iraq?

Dean: Well, I laid out a strategy that I thought *would* make the war on terror winnable. We *need* to win the war on terror. We have to protect ourselves. The question is, do we have the kind of leadership in Washington that's going to allow that. There is a plan, put together by Lawrence Korb and a fellow by the name of Louis Katula (sp?). Lawrence Korb was in the Reagan administration. It's a plan that I think makes a great deal of sense. It's a moderate plan that calls for strategic redeployment of our troops while we're removing them from Iraq we're keeping some in the region to fight the terrorism the President's invasion of Iraq has spawned in Iraq. That's a sensible plan for defending America.

Right now, we have a lot of happy talk, we have some folks who frankly aren't treating our troops properly, not arming and equipping them properly. That doesn't give me confidence about the leadership in this White House.

Blitzer: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who's now pleaded guilty to bribery charges among other charges, should the Democrats who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

Dean: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff. Not one. Not one single Democrat. Every person named in the scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal--there is *no* evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. We've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

Blitzer: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money, presumably originating with Jack Abramoff.

Dean: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There's no evidence--

Blitzer: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

Dean: Senator Byron Dorgan and others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I *know* the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth, they've misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

Blitzer: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we've got to leave it right there. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic party, always speaking out bluntly, candidly. Appreciate your joining us on Late Edition.

Dean: Thanks, Wolf. Have a safe flight back.

Alt link for comments