From the AP (via Drudge):
Howard Dean, the newly minted leader of the Democratic Party, and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle made clear their opposing views on the war in Iraq during a debate marred by a protester who tossed a shoe at Perle.
Perle had just started his comments Thursday when a protester threw a shoe at him before being dragged away, screaming, “Liar! Liar!”
The protester was later released after authorities confirmed that Perle is a Jew, and that consequently no law had been broken.
Perle, who was Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s top policy adviser, was a key architect of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and Dean is among the war’s most prominent opponents.
In his new role as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean has stressed that Democrats are stronger than Republicans on defense.
“Defense is a lot broader than swaggering around saying you’re going to kick Saddam’s butt,” Dean said Thursday, drawing cheers from the crowd in this city that overwhelmingly voted Democratic last November.
Uh huh. Because real strength, as we all know, lies in the ability to rationalize away the need for action. Dissent is the truest form of patriotism. Up is down. Black is white. Loggins is Messina…
A prediction: part of Dean’s scheme for “energizing” the Democratic base will be to engage conservatives / Republicans in anti-war venues and/or venues where the majority of the crowd is predisposed toward progressive policy initiatives. During these engagements, Dean will rely on his own blustery rhetoric, a predictably wild and overwrought reaction from the partisan crowd of fellow travelers, and the attendant sympathetic media coverage, to rally the liberal base—who, by dint of their own vociferousness and bluster-by-proxy, will convince themselves of the rectitude of their positions.
This kind of venue-specific bullying fits in perfectly with the progressive mindset, which likes to engage in “open” debate just so long as the other side is sufficiently hamstrung. Consequently, Dean will hit a lot of college campuses, where “tolerance” statutes are already effectively used to squelch many conservative arguments, particularly those involving identity politics or minority “rights.”
[…] Dean also said the Bush administration has ignored the mounting threat in Iran and North Korea. “We picked the low hanging fruit in Iraq and did nothing” about the other, more dangerous regimes, he said.
A President Dean—and likely a President Kerry, as well—would of course be waging war right now in Iran and North Korea, with the support and blessing of every other country in the world, and with so many allied troops that Iran and North Korea, seeing the writing on the wall, would each surrender before a single shot was fired.
Because in Perfect, the skies are always sunny, the ice cream never melts, and the enemy is always just a confused friend waiting for an excuse to join the civilized world for some tempura and a good cigar.
Perle had his own barbs, too. He began his opening comments in the 1 1/2-hour debate by saying Democrats “looked at the Democratic Party and chose a physician to lead them.”
Perle, a veteran of the Reagan administration and a former Pentagon adviser, was forced by one of the questioners to recast a comment he made on Sept. 22, 2003, in which he predicted that within one year, there would be “a grand square in Baghdad named for President Bush.”
“I’d be a fool not to recognize that it did not happen on the schedule I had in mind,” Perle said, adding that he did not deny that the administration had made mistakes in Iraq.
But, Perle added, “I will be surprised, yet again, if we do not see a square in Baghdad named after this president.” He did not specify a time.
Left unsaid is that the one thing we won’t see anytime soon is a square in Baghdad named after either Saddam Hussein or his two dead sons.
And for that reason, Iraq is already better off.
****
update: drawing on my keen CITIZEN JOURNALIST’S instincts (and the tips of a couple of commenters), I’ve tracked down some unexpurgated information about Perle’s run in with the progressive peace crowd, courtesy of Powerline.
Hmmm..I see the AP sanitized the exchange. According to another report (courtesy of Powerline) the exchange went down like this:
Gotta love the Howard Dean Dem’s..they are the gift that keeps on giving.
Saw an eyewitness account somewhere this morning. AP apparently misquoted the protestor who threw the show. This is what he actually said, in full context:
“Motherfucking liar! Motherfucking liar!”
I sure you’ll post a correction post-haste.
(Post haste. Hmmm. Maybe that’s why blogs need that editorial supervision like they have at CBS.)
Bucky, we’ve got to stop meeting like this.
So if “saying you’re going to kick Saddam’s butt” isn’t good enough, how about actually, y’know, capturing the guy?
Turing word: heart. As in, I *heart* Karl Rove.
“The protester was later released after authorities confirmed that Perle is a Jew, and that consequently no law had been broken”
Heh. How’d that get in there, Jeff?
“Perle … protester threw a shoe …
The protester was later released after authorities confirmed that Perle is a Jew…”
There you go with that Jew-whinning again. Well D’jew know that it’s a very Arabic jesture to beat someone with the sole of your shoe, I mean just beat them until the jewce runs out their ears, and then on top of that kick them in the family jewels? And btw, “Perle” means “Eichmann” in Navajo.
Shave that into your ass, Goldstein.
Word is the Iraqis will name a square after Howard Dean.
The YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAARARRRRRRGGGH Square is expected to be opened in late 2006.
“The protester was later released after authorities confirmed that Perle is a Jew, and that consequently no law had been broken.”
I hung up on that sentence, trying to decide whether some copy editor went nuts, or Jeff was further along the same road than I thought.
I’ve looked back at that line about 5 times now, and everytime it makes me laugh.
So I checked and it seems Lawrence O’Donnell was born in 1955. Older brother?
As one of the tipsters to the keen CITIZEN JOURNALIST, I demand my PIE!
The Perle/Dean debate is supposed to be broadcast on CSPAN, but I could not find it on CSPAN’s on-line TV listings. I wonder if it will be an unexpurgiated version.
Perle should read the New York Post:
If Loggins is Messina, does it follow that The Captain is Tenniel?
Sure.
Whatever happened to Jim Messina? I deduce that he must be busy doing something from the fact that the Democrats picked Dean instead.
Jeff.
Your next citizen journalist assignment must be to debate Dr. Demento on our nation’s college campuses. People like Perle are too linear. Dean’s brand of insanity doesn’t respond to facts and figures. A more nuanced approach is required. That’s where you come in.
Don’t tell them of your Hebraic ancestry though, or you may be hurt by the crowd of non-judgemental multi-cultural diversitiacs.
Paul, he’s waiting for someone to give him a hand.
Loggins is Messina.
The Captain is Tenille.
Hall is Oates.
Brooks, however, is not Dunn.
You may want to correct the post because it appears as though the AP story itself has the “Perle is a Jew” remark. I did a double take.
HH –
I know. I put that in there to see if people were paying attention. But I provided a link to the complete text for people to check it.
And in the immortal words of Michael Sembello himself, “There’s a cold connected heat, struggling, stretching for defeat”. It can cut you like a knife, if the gift [DNC chair] becomes the fire. On a wire between will and what will be. He’s a Deaniac, Deaniac, I sure know, and he’s crazy like he’s never been before.
Sneaky, devious Je–I mean, neocons. Can’t be trusted.
We hatessss sneaky devious neocons, hatesss em, hatesss em. But, like, some of our best friends are jooos.
A prediction: part of Dean’s scheme for “energizing†the Democratic base will be to engage conservatives / Republicans in anti-war venues and/or venues where the majority of the crowd is predisposed toward progressive policy initiatives. During these engagements, Dean will rely on his own blustery rhetoric, a predictably wild and overwrought reaction from the partisan crowd of fellow travelers, and the attendant sympathetic media coverage, to rally the liberal baseâ€â€who, by dint of their own vociferousness and bluster-by-proxy, will convince themselves of the rectitude of their positions.
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but if you just change the word “liberal” to “conservative”, doesn’t that describe most Bush rallies too? In fact, doesn’t that describe most political rallies, period? I’m just saying I don’t think it’s anything specific to liberals. I mean, yeah, of course that’s what Dean’s going to do. You’re not really going out on a limb by making that “prediction”, are you?
Spam word: “being”. And my name’s “Meta”. Wow.
How many legitimate political rallies promote themselves as a “debate” between opposing points of view?
I mean, other than the ones outside the GOP convention every four years.
Or the British thugs who tried recently to shut down oil trading…
Meta —
I wasn’t talking about partisan rallies. I was talking about ostensible debates in hyper-partisan venues. Which is why I specifically talked of “engaging” conservatives / Republicans, and why I chose this particular occasion and venue—Dean’s “debate” with Perle at a very pro-Dean school—to make the point.
So take it for what it’s worth.
Ok, but if Dean arranges events that are billed as “debates” but are actually political rallies, how is it different from Bush arranging events that are billed as “town hall meetings” or sessions of “ask President Bush” but in which the questions are scripted, the crowd is partisan, etc.? “Ask President Bush” and “town hall meeting” implies a spontaneity that those events totally lacked, for the very good reason that they were actually campaign rallies. So, now the Democrats will hold political rallies and call them “debates.” There’s no significant difference.
You mean except for the opponent…?
If you mean that the opponent is required to walk in to a hostile situation, that’s his choice. If you mean that the opponent has a chance to mess with the script, that makes the Democrats’ events more spontaneous than the GOP’s.
No one said Richard Perle didn’t know what he was getting into. He admitted as much in an interview about the debate. And I suspect Dean will be able to draw opponents like Perle without much trouble—even though he will be doing so in venues that clearly favor him. Conservatives tend to think that having the better argument will overcome a hostile crowd. It’s the arrogance factor.
And the cute college chicks.
Just so all of you know. This debate was sponsored by a small University in Oregon that is not in any way a hotbed of leftwing radicalism. It is an annual event called the McCall Forum and every year invites a prominent conservative and a prominent liberal to a debate open to the general public. The event takes place at an auditorium in downtown Portland, not on the Pacific University campus. Only a small minority of the audience is students. Dean had nothing whatever to do with its organization. Conservatives who have spoken at the event over the last 23 years include Dan Quayle, Robert Bork, William Safire, Mary Matalin, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William F. Buckley Jr., Ralph Reed, Newt Gingrich, and William Kristol. The crowd consists of about 700 people who have paid $100 a head for a banquet where the two speakers appear and about 2000 more people who pay $20 a head to get in. It is not in any way a rally posing as a debate. It is a debate event that tries to be scrupulously fair to both sides but cannot control who decides to buy a ticket in any particular year. This year Dean was obviously a bigger draw than Perle. Portland is a liberal city, and the crowd is often (but not always) more sympathetic to the liberal speaker. I know all this because I was one of the panelists on stage at the event and participate each year in a secondary way in the selection of speakers and the organization of the event.