It should come as no surprise to anyone that when George Bush finally responded to questions about criminal behavior taking place by high ranking officials in his administration, he responded by avoiding questions and saying it was time to move on.
On July 13 the Washington Post reported that Bush "acknowledged for the first time yesterday that "somebody" in his administration leaked the name of an undercover intelligence officer but declined to say whether he was disappointed in such an action and contended that it is time to move on."
For readers of this column, his response was expected as on July 3 we wrote "Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration."
So you out a covert operative working on weapons of mass destruction, at the same time you are planning a war against a country who supposedly has WMD and what happens, and when questioned you say either you can't talk or it's time to move on.
It must be great to be a Republican.
Rather than being held accountable to the voters you get your supporters to lie long enough to get past elections, and even if you can't hide all the evidence, you commute the felon's sentence, see that he gets a cushy job and probably when no one is looking, you pardon him. Then you require all your papers on the subject be out of the public view for years so you never, ever, have to face any consequences for your actions.
In the Clinton administration endless investigations were held on the circumstances on the all important matters of his private life and personnel at the White House Travel Office. Investigating firings of US Attorneys and outing covert operatives, apparently that's just no big deal.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Lie Like Libby
George Bush's decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying about his role in outing a covert CIA operative should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration.
Considering the Bush got into power by manipulating the vote in Florida, his administration then manipulated the facts to get the country into deadly war that may harm us for generations, it is no surprise that Libby got a pardon, well a commutation today and probably a pardon in December 2008.
As the Washington Post pointed out, faced with a difficult ethical decision, Bush apparently didn't even bother checking the legal aspects, commuting the "sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department."
As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Libby took part in the efforts to take down Joe Wilson, a critic of the administration, who had the audacity to point out that the administration was lying, which in the administration's mind was unacceptable.
For if the true intentions and true actions of the administration had been exposed in 2003 it is extremely doubtful Bush would have won the 2004 election. The administration's whole goal was to push the investigation and outcome past the 2004 election, allowing them four more years to wreck havoc on the country.
Wilson probably had the best observation of the administration, that they are "corrupt to the core."
Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration.
Despite the commutation and impending pardon, Bush said Libby's punishment remained "harsh," in part because his professional reputation "is forever damaged." However since Libby acted like a good soldier and didn't sing, therefore helping hide the adminstration's actions, it is doubtful that he will suffer much, if at all.
One can only hope that the public, the true victims in this case, will look at the joyous reaction on the right and Republican presidential candidates and offer their own form of justice.
Considering the Bush got into power by manipulating the vote in Florida, his administration then manipulated the facts to get the country into deadly war that may harm us for generations, it is no surprise that Libby got a pardon, well a commutation today and probably a pardon in December 2008.
As the Washington Post pointed out, faced with a difficult ethical decision, Bush apparently didn't even bother checking the legal aspects, commuting the "sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department."
As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Libby took part in the efforts to take down Joe Wilson, a critic of the administration, who had the audacity to point out that the administration was lying, which in the administration's mind was unacceptable.
For if the true intentions and true actions of the administration had been exposed in 2003 it is extremely doubtful Bush would have won the 2004 election. The administration's whole goal was to push the investigation and outcome past the 2004 election, allowing them four more years to wreck havoc on the country.
Wilson probably had the best observation of the administration, that they are "corrupt to the core."
Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration.
Despite the commutation and impending pardon, Bush said Libby's punishment remained "harsh," in part because his professional reputation "is forever damaged." However since Libby acted like a good soldier and didn't sing, therefore helping hide the adminstration's actions, it is doubtful that he will suffer much, if at all.
One can only hope that the public, the true victims in this case, will look at the joyous reaction on the right and Republican presidential candidates and offer their own form of justice.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Sixth Myth About Scooter
Faced with the prospect of seeing one of the administration's top officials go to jail for lying in court, conservatives, who not that many years ago decried President Clinton's testimony in a politically motivated case, have decided that the only way to come out on top on a case involving outing a covert CIA agent is to attempt to confuse the public.
On Sunday, in the Washington Post Carol D. Leonnig wrote about "5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer," dispelling myths such as Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
While the five myths were interesting, the sixth, and most recent (Libby's sentence was unfair because Clinton didn't get a prison sentence) wasn't addressed.
By complaining that the 30 month jail sentence for Scooter Libby is unfair compared to what Clinton received, the conservatives are comparing apples and oranges, hoping that the lazy press won't stop them and point out the differences. Unfortunately, too many conservative talking heads make this point without being corrected.
For anyone that cares, the differences in the case is that Clinton reached an agreement with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray on his testimony, admitting he had wrongly tried to evade questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, was fined and gave up his law license for five years.
Libby refused to admit to anything and went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Maybe if Libby admitted his testimony wasn't accurate he wouldn't be facing jail time.
But pointing that out to the conservatives would deprive them of talking point and so the sixth myth lives on.
On Sunday, in the Washington Post Carol D. Leonnig wrote about "5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer," dispelling myths such as Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
While the five myths were interesting, the sixth, and most recent (Libby's sentence was unfair because Clinton didn't get a prison sentence) wasn't addressed.
By complaining that the 30 month jail sentence for Scooter Libby is unfair compared to what Clinton received, the conservatives are comparing apples and oranges, hoping that the lazy press won't stop them and point out the differences. Unfortunately, too many conservative talking heads make this point without being corrected.
For anyone that cares, the differences in the case is that Clinton reached an agreement with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray on his testimony, admitting he had wrongly tried to evade questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, was fined and gave up his law license for five years.
Libby refused to admit to anything and went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Maybe if Libby admitted his testimony wasn't accurate he wouldn't be facing jail time.
But pointing that out to the conservatives would deprive them of talking point and so the sixth myth lives on.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Time For A Change
During his convention acceptance speech in 2000, one of Dick Cheney's applause lines was that "it was time for them [Clinton & Gore] to go." Well seven years later the American people have decided it is time for Bush and Cheney to, or as Sen. Barack Obama put it in Kansas City - it's time for a change.
Approximately 3,000 people paid $25 a piece to hear a speech by Obama in Kansas City on Saturday, more than eight months prior to the Missouri primary. For comparison
n, Sen. John Kerry filled the same hall in 2004 around the Missouri primary, yet the event was free.
The Kansas City event, and many others around the country, must be the Republican's worst nightmare - for the crowd was made up of a cross section of America, not just the committed political veterans.
One can understand why Republicans worked so hard to limit access to the voting booth. They know they are outnumbered and if the people ever showed up to vote they would have little chance any election.
According to a Newsweek poll the top three Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards & Clinton) all would defeat the top GOP candidates, with Obama and Edwards winning by an easier margin. Edwards and Obama offer hope for a better future for the country, which for nearly half of the country, has been missing since late 2000.
The major question is whether the changes in the primary system will allow Hillary Clinton, who would make a fine president, but would set the right into a scare mongering campaign that might fool just enough people to elect a Republican, to win the nomination.
If the press had acted responsibly in the 1990s there is no way George W. Bush would have been close enough to "win" the 2000 election and it is difficult to believe the press would act any differently around the Clintons this time around. If anything, the press would be out for blood for being proved wrong and for that many in the public realized they are in part responsible what has taken place in the last seven years.
It's time for a change.
Approximately 3,000 people paid $25 a piece to hear a speech by Obama in Kansas City on Saturday, more than eight months prior to the Missouri primary. For comparison
n, Sen. John Kerry filled the same hall in 2004 around the Missouri primary, yet the event was free.The Kansas City event, and many others around the country, must be the Republican's worst nightmare - for the crowd was made up of a cross section of America, not just the committed political veterans.
One can understand why Republicans worked so hard to limit access to the voting booth. They know they are outnumbered and if the people ever showed up to vote they would have little chance any election.
According to a Newsweek poll the top three Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards & Clinton) all would defeat the top GOP candidates, with Obama and Edwards winning by an easier margin. Edwards and Obama offer hope for a better future for the country, which for nearly half of the country, has been missing since late 2000.
The major question is whether the changes in the primary system will allow Hillary Clinton, who would make a fine president, but would set the right into a scare mongering campaign that might fool just enough people to elect a Republican, to win the nomination.
If the press had acted responsibly in the 1990s there is no way George W. Bush would have been close enough to "win" the 2000 election and it is difficult to believe the press would act any differently around the Clintons this time around. If anything, the press would be out for blood for being proved wrong and for that many in the public realized they are in part responsible what has taken place in the last seven years.
It's time for a change.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Bush: Success is when violence is a nusance
In 2004 when Sen. John Kerry suggested America would be safe when the country gets "back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" the Bush campaign reacted with ad taking his words out of context and Dick Cheney called the remarks "naive and dangerous."
Yet how does Bush now describe success in Iraq? "The definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
So success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. Sounds like saying terrorists are not the focus of our lives.
Yet what did President Flip Flop say in 2004 was his goal for Iraq? "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
But then who takes Bush & Cheney seriously? How did other Republicans react to Kerry's comment? "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani.
So the question now is will the media remind those politicians of their words? Don't hold your breath.
It's much easier to beat up on a Democrat for making a common sense statement then to show a Republican is a hypocrite for first criticizing that statement for political purpose then later their policy is basically the same thing.
Yet how does Bush now describe success in Iraq? "The definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
So success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. Sounds like saying terrorists are not the focus of our lives.
Yet what did President Flip Flop say in 2004 was his goal for Iraq? "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
But then who takes Bush & Cheney seriously? How did other Republicans react to Kerry's comment? "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani.
So the question now is will the media remind those politicians of their words? Don't hold your breath.
It's much easier to beat up on a Democrat for making a common sense statement then to show a Republican is a hypocrite for first criticizing that statement for political purpose then later their policy is basically the same thing.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
"30 Percent Express" To Run Again
Sen. John McCain travels to New Hampshire today to formally announce he is running for president. As one of the main backers of America's involvement in Iraq's civil war, McCain is hoping to secure the "Stay and Die" mantle currently held by Bush, Cheney & Co.
Previously McCain believed the way to win the presidency was by trading in the "Straight Talk Express" for the "30 Percent Express." However now the Washington Post says that his "goal is to broaden the definition of McCain's candidacy, which has been singularly focused on Iraq."
But after watching his painful appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show one has to wonder if McCain can broaden his support much beyond the dead-enders still supporting the war. The most painful part of the McCain's appearance was the realization that it took a comedy show to finally debate some of the important issues of the day with the leaders who are behind those issues.
This was the second day in a row that The Daily Show was at the forefront of breaking news. On Monday, in addition to an insightful skit with John Oliver on the Gonzales hearing, Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine and one of the journalists who faced going to jail over Karl Rove leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, was on the show to explain why important questions were never asked of Rove.
After Stewart pointed out a number of questions that were never asked of Rove and Cooper agreed they were good questions, Stewart was left asking "do you know any reporters - because you could ask them to ask him about it?"
So the "Straight Talk Express" has jumped the rails and turned into the "30 Percent Express" and main people asking tough political question are on the Comedy Channel. Not quite the civic lesson people expected.
Previously McCain believed the way to win the presidency was by trading in the "Straight Talk Express" for the "30 Percent Express." However now the Washington Post says that his "goal is to broaden the definition of McCain's candidacy, which has been singularly focused on Iraq."
But after watching his painful appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show one has to wonder if McCain can broaden his support much beyond the dead-enders still supporting the war. The most painful part of the McCain's appearance was the realization that it took a comedy show to finally debate some of the important issues of the day with the leaders who are behind those issues.
This was the second day in a row that The Daily Show was at the forefront of breaking news. On Monday, in addition to an insightful skit with John Oliver on the Gonzales hearing, Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine and one of the journalists who faced going to jail over Karl Rove leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, was on the show to explain why important questions were never asked of Rove.
After Stewart pointed out a number of questions that were never asked of Rove and Cooper agreed they were good questions, Stewart was left asking "do you know any reporters - because you could ask them to ask him about it?"
So the "Straight Talk Express" has jumped the rails and turned into the "30 Percent Express" and main people asking tough political question are on the Comedy Channel. Not quite the civic lesson people expected.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Irresponsible, not Incompetent
One of the buzz words Dick Cheney likes to throw around regarding Democrats is "irresponsible." Apparently after working in the Bush Administration Cheney has extensive first hand knowledge of what constitutes irresponsible actions.
Last week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress, or tried to, but unfortunately could remember little more than his name, saying some variation of "I don't recall" more than 70 times.
So what Bush's response? "The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," he said.
Previously White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush "was pleased with the attorney general's testimony" and continues to have "full confidence" in him while at the same time Republican Sen. Tom Coburn suggested Gonzales resign.
One of the common views of the testimony was that this was just another example of incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration, after all Gonzales, as the nation's Attorney General and leader of the Department of Justice, answered many questions with "I don't recall."
But in reality the key to this situation is Bush's statement that Gonzales answered the questions "in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job." I.e. Gonzales did not answered the questions but gave the appearance that he didn't lie.
While people may think Gonzales came across as incompetent for not remembering basic facts, instead this is yet another example of irresponsibility on the part of the Bush Administration. Incompetence implies that a job failed because of a lack of ability. Irresponsible implies not being held accountable.
At the end of the day the administration got rid of the "Justice" Department Attorneys who weren't considered "loyal Bushies" and Gonzales will get to stay on. So outside of a little criticism for irresponsible action the Bushies will pay little or no penalty for their irresponsible actions. As the Washington Post wrote "the White House appears to have concluded that Gonzales has done nothing to merit firing."
Apparently loyalty trumps honesty, which is irresponsible.
Last week Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before Congress, or tried to, but unfortunately could remember little more than his name, saying some variation of "I don't recall" more than 70 times.
So what Bush's response? "The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," he said.
Previously White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush "was pleased with the attorney general's testimony" and continues to have "full confidence" in him while at the same time Republican Sen. Tom Coburn suggested Gonzales resign.
One of the common views of the testimony was that this was just another example of incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration, after all Gonzales, as the nation's Attorney General and leader of the Department of Justice, answered many questions with "I don't recall."
But in reality the key to this situation is Bush's statement that Gonzales answered the questions "in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job." I.e. Gonzales did not answered the questions but gave the appearance that he didn't lie.
While people may think Gonzales came across as incompetent for not remembering basic facts, instead this is yet another example of irresponsibility on the part of the Bush Administration. Incompetence implies that a job failed because of a lack of ability. Irresponsible implies not being held accountable.
At the end of the day the administration got rid of the "Justice" Department Attorneys who weren't considered "loyal Bushies" and Gonzales will get to stay on. So outside of a little criticism for irresponsible action the Bushies will pay little or no penalty for their irresponsible actions. As the Washington Post wrote "the White House appears to have concluded that Gonzales has done nothing to merit firing."
Apparently loyalty trumps honesty, which is irresponsible.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Bush thumbs nose at Democracy
One of the biggest lies about the reasons George Bush invaded Iraq was that he wanted to bring democracy to the country. That's extremely difficult to believe considering the complete lack of respect Bush has for the democratic process.
From 2000 when he and his minions subverted the will of the people to mess with the results of a presidential election in order to get a candidate who lost the election into office (and then pass along the view that he, not Al Gore was the victim of election mischief) to the recent announcement that he would bypass the Senate to install a GOP donor as Ambassador to Belgium.
The nomination of Sam Fox, who gave $50,000 to the discredited Swift Boats Veterans for Truth campaign, appeared to be in trouble last week when Bush pulled the nomination in the face of stiff opposition. However, in reality he decided he didn't need, nor want congressional approval to do what he wanted, and just went ahead and made a recess appointment.
"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," said John Kerry.
The purpose of the recess appointments was to allow a President to make an appointment in cases when the Senate wouldn't be in session, not to bypass the Senate. President's for years have made appointments but during the Clinton administrations recess appointments were treated as illegal. Today the GOP probably would cheer the action they so hated.
The difference is that Clinton was appointing qualified individuals whose views weren't Republican. Bush appointments are for people who, in many cases (John Bolton) don't have the qualifications or temperament for the job for which they are appointed.
In the end the appointment of a GOP donor to an ambassadorship isn't a horrible action, however it is a symptom of an attitude and view that this administration has used to the detriment of this country.
The key is whether the country can hold on for 21 more months and whether Americans will elect someone who will clean up the Bush/Cheney mess.
From 2000 when he and his minions subverted the will of the people to mess with the results of a presidential election in order to get a candidate who lost the election into office (and then pass along the view that he, not Al Gore was the victim of election mischief) to the recent announcement that he would bypass the Senate to install a GOP donor as Ambassador to Belgium.
The nomination of Sam Fox, who gave $50,000 to the discredited Swift Boats Veterans for Truth campaign, appeared to be in trouble last week when Bush pulled the nomination in the face of stiff opposition. However, in reality he decided he didn't need, nor want congressional approval to do what he wanted, and just went ahead and made a recess appointment.
"Unfortunately, when this White House can't win the game, they just change the rules, and America loses," said John Kerry.
The purpose of the recess appointments was to allow a President to make an appointment in cases when the Senate wouldn't be in session, not to bypass the Senate. President's for years have made appointments but during the Clinton administrations recess appointments were treated as illegal. Today the GOP probably would cheer the action they so hated.
The difference is that Clinton was appointing qualified individuals whose views weren't Republican. Bush appointments are for people who, in many cases (John Bolton) don't have the qualifications or temperament for the job for which they are appointed.
In the end the appointment of a GOP donor to an ambassadorship isn't a horrible action, however it is a symptom of an attitude and view that this administration has used to the detriment of this country.
The key is whether the country can hold on for 21 more months and whether Americans will elect someone who will clean up the Bush/Cheney mess.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Bush Insider Says Kerry "Was Right"
George Bush once said that he would not withdrawal from Iraq even if "if Laura And Barney Are The Only Ones Supporting Me."
According to the New York Times, Bush is getting closer to that stand as Matthew Dowd, one of Bush's insiders has decided that "Kerry Was Right." However, if the right wing had their way its doubtful anyone would know.
The Times reported that Dowd wrote, but never submitting an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.
Dowd, a former member of Mr. Bush’s political brain trust from Texas worked to get Bush to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.
The Times pointed out that "in television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing 'a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq. But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said."
Great, another insider who knew in 2004 that Bush was wrong and shouldn't be elected, yet kept quiet. It's not surprising that Dowd has soured on Bush. He just joins a number of other former administration officials who, after working for Bush, have soured on him.
The interesting thing will be to see if the right ring press will cover this story. Fox News web site is avoiding the subject, other than carrying a reference that Chris Wallace had brought up Dowd's comments, without mentioning the words "Kerry was Right" during Fox News Sunday.
Senators, I'd like to ask you both about those comments from Matthew Dowd, the first member of the president's inner circle to break with him publicly. He says that Mr. Bush has failed to reach across the partisan divide and is ignoring the will of the American people when it comes to Iraq.
Nothing about Kerry being right though, not that is a surprise. It's doubtful anyone else on the right will carry it either. Apparently conservatives believe if they ignore the truth, it's not the truth.
Anyway its not like the media would cover a Democratic insider, say like Dick Morris, bashing his former boss. Nope, that would NEVER happen.
According to the New York Times, Bush is getting closer to that stand as Matthew Dowd, one of Bush's insiders has decided that "Kerry Was Right." However, if the right wing had their way its doubtful anyone would know.
The Times reported that Dowd wrote, but never submitting an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.
Dowd, a former member of Mr. Bush’s political brain trust from Texas worked to get Bush to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.
The Times pointed out that "in television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing 'a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq. But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said."
Great, another insider who knew in 2004 that Bush was wrong and shouldn't be elected, yet kept quiet. It's not surprising that Dowd has soured on Bush. He just joins a number of other former administration officials who, after working for Bush, have soured on him.
The interesting thing will be to see if the right ring press will cover this story. Fox News web site is avoiding the subject, other than carrying a reference that Chris Wallace had brought up Dowd's comments, without mentioning the words "Kerry was Right" during Fox News Sunday.
Senators, I'd like to ask you both about those comments from Matthew Dowd, the first member of the president's inner circle to break with him publicly. He says that Mr. Bush has failed to reach across the partisan divide and is ignoring the will of the American people when it comes to Iraq.
Nothing about Kerry being right though, not that is a surprise. It's doubtful anyone else on the right will carry it either. Apparently conservatives believe if they ignore the truth, it's not the truth.
Anyway its not like the media would cover a Democratic insider, say like Dick Morris, bashing his former boss. Nope, that would NEVER happen.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Bush surrenders on Fox
The decision by the Bush White House to retreat on the nomination of Republican donor Sam Fox, who gave $50,000 in 2004 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to be ambassador to Belgium may be, as the Washington Post said, a taste of revenge for Sen. John Kerry, whose image was tarnished by the slimy ads.
However, knowing the Bush administration, they may decide just to make a recess appointment to get around the Senate and get what they want as rules and laws are only viewed as inconveniences to this administration.
What too many people misunderstood about Bush is that he is not dumb, rather that he is incompetent, dishonest, and devious. As a result, attempts at making him look stupid didn't resonate with the people. What proved to be Bush's undoing was the eventual knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that his administration was incompetent in its reaction to Hurricane Katrina.
The final straw may have been Stephen Colbert's speech at the 2006 White House Correspondence Association dinner where he showed the true emptiness of the Katrina Administration and conservatives.
Colbert's mock quote of "I believe in the government that governs best is the government that governs least and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq" showed both the failure of the administration in Iraq and also the failure of the very nature of conservatism.
At the time the press did not care for Colbert stripping the varnish off of the Bush administration to show the ugliness underneath nor his uncovering of the lack of interest by the press of investigating the ugliness. As Colbert said "Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out."
Because the press wasn't interested in looking into the Swift Boat ads too deeply until they after they had done their damage, and there was a lack of investigation into the policies of what may be the worst president in American history, Bush was reelected.
In the process Bush goons slimed an American hero. How many people will know what Fox, a major contributor to the Swift Boat slime campaign, eventually admitted the truth of the matter.
Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country. I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you.
Unfortunately, for far too many people the Bush did take the hero part away from Kerry.
However, knowing the Bush administration, they may decide just to make a recess appointment to get around the Senate and get what they want as rules and laws are only viewed as inconveniences to this administration.
What too many people misunderstood about Bush is that he is not dumb, rather that he is incompetent, dishonest, and devious. As a result, attempts at making him look stupid didn't resonate with the people. What proved to be Bush's undoing was the eventual knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that his administration was incompetent in its reaction to Hurricane Katrina.
The final straw may have been Stephen Colbert's speech at the 2006 White House Correspondence Association dinner where he showed the true emptiness of the Katrina Administration and conservatives.
Colbert's mock quote of "I believe in the government that governs best is the government that governs least and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq" showed both the failure of the administration in Iraq and also the failure of the very nature of conservatism.
At the time the press did not care for Colbert stripping the varnish off of the Bush administration to show the ugliness underneath nor his uncovering of the lack of interest by the press of investigating the ugliness. As Colbert said "Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out."
Because the press wasn't interested in looking into the Swift Boat ads too deeply until they after they had done their damage, and there was a lack of investigation into the policies of what may be the worst president in American history, Bush was reelected.
In the process Bush goons slimed an American hero. How many people will know what Fox, a major contributor to the Swift Boat slime campaign, eventually admitted the truth of the matter.
Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country. I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you.
Unfortunately, for far too many people the Bush did take the hero part away from Kerry.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Idiots, Hypocrites & Liars
Wednesday, March 21, was a bad day for conservatives and the Bush administration as news events showed the public that they are idiots, hypocrites and liars.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out that Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), implicitly rebuked his flat-Earth colleagues, saying: "It's possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot."
Milbank said Gore's performance was "in many ways, a 21st-century version of the Scopes trial. Only this time, Gore, like William Jennings Bryan a failed Democratic presidential nominee, was playing Darrow, champion of scientific thought. Inhofe was playing the Bryan character, defending his beliefs against the encroachments of foes such as the National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations and the Oscar-hoisting former vice president.”
Then Post the reported that a day after Bush complained about Democrats engaging in a "partisan witch hunt," the leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.
Lastly, John Stewart on the Daily Show pointed out that former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, during his appearance on Tuesday's show, either didn't know what he was talking about or was lying when he claimed Stewart was wrong in saying President Lincoln brought in people of varying points of views to help with his administration. Bolton continually claimed Stewart was wrong on various items and on his Lincoln point said “you are historically wrong about Lincoln.”
Stewart, unlike too many in the media, checked out Bolton's claim and contacted Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln expert and author of “Team of Rivals,” who said Stewart "was historically right" and that Bolton was historically wrong.
But what Bolton was doing was nothing new for conservatives, lie and assume no one will follow up on the lie, or at least not until after an election. After all it worked so well in 2000, 2002, and 2004. And it's not like FOX "News" is going to report on conservatives being wrong.
First, during Vice President Al Gore testimony in congress a number of Republicans attempted to criticize his testimony on the relationship between humans activities and global warming, yet despite efforts by Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), even their GOP colleagues eventually said they had enough.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out that Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), implicitly rebuked his flat-Earth colleagues, saying: "It's possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot."
Milbank said Gore's performance was "in many ways, a 21st-century version of the Scopes trial. Only this time, Gore, like William Jennings Bryan a failed Democratic presidential nominee, was playing Darrow, champion of scientific thought. Inhofe was playing the Bryan character, defending his beliefs against the encroachments of foes such as the National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations and the Oscar-hoisting former vice president.”
Then Post the reported that a day after Bush complained about Democrats engaging in a "partisan witch hunt," the leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.
Lastly, John Stewart on the Daily Show pointed out that former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, during his appearance on Tuesday's show, either didn't know what he was talking about or was lying when he claimed Stewart was wrong in saying President Lincoln brought in people of varying points of views to help with his administration. Bolton continually claimed Stewart was wrong on various items and on his Lincoln point said “you are historically wrong about Lincoln.”
Stewart, unlike too many in the media, checked out Bolton's claim and contacted Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln expert and author of “Team of Rivals,” who said Stewart "was historically right" and that Bolton was historically wrong.
But what Bolton was doing was nothing new for conservatives, lie and assume no one will follow up on the lie, or at least not until after an election. After all it worked so well in 2000, 2002, and 2004. And it's not like FOX "News" is going to report on conservatives being wrong.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
How Dare You Question Me!!
In yet another episode of "Act Like An American, Not Like a Republican," or "Don't Treat Us Like We Treated You," George Bush reacted to the latest scandal in his administration by offering to make Karl Rove and other top aides available for private interviews with congressional investigators regarding the political sacking of U.S. Attorneys.
But as the Washington Post reported, "the White House, however, placed limits on the kinds of questions the aides would answer and said the interviews may not be conducted under oath or recorded on a transcript. The conditions enraged congressional Democrats, who vowed to go ahead with plans to issue subpoenas as early as today that would compel the aides to testify."
In an amazing display of hypocrisy, Bush criticizing Democrats, saying "it will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."
Gee, doesn't that just describe the Republicans of the 1990s with their pointless, political, partisan investigations of the Clinton administration. Sure the difference is that the Clinton was investigate for getting rid of Travel Office personnel instead of the political sacking of U.S. attorneys; Clinton was investigated for perjury on a private matter, not lying about outing a CIA covert agent; and Clinton's avoidance of the Vietnam war was questioned heavily while Bush's avoidance was generally avoided.
Today, the Bush administration is hoping to continue this pattern by not allowing Democrats to investigate the administration the way Republicans did the Clinton Administration. After being in cahoots with those in the GOP spending years tearing down the White House, Bush and Dick Cheney believe now it is time to make the White House an imperial White House, just like during the Nixon administration.
Interesting how the Bush administration is starting to look more and more like the Nixon administration.
But as the Washington Post reported, "the White House, however, placed limits on the kinds of questions the aides would answer and said the interviews may not be conducted under oath or recorded on a transcript. The conditions enraged congressional Democrats, who vowed to go ahead with plans to issue subpoenas as early as today that would compel the aides to testify."
In an amazing display of hypocrisy, Bush criticizing Democrats, saying "it will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."
Gee, doesn't that just describe the Republicans of the 1990s with their pointless, political, partisan investigations of the Clinton administration. Sure the difference is that the Clinton was investigate for getting rid of Travel Office personnel instead of the political sacking of U.S. attorneys; Clinton was investigated for perjury on a private matter, not lying about outing a CIA covert agent; and Clinton's avoidance of the Vietnam war was questioned heavily while Bush's avoidance was generally avoided.
Today, the Bush administration is hoping to continue this pattern by not allowing Democrats to investigate the administration the way Republicans did the Clinton Administration. After being in cahoots with those in the GOP spending years tearing down the White House, Bush and Dick Cheney believe now it is time to make the White House an imperial White House, just like during the Nixon administration.
Interesting how the Bush administration is starting to look more and more like the Nixon administration.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Right Comparison
One of the things missing from the recent discussions regarding the scandal around the Bush Administration and "Purgegate" is an accurate comparison to what took place during the Clinton Administration.
Conservatives try to compare the Bush Administration's purge of eight US Attorneys, who apparently weren't investigating Democrats quickly enough and also weren't spending enough time looking at question claims of voter fraud, to the Clinton administration letting all of the US attorneys go at the beginning of his term.
After 12 straight years of Republican rule and 20 out of 24 years, it isn't hard to imagine the need for purging. After only six years the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration felt the need to dump up to 20% of his own Attorneys and only keep prosecutors who were "loyal Bushies."
The conservative mantra is that the attorney's, and others, serve at the pleasure of the President so what's the big deal with getting rid of people? The big deal is that when the Clinton Administration tried to get rid of travel office staff the press and conservatives jacked the controversy up so much that a special prosecutor was eventually appointed to investigate "Travelgate."
Think about that - conservatives and the press demanded a special investigator to look into a Democratic President getting rid of travel office staff over questions of how the office was run, yet many have no problems if a Republican president gets rid of US attorneys for political purposes.
The key for conservatives has been to confuse issues just enough so someone who only hears a little bit will accept the GOP talking point (Libby found Not Guilty - Fox) no matter how little it has to do with reality.
The question now is, have the sound bites moved beyond the twisting point and is the public finally starting to truly understand how bad the Bush administration is?
Conservatives try to compare the Bush Administration's purge of eight US Attorneys, who apparently weren't investigating Democrats quickly enough and also weren't spending enough time looking at question claims of voter fraud, to the Clinton administration letting all of the US attorneys go at the beginning of his term.
After 12 straight years of Republican rule and 20 out of 24 years, it isn't hard to imagine the need for purging. After only six years the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration felt the need to dump up to 20% of his own Attorneys and only keep prosecutors who were "loyal Bushies."
The conservative mantra is that the attorney's, and others, serve at the pleasure of the President so what's the big deal with getting rid of people? The big deal is that when the Clinton Administration tried to get rid of travel office staff the press and conservatives jacked the controversy up so much that a special prosecutor was eventually appointed to investigate "Travelgate."
Think about that - conservatives and the press demanded a special investigator to look into a Democratic President getting rid of travel office staff over questions of how the office was run, yet many have no problems if a Republican president gets rid of US attorneys for political purposes.
The key for conservatives has been to confuse issues just enough so someone who only hears a little bit will accept the GOP talking point (Libby found Not Guilty - Fox) no matter how little it has to do with reality.
The question now is, have the sound bites moved beyond the twisting point and is the public finally starting to truly understand how bad the Bush administration is?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Top General Condemns Cheney's Family Values
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apparently doesn't think much of the family values of Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who helped push the U.S. into a war that has cost thousands of American lives and wounded tens of thousands of American troops.
On Monday, Gen. Pace, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. On Tuesday Pace backtracked and said he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality.
"I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views," Pace said in an article on the Washington Post. And how do those those moral views compare to those supported by our leaders?
Let's see, in 2004 Lynee Cheney criticized Sen. John Kerry for saying “We’re all God’s children, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was. She’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.”
If the Cheney's were upset at Kerry for saying that one can only imagine the Cheney's outrage for having the head of the Joint Chief of Staff call the lifestyle of their daughter's (and a number of troops) immoral and compared gays to an adulterer.
Oh sure, Gen. Pace didn't specifically mention the Cheney's daughter but if conservatives can claim that a joke by Sen. Kerry about George Bush was "actually" about the troops then shouldn't Gen. Pace's criticism of gays can be viewed as an attack on Cheney's daughter?
So I'm sure that the Cheney's, and all those conservatives who criticized Kerry, will be out shortly to criticize Pace... Right, I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
On Monday, Gen. Pace, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. On Tuesday Pace backtracked and said he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality.
"I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views," Pace said in an article on the Washington Post. And how do those those moral views compare to those supported by our leaders?
Let's see, in 2004 Lynee Cheney criticized Sen. John Kerry for saying “We’re all God’s children, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was. She’s being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not a choice.”
If the Cheney's were upset at Kerry for saying that one can only imagine the Cheney's outrage for having the head of the Joint Chief of Staff call the lifestyle of their daughter's (and a number of troops) immoral and compared gays to an adulterer.
Oh sure, Gen. Pace didn't specifically mention the Cheney's daughter but if conservatives can claim that a joke by Sen. Kerry about George Bush was "actually" about the troops then shouldn't Gen. Pace's criticism of gays can be viewed as an attack on Cheney's daughter?
So I'm sure that the Cheney's, and all those conservatives who criticized Kerry, will be out shortly to criticize Pace... Right, I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Running Scared
The reaction by conservatives to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide put on display why the Republican Party is better known as the Grand Old Party of Hypocrisy.
After spending a decade going after President Bill Clinton in attempt to remove from him from office, conservatives are crying that it wasn't criminality, but a political squabble that resulted in a conviction for Scooter Libby.
In reality, as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.com pointed out "with former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby's conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction yesterday, the stench of corruption has taken formal residence at the White House."
What is really amazing in analyzing the conservative complaints is that when one compares the actions of the Bush and Clinton administrations, one is left wondering what the fuss was all about regarding the Clinton's investigations.
Then the question of firings involved management of the White House Travel Office, not federal prosecutors for political purposes; perjury investigations regarded whether the President told the truth regarding a personal lawsuit, not the reason for going to war and outing a CIA undercover official; actions of the Clinton special prosecutor led people to compare him to Inspector Javert of Les Miserables for overreaching investigations as opposed to a nonpartisan prosecutor who went going back to his day job with his reputation intact; and finally the Clinton investigations left the President with sky high approval ratings while the Libby trial has contributed to Bush being near all time lows.
(President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. By comparison, new Zogby Poll released before the Libby verdict found Bush back at a dismal 30 percent approval, within reach of Richard Nixon's ratings at their nadir.)
All of this has left Bush appearing irrelevant. Other than hard core conservatives who would follow Bush anywhere, it's hard to imagine much of the rest of the country being willing to go off that cliff, which also explains why conservatives are so unhappy.
With a presidential election 20 months away, Republicans know that while they weren't able to turn the people against Clinton, they were able to convince about 48% of Americans to vote for George Bush. Many times 48% would be a losing amount (just ask John Kerry) but in 2000 Ralph Nader sucked away three percent, leaving Al Gore with a tiny popular vote victory. Unfortunately just enough votes weren't counted in Florida allowing Bush to claim victory.
So if false scandals slightly hurt the party run by a popular president, what will real scandals do to a party run by a unpopular president? Will all the close states turn blue?
After spending a decade going after President Bill Clinton in attempt to remove from him from office, conservatives are crying that it wasn't criminality, but a political squabble that resulted in a conviction for Scooter Libby.
In reality, as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.com pointed out "with former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby's conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction yesterday, the stench of corruption has taken formal residence at the White House."
What is really amazing in analyzing the conservative complaints is that when one compares the actions of the Bush and Clinton administrations, one is left wondering what the fuss was all about regarding the Clinton's investigations.
Then the question of firings involved management of the White House Travel Office, not federal prosecutors for political purposes; perjury investigations regarded whether the President told the truth regarding a personal lawsuit, not the reason for going to war and outing a CIA undercover official; actions of the Clinton special prosecutor led people to compare him to Inspector Javert of Les Miserables for overreaching investigations as opposed to a nonpartisan prosecutor who went going back to his day job with his reputation intact; and finally the Clinton investigations left the President with sky high approval ratings while the Libby trial has contributed to Bush being near all time lows.
(President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. By comparison, new Zogby Poll released before the Libby verdict found Bush back at a dismal 30 percent approval, within reach of Richard Nixon's ratings at their nadir.)
All of this has left Bush appearing irrelevant. Other than hard core conservatives who would follow Bush anywhere, it's hard to imagine much of the rest of the country being willing to go off that cliff, which also explains why conservatives are so unhappy.
With a presidential election 20 months away, Republicans know that while they weren't able to turn the people against Clinton, they were able to convince about 48% of Americans to vote for George Bush. Many times 48% would be a losing amount (just ask John Kerry) but in 2000 Ralph Nader sucked away three percent, leaving Al Gore with a tiny popular vote victory. Unfortunately just enough votes weren't counted in Florida allowing Bush to claim victory.
So if false scandals slightly hurt the party run by a popular president, what will real scandals do to a party run by a unpopular president? Will all the close states turn blue?
Monday, February 26, 2007
Requiem for Al Gore
Six years ago it appeared that George Bush had triumphed over Al Gore when questionable counting of votes in Florida denied him the presidency. Today, however, it appears that Al Gore is the one who triumphed.
With the win for "Inconvenient Truth" as Best Documentary at the Academy Awards on Sunday night, Gore continues his streak of being right on all the major issues of the day and recognized world wide for his work to make the world better. The world, and belatedly America, has figured out that Gore is a visionary, that his understanding of the world is one that works.
Even the Washington Post pointed out Gore has gone from failed presidential contender -- and a politician who at times gave new meaning to the word cardboard -- to the most unlikely of global celebrities.
On the other hand, George Bush and his underlings are working to prevent his legacy from being driving the Middle East into war, the U.S. into debt, and the world into chaos. Bush, unlike Gore, appears to be wrong about everything, and the Inconvenient Truth is that Bush is fast becoming irrelevant.
How did this happen? In 1999 and 2000 the right wing, along with the media, worked to portray Gore badly. However on election day 2000 the American people responded, giving Gore a popular vote victory. Unfortunately the electoral college decision came down to a state run by Bush's brother and anyone can guess the outcome. Just enough votes were tossed or not counted to prevent Gore from winning.
Bush, in second place in the popular vote and second place in the electoral college vote prior to Florida, benefited from "tie goes to the loser" approach. Unfortunately Americans didn't react to this electoral theft. Why? Because of the false image attached to Gore. Today much of that image is gone.
"People say to me that Al Gore is so different now," said Inconvenient Truth director, Davis Guggenheim. "Why wasn't he like this when he ran for president?" Meaning that Gore now appears relaxed, confident, happy, and not stiff, robotic, pinched. "They say Al has changed. But I don't think so. We've changed. The setting has changed. He's the same. When you're running for office, you're a target every moment you are in front of the camera. Now, he's in a different place and we see him in a different way."
Still the media can't completely stop making fun of Gore, as William Both painted Gore as one who following the 2000 election was "more Willy Loman than Green Avenger." Perhaps that will finally change when Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize later this year.
With the win for "Inconvenient Truth" as Best Documentary at the Academy Awards on Sunday night, Gore continues his streak of being right on all the major issues of the day and recognized world wide for his work to make the world better. The world, and belatedly America, has figured out that Gore is a visionary, that his understanding of the world is one that works.
Even the Washington Post pointed out Gore has gone from failed presidential contender -- and a politician who at times gave new meaning to the word cardboard -- to the most unlikely of global celebrities.
On the other hand, George Bush and his underlings are working to prevent his legacy from being driving the Middle East into war, the U.S. into debt, and the world into chaos. Bush, unlike Gore, appears to be wrong about everything, and the Inconvenient Truth is that Bush is fast becoming irrelevant.
How did this happen? In 1999 and 2000 the right wing, along with the media, worked to portray Gore badly. However on election day 2000 the American people responded, giving Gore a popular vote victory. Unfortunately the electoral college decision came down to a state run by Bush's brother and anyone can guess the outcome. Just enough votes were tossed or not counted to prevent Gore from winning.
Bush, in second place in the popular vote and second place in the electoral college vote prior to Florida, benefited from "tie goes to the loser" approach. Unfortunately Americans didn't react to this electoral theft. Why? Because of the false image attached to Gore. Today much of that image is gone.
"People say to me that Al Gore is so different now," said Inconvenient Truth director, Davis Guggenheim. "Why wasn't he like this when he ran for president?" Meaning that Gore now appears relaxed, confident, happy, and not stiff, robotic, pinched. "They say Al has changed. But I don't think so. We've changed. The setting has changed. He's the same. When you're running for office, you're a target every moment you are in front of the camera. Now, he's in a different place and we see him in a different way."
Still the media can't completely stop making fun of Gore, as William Both painted Gore as one who following the 2000 election was "more Willy Loman than Green Avenger." Perhaps that will finally change when Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize later this year.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Who Really Needs to Apologize?
One of the questions surrounding the Democratic presidential nomination campaign is whether Sen. Hillary Clinton should apologize for her 2002 vote to authorize war against Iraq.
While that may be an interesting question, in reality the people who should apologize are those who worked to put George W. Bush in the White House. During the 1990s legions of Clinton critics (see Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) worked to turn the public against President Clinton and in 2000 those efforts paid off with making the election in Florida close enough for the Republicans to steal.
After six years of incompetence in the White House some of Clinton's enemies, such as Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife apparently have come to a realization that was obvious oh so many years ago to those outside the media and GOP and while not making amends at least aren't making matters worse.
"Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy told the New York Times. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.”
While the Times did find space to run the article it hardly makes up for the distorted coverage of the Clinton's and Whitewater. The Times were perhaps only outdone by the Wall Street Journal, where Robert Bartley's personal animosity got the better of the page and thoroughly embarrassed the paper.
While the eight year campaign (The Hunting of the President) was unsuccessful in removing President Clinton, many in the media adopted the next step and worked on the "War Against Gore." This two year battle focused on making Gore look bad while giving Bush a free pass.
The Daily Howler pointed out that former Washington Post political editor John Harris wrote "The Way to Win " A number of members of the Gang of 500 are convinced that the main reason George W. Bush won the White House and Al Gore lost was that Gore’s regular press pack included the trio of Katherine “Kit” Seelye (of the New York Times), Ceci Connolly (of the Washington Post), and Sandra Sobieraj (of the Associated Press).
So despite conservatives despising the MSM, the MSM played a major role in installing what historians are already call the Worst President in American History. Yet rather than stepping back, apologizing for being a doormat for the GOP, the media has decided that the answer is to be rougher on Democrats, so bad that even the Washington Post ombudsman criticized a story on the sale of house by former Sen. John Edwards to a party he had never meet for a price well below the original asking price.
The reporter cried that basically Presidential candidates need complete transparency and should expect this type of investigation (unless you are named George W. Bush then we all look away.)
It's time for a members of the Washington Typists to get rid of their double standards on how they cover politics, stop typing up GOP releases, and stop being the conduit for GOP hit jobs. But one of the steps to recovery is to apologize for all all the harm they have caused. But Democrats shouldn't hold their breath waiting for an apology.
While that may be an interesting question, in reality the people who should apologize are those who worked to put George W. Bush in the White House. During the 1990s legions of Clinton critics (see Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) worked to turn the public against President Clinton and in 2000 those efforts paid off with making the election in Florida close enough for the Republicans to steal.
After six years of incompetence in the White House some of Clinton's enemies, such as Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife apparently have come to a realization that was obvious oh so many years ago to those outside the media and GOP and while not making amends at least aren't making matters worse.
"Clinton wasn’t such a bad president,” Mr. Ruddy told the New York Times. “In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today.”
While the Times did find space to run the article it hardly makes up for the distorted coverage of the Clinton's and Whitewater. The Times were perhaps only outdone by the Wall Street Journal, where Robert Bartley's personal animosity got the better of the page and thoroughly embarrassed the paper.
While the eight year campaign (The Hunting of the President) was unsuccessful in removing President Clinton, many in the media adopted the next step and worked on the "War Against Gore." This two year battle focused on making Gore look bad while giving Bush a free pass.
The Daily Howler pointed out that former Washington Post political editor John Harris wrote "The Way to Win " A number of members of the Gang of 500 are convinced that the main reason George W. Bush won the White House and Al Gore lost was that Gore’s regular press pack included the trio of Katherine “Kit” Seelye (of the New York Times), Ceci Connolly (of the Washington Post), and Sandra Sobieraj (of the Associated Press).
So despite conservatives despising the MSM, the MSM played a major role in installing what historians are already call the Worst President in American History. Yet rather than stepping back, apologizing for being a doormat for the GOP, the media has decided that the answer is to be rougher on Democrats, so bad that even the Washington Post ombudsman criticized a story on the sale of house by former Sen. John Edwards to a party he had never meet for a price well below the original asking price.
The reporter cried that basically Presidential candidates need complete transparency and should expect this type of investigation (unless you are named George W. Bush then we all look away.)
It's time for a members of the Washington Typists to get rid of their double standards on how they cover politics, stop typing up GOP releases, and stop being the conduit for GOP hit jobs. But one of the steps to recovery is to apologize for all all the harm they have caused. But Democrats shouldn't hold their breath waiting for an apology.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Why Are We in Iraq?
Two of the biggest news stories of the new year have been the trial of the Vice President's aide, Lewis Libby, and Congress's attempt to pass a resolution opposing the surge of additional troops to Iraq.
The two events are bookends in a sense to the war in Iraq; the Libby trial uncovered the administration's attempts to hide the potentially falsified reasons to go to war and now Republican's are attempting to hide the reasoning for the surge opposition resolution (attempting to frame the resolution as not supporting the troops as opposed to rejecting George Bush and makking Iraq responsible for Iraq).
If there is to be an honest discussion and decision about the resolution, and the future U.S. role in Iraq, then the Democrats, media and public are going to have to get actively involved in the debate and act on reason rather than fear.
The reason the United States got in the war in Iraq is that there was an unwillingness, not unsurprisingly after 9/11, to question the what was viewed as the administration's "attempt" to protect the country. Today, as the Washington Post reported, some congressional leaders are calling the Iraq war "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."
Today, too many people say that "if we knew now what we knew then, there wouldn't have been a vote to go to war." Well that's fine, but perhaps what's need is more comments like former Sen. John Edwards, who said that the vote authorizing the vote was a mistake. The only way the U.S. is going to regain the respect of the world, and get them involved in solving the Iraq problem is to admit our mistakes.
Without that admission there is little reason for foreign governments to get involved in our mess. The 9/11 Commission said that among the failures that took place which allowed the 9/11 attacks was "one of imagination." Unfortunately today too many people still have their war blinders on and are not willing to look at the big picture.
The country must ask ourselves why we are still in Iraq? Is it to fight terrorists or to take sides in a civil war? Without understanding why we are there will limit our planning, leading to additional failures.
The two events are bookends in a sense to the war in Iraq; the Libby trial uncovered the administration's attempts to hide the potentially falsified reasons to go to war and now Republican's are attempting to hide the reasoning for the surge opposition resolution (attempting to frame the resolution as not supporting the troops as opposed to rejecting George Bush and makking Iraq responsible for Iraq).
If there is to be an honest discussion and decision about the resolution, and the future U.S. role in Iraq, then the Democrats, media and public are going to have to get actively involved in the debate and act on reason rather than fear.
The reason the United States got in the war in Iraq is that there was an unwillingness, not unsurprisingly after 9/11, to question the what was viewed as the administration's "attempt" to protect the country. Today, as the Washington Post reported, some congressional leaders are calling the Iraq war "the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."
Today, too many people say that "if we knew now what we knew then, there wouldn't have been a vote to go to war." Well that's fine, but perhaps what's need is more comments like former Sen. John Edwards, who said that the vote authorizing the vote was a mistake. The only way the U.S. is going to regain the respect of the world, and get them involved in solving the Iraq problem is to admit our mistakes.
Without that admission there is little reason for foreign governments to get involved in our mess. The 9/11 Commission said that among the failures that took place which allowed the 9/11 attacks was "one of imagination." Unfortunately today too many people still have their war blinders on and are not willing to look at the big picture.
The country must ask ourselves why we are still in Iraq? Is it to fight terrorists or to take sides in a civil war? Without understanding why we are there will limit our planning, leading to additional failures.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Three Year Old News
Washington is all abuzz over the trial of Scooter Libby as it uncovers a number of disturbing facts about both the Bush administration and also the media.
Unfortunately these discoveries comes three years too late. While the news may give the public something to think about during the 2008 election, that knowledge would have made a difference in 2004, which would have made a big difference nationally and internationally in the past two years.
However the administration did not want the public to know that as the Washington Post headline put it 'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War in Iraq, nor did they want the public to know they outed a CIA operative in response to being criticized.
And the media, who was used to out the operative, did not want the public to know about the cozy relationship they had with the current administration. Allowing the public to know that would mean they might question the media's attacks on Sen. John Kerry.
It was Eric Boehlert of Media Matters who had to point out that "for long stretches, the special counsel easily supplanted the timid D.C. press corps and become the fact-finder of record for the Plame story. It was Fitzgerald and his team of G-men -- not journalists -- who were running down leads, asking tough questions and, in the end, helping inform the American people about possible criminal activity inside the White House."
The media, which knew who was responsible for the outing of Valerie Plame, wasn't interesting in telling the public about its relationship with the administration, could have written the story long ago but didn't.
One can only image how the public would have reacted to the news that the administration was wrong and outed a spy, especially in Ohio.
Unfortunately these discoveries comes three years too late. While the news may give the public something to think about during the 2008 election, that knowledge would have made a difference in 2004, which would have made a big difference nationally and internationally in the past two years.
However the administration did not want the public to know that as the Washington Post headline put it 'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War in Iraq, nor did they want the public to know they outed a CIA operative in response to being criticized.
And the media, who was used to out the operative, did not want the public to know about the cozy relationship they had with the current administration. Allowing the public to know that would mean they might question the media's attacks on Sen. John Kerry.
It was Eric Boehlert of Media Matters who had to point out that "for long stretches, the special counsel easily supplanted the timid D.C. press corps and become the fact-finder of record for the Plame story. It was Fitzgerald and his team of G-men -- not journalists -- who were running down leads, asking tough questions and, in the end, helping inform the American people about possible criminal activity inside the White House."
The media, which knew who was responsible for the outing of Valerie Plame, wasn't interesting in telling the public about its relationship with the administration, could have written the story long ago but didn't.
One can only image how the public would have reacted to the news that the administration was wrong and outed a spy, especially in Ohio.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Fuzzy Math
When George Bush submitted his budget to Congress this week he suggested that adoption would help led to eliminating the deficit by 2012. What he didn't tell people was his budget was built on fuzzy math.
Instead he sent out Republican National Chairman Mike Duncan to say "The President should be applauded for submitting a budget that works to eliminate the deficit."
In reality, after three straight years of the national debt increasing by more than $550 billion, the administration is again on target for a similar increase, with the debt already up $200 billion in four months.
Over the past year the administration has prided itself on how it had cut the deficit in half. However the administration accomplished this by comparing the estimated deficit to eventual deficit. In 2004, at one point the White House projected a deficit of $521 billion, yet the actual deficit was $412 billion. This year's deficit is expected to be around $250 billion, half of the $512 but not half of $412.
Also, to an extremely large estimate the Bush administration has been helped by taking excess Social Security payments to pay over their drunken sailor spending habit. (The International Herald Tribune pointed out that In 2006 the federal government received $185 billion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in benefits.)
If one looks at the nearly $600 billion increases in the national debt one gets a better picture of the mismanagement. Unfortunately the excess social security receipts won't last forever and will end around the time the budget is supposedly balanced, requiring a future administration to clean up anothe Bush administration mistake.
Instead he sent out Republican National Chairman Mike Duncan to say "The President should be applauded for submitting a budget that works to eliminate the deficit."
In reality, after three straight years of the national debt increasing by more than $550 billion, the administration is again on target for a similar increase, with the debt already up $200 billion in four months.
Over the past year the administration has prided itself on how it had cut the deficit in half. However the administration accomplished this by comparing the estimated deficit to eventual deficit. In 2004, at one point the White House projected a deficit of $521 billion, yet the actual deficit was $412 billion. This year's deficit is expected to be around $250 billion, half of the $512 but not half of $412.
Also, to an extremely large estimate the Bush administration has been helped by taking excess Social Security payments to pay over their drunken sailor spending habit. (The International Herald Tribune pointed out that In 2006 the federal government received $185 billion more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in benefits.)
If one looks at the nearly $600 billion increases in the national debt one gets a better picture of the mismanagement. Unfortunately the excess social security receipts won't last forever and will end around the time the budget is supposedly balanced, requiring a future administration to clean up anothe Bush administration mistake.
Friday, February 02, 2007
It's Official! Gore Won Florida!
With a Bush no longer controlling the Governor's office, and recognizing that previous actions by his state cost candidates elections, the new Florida Governor announced he would work to eliminate voting machine that do not accurately reflect the will of the voters.
By getting rid of previous systems didn't work, the Governor basically admitted that the two closest national races in Florida were counted incorrectly, meaning that Al Gore won Florida in 2000. Opponents may try to spin the Governor's action as trying to solve problems raised in 2006, but the proposed system would not return to 2000 style counting, but would eliminate the flawed system that cost Gore the election.
As the AP pointed out Florida's voting system attracted national attention in 2000 when dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads on punch card ballots held up a final count in the presidential election. Florida was eventually decided by 537 votes after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, handing the election to George W. Bush.
Numerous ballots were not counted in Florida in 2000, primarily in areas that voted heavily Democratic and actions of the government were later found to be "grossly derelict."
Malfunctions in touch screens in 2006 enabled a Republican to win by 369 votes despite more than 18,000 electronic ballots recording no vote and there was no way to confirm that was the voter's intent.
New Gov. Charlie Crist (R) said he wants to spend $32 million on a proposed a system that would create a paper trail of votes. The plan, which needs legislative approval, aims to have all counties producing paper trials by the 2008 presidential election.
By getting rid of previous systems didn't work, the Governor basically admitted that the two closest national races in Florida were counted incorrectly, meaning that Al Gore won Florida in 2000. Opponents may try to spin the Governor's action as trying to solve problems raised in 2006, but the proposed system would not return to 2000 style counting, but would eliminate the flawed system that cost Gore the election.
As the AP pointed out Florida's voting system attracted national attention in 2000 when dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads on punch card ballots held up a final count in the presidential election. Florida was eventually decided by 537 votes after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, handing the election to George W. Bush.
Numerous ballots were not counted in Florida in 2000, primarily in areas that voted heavily Democratic and actions of the government were later found to be "grossly derelict."
Malfunctions in touch screens in 2006 enabled a Republican to win by 369 votes despite more than 18,000 electronic ballots recording no vote and there was no way to confirm that was the voter's intent.
New Gov. Charlie Crist (R) said he wants to spend $32 million on a proposed a system that would create a paper trail of votes. The plan, which needs legislative approval, aims to have all counties producing paper trials by the 2008 presidential election.
"What we're talking about here is democracy, and it is precious," Crist said.
Left unsaid in Gov. Crist's comments was "we f#@ked up, sorry Florida, America, and the World."Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Running Out the Clock
Reading the reports of the trial of Vice President's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury, one is struck that the administration main concern in June 2003 probably was that the public would question their integrity and so their main goal was to run out the clock prior to the 2004 election.
Murray Waas in the National Journal wrote that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration.
With no WMDs found in the months following the invasion of Iraq there were starting to be question raised about why the United States went to war. And when Joseph Wilson wrote on the New York Times Op-Ed page that the administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq, the administration felt they needed to fight back.
So in a supposed era of fighting terrorism the administration's plan was to end the career of a CIA agent by outing Mr. Wilson's wife. But rather than disparaging Joseph Wilson, the spectre of a criminal investigation was raised.
Yet the Bush administration, which came into office talking about restoring integrity and wanting to distance themselves from the Clinton administration, instead moved closer to the Nixon administration.
Faced with the prospect of the public turning against the war, which the public eventually did, the administration decided to "run out the clock" and push the results past the 2004 election with the idea that if they could win they could have a huge long-term impact on the country.
In that respect they were correct. By keeping the full details of why the US went to war and keeping the focus of the war away from the administration Bush was able to eke out a win in 2004 and were able to appoint two Supreme Court justices.
For all of Bush's bravado talk about his belief in democracy, he had no in interest in the American people being informed when they voted. After all Bush was able to "win" in 2000 by hoodwinking the public and in 2002 and 2004 was able to keep Republicans in power by keeping the public out of touch.
Murray Waas in the National Journal wrote that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration.
With no WMDs found in the months following the invasion of Iraq there were starting to be question raised about why the United States went to war. And when Joseph Wilson wrote on the New York Times Op-Ed page that the administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq, the administration felt they needed to fight back.
So in a supposed era of fighting terrorism the administration's plan was to end the career of a CIA agent by outing Mr. Wilson's wife. But rather than disparaging Joseph Wilson, the spectre of a criminal investigation was raised.
Yet the Bush administration, which came into office talking about restoring integrity and wanting to distance themselves from the Clinton administration, instead moved closer to the Nixon administration.
Faced with the prospect of the public turning against the war, which the public eventually did, the administration decided to "run out the clock" and push the results past the 2004 election with the idea that if they could win they could have a huge long-term impact on the country.
In that respect they were correct. By keeping the full details of why the US went to war and keeping the focus of the war away from the administration Bush was able to eke out a win in 2004 and were able to appoint two Supreme Court justices.
For all of Bush's bravado talk about his belief in democracy, he had no in interest in the American people being informed when they voted. After all Bush was able to "win" in 2000 by hoodwinking the public and in 2002 and 2004 was able to keep Republicans in power by keeping the public out of touch.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Russert Outed as GOP Puppet
When Ariana Huffington criticized Tim Russert and Meet the Press for the questions posed to Republican Chairman Ken Mehlan during an interview in 2005, writing "Tim Russert is fast becoming journalism’s answer to the “E-ZPass," no follow-ups -- or lame follow-ups quickly abandoned, media critics such as Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post rushed to Russert's defense, defending the lack of follow-up questions, snickering How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!
On Thursday the truth about Meet the Press, or Beat The Press as many view it, was exposed during the trial of Scooter Libby when Vice President Dick Cheney's former communication director, Cathie Martin, explained how Russert was viewed as Cheney's puppet.
As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote, Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
Milbank explained that Martin testified she advised Cheney "how he could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. "Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under 'pro,' she wrote: 'control message.'"
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
So the GOP favored Meet the Press because they knew they could control the show's message. Wait a second, isn't Beat the Press part of that legendary liberal cabal that fights Republicans and conservatives? In reality, Russert has always been tougher on Democrats than Republicans, witness this gem from the Daily Howler.
Throughout his New Yorker piece, for example, [Nicholas] Lemann seems to roll his eyes at the “branding” involved in Big Russ & Me. Beyond that, he suggests that Russert bungled the two crucial sessions with Cheney. On the other hand, he shows Russert “go[ing] in for the kill” as he interviews Gore in July 2000, and he recalls Russert taking the same approach to Hillary Clinton in that same election season.
Surprise, surprise, the so-called "liberal media" is little more than a patsy for conservatives. But Russert isn't alone on being a patsy, as that was on display on Wednesday with Cheney's interview with Wolff Blitzer who had such poorly written questions that Cheney was able to roll right through them with Blitzer left stuttering, "but, but...."
Just another day at the media's GOP E-ZPass office apparently.
On Thursday the truth about Meet the Press, or Beat The Press as many view it, was exposed during the trial of Scooter Libby when Vice President Dick Cheney's former communication director, Cathie Martin, explained how Russert was viewed as Cheney's puppet.
As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote, Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
Milbank explained that Martin testified she advised Cheney "how he could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. "Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under 'pro,' she wrote: 'control message.'"
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
So the GOP favored Meet the Press because they knew they could control the show's message. Wait a second, isn't Beat the Press part of that legendary liberal cabal that fights Republicans and conservatives? In reality, Russert has always been tougher on Democrats than Republicans, witness this gem from the Daily Howler.
Throughout his New Yorker piece, for example, [Nicholas] Lemann seems to roll his eyes at the “branding” involved in Big Russ & Me. Beyond that, he suggests that Russert bungled the two crucial sessions with Cheney. On the other hand, he shows Russert “go[ing] in for the kill” as he interviews Gore in July 2000, and he recalls Russert taking the same approach to Hillary Clinton in that same election season.
Surprise, surprise, the so-called "liberal media" is little more than a patsy for conservatives. But Russert isn't alone on being a patsy, as that was on display on Wednesday with Cheney's interview with Wolff Blitzer who had such poorly written questions that Cheney was able to roll right through them with Blitzer left stuttering, "but, but...."
Just another day at the media's GOP E-ZPass office apparently.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Kerry Out; Supporters move to Edwards?
In a not too surprising announcement, Sen. John Kerry announced on Wednesday that he will not run for President in 2008. While Kerry still retained a large campaign fund, and was among the top five candidates in polls listing prospective candidates, it had become apparent that it would be impossible to get past the GOP's and media's caricature of him, witness the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz's column one last long stab at him.
The question now is where will his supporters go. Many of Kerry's strong supporters got to know Sen. John Edwards during the 2004 campaign and one might expect many of those supporters to move their support to Edwards.
In fact Edwards might have gotten many of those supporters in the 2004 primaries but by early 2004 voters hadn't had enough time to get to know Edwards before Kerry locked up the nomination.
Three years later Edwards is as well known as any of the other top candidates and after seeing him in person in 2004, and in 2006, he is one of the few candidates who has the ability to energize crowds whenever he speaks. The defining characteristic of the 2008 race may be the candidates ability to get the public to believe in America again and there are very few who can challenge Edwards here.
When Democrats go to the polls in 2008, the move to front load the primary system may eliminate a number of candidates early on. Edwards, as the Democrats Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, will find it a lot easier to command media attention, and also the attention of the public and should be among the final candidates.
In addition, Edwards' signature issues are the issues getting the attention of the media. From Barron's story on Rich America, Poor America, to Lou Dobbs War on the Middle Class, or even Ben Steins New York Times column "A City on a Hill, or a Looting Opportunity," the media is figuring out that a high stock market doesn't mean all Americans are benefiting.
Too often in the past, many in the GOP looked at how well the rich were doing and assumed everyone was doing well. Perhaps it was an unwillingness to accept that Edwards raised the two America issue in 2004. As Edwards said at the 2004 convention, "This is not an African-American issue. This is not a Latino issue. This is not an Asian-American issue. This is an American issue."
Today more and more people are now figuring that there are two very different Americas and are becoming troubled about this development. And as more people think about it, its likely that Edwards will become the nominee.
The question now is where will his supporters go. Many of Kerry's strong supporters got to know Sen. John Edwards during the 2004 campaign and one might expect many of those supporters to move their support to Edwards.
In fact Edwards might have gotten many of those supporters in the 2004 primaries but by early 2004 voters hadn't had enough time to get to know Edwards before Kerry locked up the nomination.
Three years later Edwards is as well known as any of the other top candidates and after seeing him in person in 2004, and in 2006, he is one of the few candidates who has the ability to energize crowds whenever he speaks. The defining characteristic of the 2008 race may be the candidates ability to get the public to believe in America again and there are very few who can challenge Edwards here.
When Democrats go to the polls in 2008, the move to front load the primary system may eliminate a number of candidates early on. Edwards, as the Democrats Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, will find it a lot easier to command media attention, and also the attention of the public and should be among the final candidates.
In addition, Edwards' signature issues are the issues getting the attention of the media. From Barron's story on Rich America, Poor America, to Lou Dobbs War on the Middle Class, or even Ben Steins New York Times column "A City on a Hill, or a Looting Opportunity," the media is figuring out that a high stock market doesn't mean all Americans are benefiting.
Too often in the past, many in the GOP looked at how well the rich were doing and assumed everyone was doing well. Perhaps it was an unwillingness to accept that Edwards raised the two America issue in 2004. As Edwards said at the 2004 convention, "This is not an African-American issue. This is not a Latino issue. This is not an Asian-American issue. This is an American issue."
Today more and more people are now figuring that there are two very different Americas and are becoming troubled about this development. And as more people think about it, its likely that Edwards will become the nominee.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
What Will to Win?
On a day when the Washington Post carried a story about whether Vice President Richard Cheney's aide lied about his role in attacking those who questioned the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq, his daughter was on the editorial page attacking those who question the administration's current role in Iraq.
Some readers may not have put the two together as the Post declined to identify Liz Cheney as the Vice President's daughter, saying only that The writer is former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Granted there may not be a lot people would want to be listed as his daughter, but it should have been mentioned.
In traditional GOP hit style, Cheney immediately went after Hillary Clinton, and then the rest of the Democrats, with the only surprise being that she couldn't find a place to attack Sen. John Kerry.
Ms. Cheney plea was for Americans to support the Administration Iraq plan for the troops (Stay and Die) as anything else would embolden the terrorists. Actually what has emboldened the terrorists is the Iraq invasion. Just about the whole world supported the United States' war in Afghanistan as it came against those who actually attacked the United States.
Imagine the reaction of al-Qaeda if the US had captured Osama Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein, had set up a large presence in Afghanistan and set that country on the road to democracy?
Perhaps Afghanistan's neighbor (Iran) would have thought twice about making nuclear noises with 150,000 US troops nearby and not under attack. The terrorists, who were on the run and were lacking support, might have been routed rather than reinvigorated by the actions in Iraq.
In Afghanistan the people did view the U.S. as liberators, in fact all the theories the administration wanted to test in Iraq might have worked in Afghanistan, yet the Cheney's and the administration apparently had "other priorities."
Bush/Cheney went AWOL on Afghanistan rather than being in the fight to win, as his daughter said we should be in Iraq. Now the U.S. is left with few good options and even military officials question whether the proposed surge will provide long term results.
If Ms. Cheney really believes we must be in this war to win, perhaps she could convince the President that he could show his commitment by having Barbara and Jenna sign up for the military. Afterall Al Gore was willing to support his father by signing up for Vietnam, which is more than can be said of George or Dick.
Until then one has to question Bush & Cheney's will to win and the "steel in their spine."
Some readers may not have put the two together as the Post declined to identify Liz Cheney as the Vice President's daughter, saying only that The writer is former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. Granted there may not be a lot people would want to be listed as his daughter, but it should have been mentioned.
In traditional GOP hit style, Cheney immediately went after Hillary Clinton, and then the rest of the Democrats, with the only surprise being that she couldn't find a place to attack Sen. John Kerry.
Ms. Cheney plea was for Americans to support the Administration Iraq plan for the troops (Stay and Die) as anything else would embolden the terrorists. Actually what has emboldened the terrorists is the Iraq invasion. Just about the whole world supported the United States' war in Afghanistan as it came against those who actually attacked the United States.
Imagine the reaction of al-Qaeda if the US had captured Osama Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein, had set up a large presence in Afghanistan and set that country on the road to democracy?
Perhaps Afghanistan's neighbor (Iran) would have thought twice about making nuclear noises with 150,000 US troops nearby and not under attack. The terrorists, who were on the run and were lacking support, might have been routed rather than reinvigorated by the actions in Iraq.
In Afghanistan the people did view the U.S. as liberators, in fact all the theories the administration wanted to test in Iraq might have worked in Afghanistan, yet the Cheney's and the administration apparently had "other priorities."
Bush/Cheney went AWOL on Afghanistan rather than being in the fight to win, as his daughter said we should be in Iraq. Now the U.S. is left with few good options and even military officials question whether the proposed surge will provide long term results.
If Ms. Cheney really believes we must be in this war to win, perhaps she could convince the President that he could show his commitment by having Barbara and Jenna sign up for the military. Afterall Al Gore was willing to support his father by signing up for Vietnam, which is more than can be said of George or Dick.
Until then one has to question Bush & Cheney's will to win and the "steel in their spine."
Sunday, January 21, 2007
From Those Wonderful People Who Brought You Iraq
In the 1960s, Jerry Della Femina, an advertising executive wrote a book entitled "From those wonderful people who brought you Pearl Harbor!" The title referred to a tongue-in cheek slogan proposed for a client during a brainstorming session.
After reading a pie-in-the-sky column (What Would Jeb Do) in Sunday's Washington Post promoting Jeb Bush as President, or Vice President in 2008, anyone who knows more history than GOP talking points allow must have come away thinking of a derivative of that slogan, "From those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq War, the Florida Fiasco, and the Savings & Loans crisis."
The column was written by S.V. Dáte of the Palm Beach Post and author of "Jeb: America's Next Bush" and was little more than a puff piece for Bush, decrying how Jeb lost the Florida's governor's race, pushing brother George to the front of the list to run for president. One has to believe the reason George HW Bush broke down at Jeb's retirement is because he knew the dumb son became president and was was attempting to apologize to the country for George's mistakes.
Dáte column claims it is "more than an exercise in alternative history" but many of the positives attributed to Jeb and how he would have handled Iraq and Katrina better are specious at best. Probably 99 out of 100 politicians would have handled those issues better than W., and the same column could have been written replacing Jeb Bush with Al Gore and even more forcefully talked about how much better things could have been.
Instead of talking about what Jeb might have done, Dáte could have addressed the other problems the Bush's have caused, including how Jeb helped steal the 2000 presidential election and brother Neil's involvement in the savings & loan crisis during Bush 41.
Dáte wrote that Bush could respond to those who complain about Bush fatigue "We're going to have a dynasty either way," he could respond. "The question is: Which one do you want? My family or hers?"
Great, from those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq mess, the Florida mess, and the saving's and loan mess, Dáte is proprosing more of the same.
After reading a pie-in-the-sky column (What Would Jeb Do) in Sunday's Washington Post promoting Jeb Bush as President, or Vice President in 2008, anyone who knows more history than GOP talking points allow must have come away thinking of a derivative of that slogan, "From those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq War, the Florida Fiasco, and the Savings & Loans crisis."
The column was written by S.V. Dáte of the Palm Beach Post and author of "Jeb: America's Next Bush" and was little more than a puff piece for Bush, decrying how Jeb lost the Florida's governor's race, pushing brother George to the front of the list to run for president. One has to believe the reason George HW Bush broke down at Jeb's retirement is because he knew the dumb son became president and was was attempting to apologize to the country for George's mistakes.
Dáte column claims it is "more than an exercise in alternative history" but many of the positives attributed to Jeb and how he would have handled Iraq and Katrina better are specious at best. Probably 99 out of 100 politicians would have handled those issues better than W., and the same column could have been written replacing Jeb Bush with Al Gore and even more forcefully talked about how much better things could have been.
Instead of talking about what Jeb might have done, Dáte could have addressed the other problems the Bush's have caused, including how Jeb helped steal the 2000 presidential election and brother Neil's involvement in the savings & loan crisis during Bush 41.
Dáte wrote that Bush could respond to those who complain about Bush fatigue "We're going to have a dynasty either way," he could respond. "The question is: Which one do you want? My family or hers?"
Great, from those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq mess, the Florida mess, and the saving's and loan mess, Dáte is proprosing more of the same.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Hillary's Difficulties
One of the biggest challenges facing Hillary Clinton in her bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is that there are too many people who share her views but will not admit it nor will vote for her.
On issues from national security, to fiscal restraint, to lifestyle laws there are a lot of conservatives who share her views but would not admit it or give her credit. Many may comfort themselves by saying that the actions taken by Bill Clinton have nothing to do with her or even the Democratic party.
For instance, the Family Leave Medical Act, promoted and signed into law by Bill Clinton, is a law that many conservatives mothers expect, no, demand that it should apply to them. Yet dutifully, every two and four years they go to the polls and probably vote for candidates who oppose this type of thinking.
Same goes for balancing the budget. While they demanded that the government return the surplus to them (It's my money!) they have no interest in paying higher taxes to fund the deficit spending enacted by Republicans.
It's just another in a series of voters benefiting from Democratic initiatives but not being will to support those actions. Hillary even tried to be out Joe Lieberman on the Iraqi mess but with her formal announcement that she will run for president, she has decided to take a harder line.
In the end the conservatives minority will not give her credit for supporting Bush's failed policy and it is questionable whether the majority of American will accept her change. As the Washington Post pointed out there are Democrats who question whether she can win a general election.
The main thing Sen. Clinton has going for her is that starting from where Sen. John Kerry left off in 2004, it is doubtful she would lose any of the states Kerry won, leaving only needing to pick up a small number of states to win.
And looking how close Kerry was in Ohio and how the GOP is in retreat in Ohio, it looks like she could start from a winning base. However, many of the states were close and there be a number of people who will not accept her or allow that their beliefs are also Clinton's.
On issues from national security, to fiscal restraint, to lifestyle laws there are a lot of conservatives who share her views but would not admit it or give her credit. Many may comfort themselves by saying that the actions taken by Bill Clinton have nothing to do with her or even the Democratic party.
For instance, the Family Leave Medical Act, promoted and signed into law by Bill Clinton, is a law that many conservatives mothers expect, no, demand that it should apply to them. Yet dutifully, every two and four years they go to the polls and probably vote for candidates who oppose this type of thinking.
Same goes for balancing the budget. While they demanded that the government return the surplus to them (It's my money!) they have no interest in paying higher taxes to fund the deficit spending enacted by Republicans.
It's just another in a series of voters benefiting from Democratic initiatives but not being will to support those actions. Hillary even tried to be out Joe Lieberman on the Iraqi mess but with her formal announcement that she will run for president, she has decided to take a harder line.
In the end the conservatives minority will not give her credit for supporting Bush's failed policy and it is questionable whether the majority of American will accept her change. As the Washington Post pointed out there are Democrats who question whether she can win a general election.
The main thing Sen. Clinton has going for her is that starting from where Sen. John Kerry left off in 2004, it is doubtful she would lose any of the states Kerry won, leaving only needing to pick up a small number of states to win.
And looking how close Kerry was in Ohio and how the GOP is in retreat in Ohio, it looks like she could start from a winning base. However, many of the states were close and there be a number of people who will not accept her or allow that their beliefs are also Clinton's.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Is John Edwards the Electable Candidate?
In 2004 many Democrats looked at the candidates running for President and decided that Sen. John Kerry was most electable candidate. While some people now believe Kerry wasn't the best candidate, other than Sen. John Edwards it's hard to see anyone else who would have done much better than Kerry against the GOP War Machine. For better or worse, too many in the country had made up its mind long before the election.
In 2008 the media has focused on the Clinton - Obama race but Clinton may be hurt by her support for the Iraq war and recent attempt to limit her support. The Washington Post said she is changing and that recently she made "her harshest assessment to date of President Bush's Iraq war strategy yesterday, continuing her steady evolution from one of the war's staunchest supporters to one of the administration's most prominent critics."
If Kerry was killed by alleged "flip-flopping" its hard to believe people, and especially the press, will give Clinton a pass on this. As for Obama, people may be forced to ask "where's the beef." While his national experience is equal or beyond what other recent presidents have had, and his campaign speaking is excellent, one has to wonder if he is running because he has a great chance or he would make a great president.
Edwards, on the other hands, probably was just a few days away from winning the Iowa primary in 2004 and being the front runner. Looking at the reaction to the his announcement in Des Moines in late December 2006 before an overflowing crowd, it is hard to believe he won't be among the top candidates.
In 1992 Bill Clinton and Al Gore gave people a reason to believe. Today the country faces a lack of trust in the White House and a recognition that the world no longer trusts America. Edwards offers the country a chance to believe again and in looking at the candidates it may well be that he will be viewed as the candidate most electable.
In 2008 the media has focused on the Clinton - Obama race but Clinton may be hurt by her support for the Iraq war and recent attempt to limit her support. The Washington Post said she is changing and that recently she made "her harshest assessment to date of President Bush's Iraq war strategy yesterday, continuing her steady evolution from one of the war's staunchest supporters to one of the administration's most prominent critics."
If Kerry was killed by alleged "flip-flopping" its hard to believe people, and especially the press, will give Clinton a pass on this. As for Obama, people may be forced to ask "where's the beef." While his national experience is equal or beyond what other recent presidents have had, and his campaign speaking is excellent, one has to wonder if he is running because he has a great chance or he would make a great president.
Edwards, on the other hands, probably was just a few days away from winning the Iowa primary in 2004 and being the front runner. Looking at the reaction to the his announcement in Des Moines in late December 2006 before an overflowing crowd, it is hard to believe he won't be among the top candidates.
In 1992 Bill Clinton and Al Gore gave people a reason to believe. Today the country faces a lack of trust in the White House and a recognition that the world no longer trusts America. Edwards offers the country a chance to believe again and in looking at the candidates it may well be that he will be viewed as the candidate most electable.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
John Kerry Was Right, Part II
When George Bush unveiled his new Iraq strategy last week, most people focused on his plan to send 21,000 additional troops. That plan was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats as not meeting the needs of the Iraq or the U.S.
While the troop surge was probably the highlight of the plan, and the part Bush and Dick Cheney focused on, administration staffers who were given the task of actually improving the situation in Iraq may have secretly devising plans based on reality rather than politics.
In other words, whether of not they actually listened to Sen. John Kerry's criticism of why Bush is stuck in Iraq, they are now doing the things Kerry said Bush had not in previous planning, or lack of planning.
In the past, the problem was that the Bush administration tried to use Iraq as an experiment to test their political theories rather than trying to win the peace. That approach may now change.
As the Washington Post pointed out, desperate for new approaches to stifle the persistent Sunni insurgency and Shiite death squads that are jointly pushing the country toward an all-out civil war, the White House made a striking about-face last week, embracing strategies and people it once opposed or cast aside.
So apparently staffers are now studying the situation, doing their homework on why the previous efforts didn't work and are trying to be smart this time.
"The plan unveiled by Bush last week calls for many people who lost their jobs under Bremer's de-Baathification decree to be rehired. It calls for more Sunnis, who were marginalized under the CPA, to be brought into the government. It calls for state-owned factories to be reopened. It calls for more reconstruction personnel to be stationed outside the Green Zone. It calls for a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes providing security to the civilian population over transferring responsibility to local military forces."
Those people include Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will take over command of all coalition forces in Iraq. During his first tour, the Post said Petraus didn't care for the original tactics, saying "he chafed at the way reconstruction funds, personnel and decision-making were centralized in Baghdad. The CPA's policies, he said in 2004, should have been "tempered by reality.'"
Reality, gee what a concept. Next thing you know the administration will look at the various nuances of the situation, and not just look at everything as black and white. Perhaps then we will see a start toward solving the mess in Iraq.
While the troop surge was probably the highlight of the plan, and the part Bush and Dick Cheney focused on, administration staffers who were given the task of actually improving the situation in Iraq may have secretly devising plans based on reality rather than politics.
In other words, whether of not they actually listened to Sen. John Kerry's criticism of why Bush is stuck in Iraq, they are now doing the things Kerry said Bush had not in previous planning, or lack of planning.
In the past, the problem was that the Bush administration tried to use Iraq as an experiment to test their political theories rather than trying to win the peace. That approach may now change.
As the Washington Post pointed out, desperate for new approaches to stifle the persistent Sunni insurgency and Shiite death squads that are jointly pushing the country toward an all-out civil war, the White House made a striking about-face last week, embracing strategies and people it once opposed or cast aside.
So apparently staffers are now studying the situation, doing their homework on why the previous efforts didn't work and are trying to be smart this time.
"The plan unveiled by Bush last week calls for many people who lost their jobs under Bremer's de-Baathification decree to be rehired. It calls for more Sunnis, who were marginalized under the CPA, to be brought into the government. It calls for state-owned factories to be reopened. It calls for more reconstruction personnel to be stationed outside the Green Zone. It calls for a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes providing security to the civilian population over transferring responsibility to local military forces."
Those people include Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who will take over command of all coalition forces in Iraq. During his first tour, the Post said Petraus didn't care for the original tactics, saying "he chafed at the way reconstruction funds, personnel and decision-making were centralized in Baghdad. The CPA's policies, he said in 2004, should have been "tempered by reality.'"
Reality, gee what a concept. Next thing you know the administration will look at the various nuances of the situation, and not just look at everything as black and white. Perhaps then we will see a start toward solving the mess in Iraq.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
John Kerry Was Right
All those "smart" people who had such a fun time instigating or perpetrating outrage over Sen. John Kerry's purported criticism of the American troops can now satisfy themselves with the knowledge that the U.S. will be stuck in Iraq for a very long time.
And why are we stuck? Because, just as Kerry said, Bush didn't study, didn't do his homework and didn't try to be smart. Instead Bush decided he was the decider and what he believed was the truth, no matter how little truth was in his beliefs, and so he got stuck in Iraq.
Following hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Sen. Joe Biden asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how long she thought American forces would need to stay in Iraq. She responded that she could not give an "exact timetable."
Rice's condescending comments were code for a very long time. So why are we stuck in Iraq? Because Bush had some grand vision for Iraq and now, 27 months too late the public, the Congress, and possiby even the military, has finally figured out that Bush didn't do his homework and got us in a mess.
The Post mentioned that at the hearings "not a single senator from either party said they supported the president's plan, many posed hostile questions, and others expressed deep doubt about the Bush administration's premise of creating a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East."
So Bush's original grand theory was all an illusion. And his new theory?
"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
And with that the country can be assured that there will be no early exit from Iraq.
And why are we stuck? Because, just as Kerry said, Bush didn't study, didn't do his homework and didn't try to be smart. Instead Bush decided he was the decider and what he believed was the truth, no matter how little truth was in his beliefs, and so he got stuck in Iraq.
Following hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Sen. Joe Biden asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how long she thought American forces would need to stay in Iraq. She responded that she could not give an "exact timetable."
Rice's condescending comments were code for a very long time. So why are we stuck in Iraq? Because Bush had some grand vision for Iraq and now, 27 months too late the public, the Congress, and possiby even the military, has finally figured out that Bush didn't do his homework and got us in a mess.
The Post mentioned that at the hearings "not a single senator from either party said they supported the president's plan, many posed hostile questions, and others expressed deep doubt about the Bush administration's premise of creating a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East."
So Bush's original grand theory was all an illusion. And his new theory?
"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," said Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
And with that the country can be assured that there will be no early exit from Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)