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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
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.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Day 2: Act Like Americans, Not Like Republicans
If anyone had any doubt that conservatives don't believe in the golden rule, all one has to do is look at the continual whining from conservatives that the Democrats are treating them (gasp!) like Republicans used to treat Democrats.
Consider the following gem of a statement from the House Minority Leader.
"What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would have liked to have been treated,” the Kansas City Star reported.
Like they would have liked to have been treated?????
The Wall Street Journal piled on saying Democrats "deserve full marks for paying attention while in the minority, because it's clear Democrats learned a few things from Tom DeLay--to wit, how to rush through legislation without any minority participation or public debate."
Gee, I guess after years of GOP rule in the House & Senate that put the country in precarious financial and security standing it must be surprising that the Democrats aren't rushing to get Republicans involved in the process.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post noted that "Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, President Bush has decided it's time for fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. That's shameless, even by local standards. Who does Bush think was in power when the big deficits of the past six years were created?"
Think about it, who would let someone drive a car after a series of accidents or who would ask that driver for directions or help driving? It's time to let the GOP wise up and pay for the consequences of their rule.
Consider the following gem of a statement from the House Minority Leader.
"What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would have liked to have been treated,” the Kansas City Star reported.
Like they would have liked to have been treated?????
The Wall Street Journal piled on saying Democrats "deserve full marks for paying attention while in the minority, because it's clear Democrats learned a few things from Tom DeLay--to wit, how to rush through legislation without any minority participation or public debate."
Gee, I guess after years of GOP rule in the House & Senate that put the country in precarious financial and security standing it must be surprising that the Democrats aren't rushing to get Republicans involved in the process.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post noted that "Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, President Bush has decided it's time for fiscal discipline and a balanced budget. That's shameless, even by local standards. Who does Bush think was in power when the big deficits of the past six years were created?"
Think about it, who would let someone drive a car after a series of accidents or who would ask that driver for directions or help driving? It's time to let the GOP wise up and pay for the consequences of their rule.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
GOP: Act Like Americans, Not Like Republicans
After six years of screwing the country and Democrats the GOP received a rude response in November when the public told them to take a hike. So what is the GOP's response?
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal George Bush suggests "we can't play politics as usual" and the Washington Post reports that Republican Representatives are demanding that "the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years."
That's right, the GOP doesn't want Democrats to act like Republicans. And they probably won't. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. When Republicans are treated "unfairly" conservatives rush to complain and everyone is concerned. When Democrats (calling Al Gore) get screwed, it's just business as usual. So basically it's okay for the GOP to play politics as usual to steal an election or prevent the Democrats from being involved, but very, very wrong to offend Republicans.
(In 2004 the Post reported that GOP Speaker J. Dennis Hastert initiated a policy in which Congress would pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favored them.)
Apparently the GOP doesn't have a clue on why they lost, possibly Karl Rove got to them and told them the election was too close to consider a loss. In reality, the Democratic takeover of Congress, while fairly slim, was amazing when one considers the gerrymandering that GOP leaders at the state level put in place to limit voters' ability to remove House Republicans from office.
The Senate takeover was even more amazing considering it required taking out six Republican Senators: a GOP leader (Santorum), four red state senators (Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Virginia), and a RINO in Rhode Island while not losing a single Senate seat.
So after six years of AWOL leadership in the White House, it's the Democrats turn to show some leadership. It will be interesting to see if the GOP tries to throw roadblocks in the way of getting America back on track.
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal George Bush suggests "we can't play politics as usual" and the Washington Post reports that Republican Representatives are demanding that "the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years."
That's right, the GOP doesn't want Democrats to act like Republicans. And they probably won't. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. When Republicans are treated "unfairly" conservatives rush to complain and everyone is concerned. When Democrats (calling Al Gore) get screwed, it's just business as usual. So basically it's okay for the GOP to play politics as usual to steal an election or prevent the Democrats from being involved, but very, very wrong to offend Republicans.
(In 2004 the Post reported that GOP Speaker J. Dennis Hastert initiated a policy in which Congress would pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favored them.)
Apparently the GOP doesn't have a clue on why they lost, possibly Karl Rove got to them and told them the election was too close to consider a loss. In reality, the Democratic takeover of Congress, while fairly slim, was amazing when one considers the gerrymandering that GOP leaders at the state level put in place to limit voters' ability to remove House Republicans from office.
The Senate takeover was even more amazing considering it required taking out six Republican Senators: a GOP leader (Santorum), four red state senators (Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Virginia), and a RINO in Rhode Island while not losing a single Senate seat.
So after six years of AWOL leadership in the White House, it's the Democrats turn to show some leadership. It will be interesting to see if the GOP tries to throw roadblocks in the way of getting America back on track.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Bush's Iraq Mess
With the start of a new year and only two years left to have any kind of impact on his legacy, George Bush might want to thoroughly consider why Iraq is such a mess on his watch. The reason? Throughout his life Bush has relied on friends to fix his many mistakes or help him be successful.
In Iraq Bush was relying on the military to clean-up his mess however initially he wasn't willing to have an adequate number of troops to make the situation work. In addition, in Afghanistan he took a situation that initially was successful into a situation that is deteriorating.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. One only has to look at Bush's past to guess that Iraq would turn into a mess. Time after time Bush has made a mess out of things (dodging the draft, not having to take military medical tests, his oil companies, the 2000 election) yet was bailed by friends of the family.
However in Iraq, there are no family fixers available to end the civil war. James Baker was called in to help Bush, by way of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), to try to find a way to get the US unstuck from Iraq, but Bush has basically said he will ignore the report.
Baker, along with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, probably figured their service on the ISG was in penance for their role in putting Bush in the White House in the first place. One has to wonder how many sleepless nights each had considering their roles in deciding the results.
While both may have figured service on the ISG would cover up for their involvement in the election, this time, as they say about Humpty Dumpty,
In Iraq Bush was relying on the military to clean-up his mess however initially he wasn't willing to have an adequate number of troops to make the situation work. In addition, in Afghanistan he took a situation that initially was successful into a situation that is deteriorating.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. One only has to look at Bush's past to guess that Iraq would turn into a mess. Time after time Bush has made a mess out of things (dodging the draft, not having to take military medical tests, his oil companies, the 2000 election) yet was bailed by friends of the family.
However in Iraq, there are no family fixers available to end the civil war. James Baker was called in to help Bush, by way of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), to try to find a way to get the US unstuck from Iraq, but Bush has basically said he will ignore the report.
Baker, along with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, probably figured their service on the ISG was in penance for their role in putting Bush in the White House in the first place. One has to wonder how many sleepless nights each had considering their roles in deciding the results.
While both may have figured service on the ISG would cover up for their involvement in the election, this time, as they say about Humpty Dumpty,
- All the king's horses and all the king's men
- Couldn't put Humpty together again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)