|
 |
Sunday, August 15, 2004 |
An excellent article
Bush's Two Albatrosses
By David S. Broder
Sunday, August 15, 2004; Page B07
The factors that make President Bush a vulnerable incumbent have almost nothing to do with his opponent, John F. Kerry. They stem directly from two closely linked, high-stakes policy gambles that Bush chose on his own. Neither has worked out as he hoped.
The first gamble was the decision to attack Iraq; the second, to avoid paying for the war. The rationale for the first decision was to remove the threat of a hostile dictator armed with weapons of mass destruction. The weapons were never found. The rationale for the second decision -- the determination to keep cutting taxes in the face of far higher spending for Iraq and the war on terrorism -- was to stimulate the American economy and end the drought of jobs. The deficits have accumulated, but the jobs have still not come back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64017-2004Aug13.html
6:51:07 AM 
|
|
Dan Froomkin ifrom the Washington Post is bemused at how George W. Bush rewrites history. Does he really think now that he didn't oppose the 9/11 Commission? Does he think that our press corps is so lousy that he can say whatever comes into his head and nobody will call him on it?
Bush Goes Off Message (washingtonpost.com): Didn't Oppose the 9/11 Commission?
"KING: You first were opposed to the 9/11 Commission and then changed. Why?
"G. BUSH: Not really.
"KING: You weren't opposed?
"G. BUSH: Well, I just wanted to make sure that it was done the right way. I felt like that -- one of my concerns was that it would usurp the Congress' need to fully investigate."
But Bush's aides at the time made it very clear that he didn't support the establishment of a commission, and Bush himself had this to say in May, 2002: "I, of course, want the Congress to take a look at what took place prior to September the 11th. But since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee. There are committees set up with both Republicans and Democrats who understand the obligations of upholding our secrets and our sources and methods of collecting intelligence. And therefore, I think it's the best place for Congress to take a good look at the events leading up to September the 11th."
6:09:40 AM
|
|
Cheney vs. Cheney via Eschaton
On Hugh Hewitt's show:
HH: Vice President Dick Cheney, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
VP: It is good to be on here.
HH: Today you brought attention to John Kerry's plan to wage a more 'sensitive'
war on terror. What do you think John Kerry meant when he said 'sensitive,' Mr.
Vice President?
VP: Well, I'm not sure what he meant (laughing). Ah, it strikes me the two words
don't really go together, sensitive and war. If you look at our history, I don't
think any of the wars we've won, were won by us being quote sensitive. I think
of Abraham Lincoln and General Grant, they didn't wage sensitive war. Neither
did Roosevelt, neither did Eisenhower or MacArthur in World War II. A sensitive
war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans, and who seek
chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more....
...[later]...
HH: Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that
means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?
VP: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area,
and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of
people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the
shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S.
commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the
extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the
shrine itself. -
- nuff said on the sensitive issue!
6:05:25 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2004 John Amato.
|
|
|
