Yesterday I stated that, in order to counter his plummeting poll numbers, Bush would step up endeavors to catch bin Laden. Liberals commented that he’d have to be doing something in the first place, and Bushies just made snide comments.
So what does Bush do?
He immediately makes a “surprise visit” to Afghanistan. In a story on AOL headlined “Bush vows he will Capture bin Laden” it states:
“He also pledged that Osama bin Laden and other planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would be caught despite a mostly futile five-year hunt.
“It’s not a matter of if they’re captured and brought to justice, it’s when they’re brought to justice,” Bush said, standing side by side in the Afghan capital with President Hamid Karzai.”
Asked about the search for bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States, and of the president’s call for getting him “dead or alive,” Bush said the search for bin Laden and his associates continues.
“I am confident he will be brought to justice,” Bush said. “We’ve got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden. There are Afghan forces on the hunt. … We’ve got Pakistan forces on the hunt.”
Most importantly, kids, he’s got his administration on the hunt…for ways to bring his poll numbers up.
Yes…he’s become Just That Predictable.
PAD
• 
Well, at least no one is still trying to pull that “he died years ago and all those recent tapes are fakes” horseshit anymore. Or, “we got him on run, that’s close enough for government work!”
The man is alive and has been laughing at us for years now. No, he will never allow us to take him alive and that’s fine by me. I don’t care if getting him becomes a major coup for Bush or makes him a martyr for Al Qaida in the future. He’s an evil mass murderer and needs to be brought to justice.
To clarify my “true believer” comments, I didn’t mean that he would throw himself into the line of fire, any more than presidnet, generals, or militar leaders will grab a pistol and run into danger zones immediately. I meant that Bin Laden didn’t expect to plan and execute 9/11, then live a long, comfortable life. I think he knew the U.S. would come after him full force, and he made plans to be killed rather than be captured. (By contrast, I think Hussein expected to hide away until he could get away, then escape and leave his followers behind.)
This is *not* any support for Bin Laden. I’d be fine with him dying, and much as I hate GWB I’d be happy if Bin Laden got caught/killed in the next three years. I am saying that Bin Laden believes in his cause and is thoroughly committed to it.
Just to show that I don’t just have a knee-jerk reaction that anything Bush does is automatically stupid:
There are some important differences between Iran and India. The most important being that India is a democracy while Iran is a radical theocracy. Also, India is already a member of the nuclear “club” so it’s not like this deal will give them the bomb. They already have it.
What the deal will do is allow international inspection of India’s nuclear reactors and help a rapidly growing nation upgrade it’s energy infrastructure. It’s not a perfect deal, but in the long run, it may be a good one for both the US and India. We need allies in the region who aren’t run by brutal dictators or insane theocrats and India is the best candidate for the that.
Despite what the polls show now, most Americans believed Saddam posed a significant threat at the time. Before 9/11, he was the boogeyman. I believe, Bush and those around him had plans for Iraq from the get go. Maybe, he believed that Saddam was a true threat or maybe it was personal. Sins of the father kind of thing. Personally, being former military, I was for the war. Although, a bullet to the brain pan would have cost less. For those who say Bush does not look at polls, why does he give a speech right after the newest approval ratings come out?
Now watch it Den, you go talking all reasonable like that and people might try to revoke your membership in the He-Man Bush Haters club. You’ll have to give back the hat and everything.
Does anyone else remember how it was just a few years ago that pakistan and India looked like they were minutes away from a full scale nuclear war? Glad to see that there seems to have been a significant cooling down between those two.
India has NOT SIGNED the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The US is now going to be cooperating with a country that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.
How goes this make us any different from any other “rogue state”?
And does this now make the US the enemy of the US?
And will the US support any United Nations Resolutions against the US?
You’re only a rogue state when you’re trying to get the bomb. Once you have it, it’s welcome to the club. It’s sick, but that’s really the way the system works.
The fact that Bush bypassed the IAEA and the other NPT signatories in cutting this deal is a problem. It’s another symptom of Bush’s overall comtempt for international law. But then, he barely acknowledges the authority of US law in this country.
I do have a serious problem with the way this deal was brokered. However, I don’t necessarily believe that the deal itself is a bad one for us. India is going to buying it’s nuclear equipment from US companies and this will help move them from indifferent at best towards us to an ally. As I said, India is our best choice to help us counterbalance China’s growing influence in the region. They are the second fastest growing economy in Asia and a functioning democracy. If anything, we should have been making them our best friend in the region a long time ago. In fact, a trilateral agreement between the US, India, and Japan would give us a really strong hand in the region.
So, my previous post was really only a defense of the deal itself, not the manner in which it was negotiated.
The downside to this is that it sets a precedent for Russia or China to negotiate their own separate nuclear deal with say, Iran. It also weakens our credibility in countering Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
So, in my opinion, this deal in the long term will benefit us, but Bush’s chronic short-sightedness has also created some more short-term problems as a result of the manner in which the deal was brokered.
Hey, it’s not a perfect world. But sometimes, things can be both bad and good.
Now watch it Den, you go talking all reasonable like that and people might try to revoke your membership in the He-Man Bush Haters club. You’ll have to give back the hat and everything.
Now, Bill, we were getting along so well and now you’re calling me irrational?
Okay, just kidding.
Seriously, I’ve been a strong advocate for better US-Indian relations for years now. One of my best friends was born there and I feel it’s in our best interests to make them more of our partner in the region much like Japan is already.
This move actually surprised me, as Bush has usually shown a preference to cozying up to Pakistan. Maybe there’s hope for idiot after all.
Despite what the polls show now, most Americans believed Saddam posed a significant threat at the time.
Now, gee. How could they have gotten that idea? Could it possibly have been Team Bush’s constant pounding of the “we can’t let the first smoking gun be a mushroom cloud” drum?
Naaaaah.
I’m definitely a proponent of better relations with India – I don’t want Dell to take my computer away! 🙂
“Yes, Bush and company should have jumped in a jeep themselves and blazed a trail across the sand, rather than run the country. He should always be the first responder. When the next hurricane comes, it should be 1) the President with his chainsaw, followed by 2) the director of FEMA, followed by 3) the National Guard, who arrive ahead of the call from 4) the governor calling out the guard, just before 5) the mayor enacts his evacuation plan.”
If Bush is tagged with “cowardice,” I don’t think it stems from his inability to do what you describe. I think it stems from the notion that a draft evader who couldn’t even be bothered to show up for his nominal substitute hitch (and just because that’s old news doesn’t make it irrelevant) did not hesitate to send other peoples’ children into war and daring the enemy to “bring it on.” Easy words to say when it’s not you or your children facing enemy fire.
As for what I’m sure you imagine to be your terribly clever riposte over how Bush should have handled New Orleans…funny you should say that. Forty years ago, on September 10…barely 24 hours after Hurricane Betsy had flooded New Orleans…refugees in a darkened shelter saw a group of flashlights coming toward them, and the man in the lead called, “This is President Lyndon Johnson. I’m here to help.”
Whereas Bush continued a political sweep for several days and expressed incredulity over phone reports of the level of damage, LBJ was wheels down in Airforce One at the disaster site within 24 hours of the hurricane hitting. With him were Louisiana’s three most powerful politicians–Representative Hale Boggs and senators Russell Long and Allen Ellender. He was also accompanied by the secretary of agriculture, the surgeon general, and the director of the Office of Emergency Planning. And 24 hours after that, the Mayor of New Orleans received a sixteen page telegram from LBJ detailing all the plans the government had for providing aid.
Ah, those Democrats. What liberal pûššìëš. Not leaders and he-men like Bush.
PAD
Before I make my larger point, let me again state that I have nothing but contempt for Dubya and his administration. I nevertheless believe that it is absurd to conflate his misdeeds with those of Osama bin Laden.
There’s plenty of evidence to support the assertion that Bush lied to us to garner support for an invasion of Iraq; the war has clearly been mishandled; and despite the brutality and inhumanity of Saddam Hussein’s rule, I believe we have made things much worse for the citizens of Iraq.
Nevertheless, getting rid of an evil regime for dubious reasons and bungling the job is a far cry from using commercial jetliners to slam into civilian buildings. I’m sorry, but as lousy I believe Dubya to be (and I think he’s very, very, very lousy), it sickens me to hear people drawing parallels between him and bin Laden. I want Bush out of town on a rail. I think there’s justification (but not the political will) to have him impeached. But I want Osama bin Laden jailed or dead. Bush is a bad president. Osama is an enemy of the civilized world.
JamesLynch, I absolutely understand your point about Osama being more of a “true believer” than Saddam, and it’s a very valid point. I think it’s still worth pointing out, however, that there’s a difference between Osama and his flitting about to avoid capture, and, say, the King and Queen of England who showed solidarity with the “commoners” by refusing to flee the Axis bombing raids during WW II. Or, for that matter, JFK refusing to leave D.C. during the Cuban missile crisis.
And yes, it’s true, Dubya did the same kind of namby-pamby flitting about on 9/11 that Osama’s been doing. It’s poor leadership, sends a crappy message and it stinks. But Dubya is not, I repeat, NOT remotely as monstrous as Osama.
In my greater moments of paranoia, I imagine that the Bush Administration long ago hired a consultant to plan out his entire administration. In that report was a list of things that the administration could do to deflect negative news stories, or give a boost to sagging poll numbers.
Somewhere on that list, after “Hurricanes/Earthquakes,” was “have vice President shoot elderly lawyer friend.” Not something they thought likely to be in need of, but all the more reasonable distractions were taken.
I believe that we’re about to see the next item from the “in case of sagging poll numbers” list. Bush is going to stumble across the “hidden” location of Bin Laden, and in a knock-down, dragged out bout of fisticuffs, defeat Bin Laden in single combat, personally taking him prisoner.
While comparing Shrub to bin laden is clearly wrong, I think a case can indeed be made that the former is more dangerous. He isn’t a monster/lunatic/fanatic/choose your favourite epiteth as is the latter, he’s just in charge of the most powerful nation on the planet, and just not competent at it. As a result, he has not perpetrated the awful deeds that bin Laden’s bunch have, but he did seriously destabilize the world and sent us down a path where terrorists now strike pretty much anywhere from Asia to Europe, and there is growing sense of “us” vs “them” where we and Islam are concerned. Given the estimated billion of so adherents scattered around the world, this can’t be good.
As for “We need allies in the region who aren’t run by brutal dictators or insane theocrats and India is the best candidate for the that.” That may be true, but for how much longer? India, too, has a strong Islamic population. What if they take over? It may be unlikely, but not impossible. What then?
India is about 80% Hindu and only about 13% Moslem. While 13% of a billion is still a lot of people, given the history of the region, the odds of 13% of the population getting control of and maintaining control of a country the size of India are fairly slim.
But again, my point is we do need a reliable ally in the region. Afghanistan is still digging itself out of the rubble. Pakistan is a haven for Al Qaeda sympathizers. India has a growing middle class and is modernizing itself nearly as fast as China is.
You have a better suggestion?
Forty years later, and that vote-garnering ploy still has people convinced that it was done out of pure altruism and leadership.
Here’s a conversation from September 10 that fills in some of the background on that “Looks good on television” moment of man-of-the-people can-do-itiveness, courtesy of Virginia University and their White House Tapes website:
President Johnson and Russell Long
September 10, 1965, 2:36 P.M.
Citation #8847, WH6509.03. LBJ Library
Senator Russell Long: . . . Ed [Willis], pick up. Mr. President, I’ve got Ed Willis here. He’s my congressman from the Third District. Mr. President, aside from the Great Lakes, the biggest lake in America is Lake Pontchartrain. It is now drained dry. That Hurricane Betsy picked the lake up and put it inside New Orleans and Jefferson Parish and the Third [Congressional] District. Now, you have . . . If I do say it, our people are just like . . . It’s like my home—The whole dámņ home’s been destroyed, but that’s all right. My wife and kids are still alive, so it’s OK. Mr. President, we have really had it down there, and we need your help.
President Johnson: All right. You got it.
Senator Russell Long: Well, now, if I do say it . . . we’ve only lost one life so far. Why we haven’t lost more I can’t say. [unclear] for example, that dámņ big 400-year-old tree fell on top of my house. My wife and kids were, thank God, in the right room. So we’re still alive. I don’t need no federal aid. But, Mr. President, my people—Oh, they’re in tough shape.
[Louisiana Congressman] Ed Willis is here. If I do say it, you could elect Hale Boggs and every guy you’d want to elect in the path of this hurricane by just handling yourself right.
Now, if you want to go to Louisiana right now—You lost that state last year. You could pick it up just like looking at it right now by going down there as the President just to see what happened. Now if you want to you could . . . you could save yourself a campaign speech. Just go there right now. Just go, and say, “My God, this is horrible! . . . These federally constructed levees that Hale Boggs and Russell Long built is the only thing that saved 5,000 lives.” See now, if you want to do that you can do it right now. Just pick one state up like looking at it—you lost it last time. If you do that you’d sack them up. Ed Willis is sitting on this telephone and he knows like I do that all you’ve got to do is just make a generous gesture, he’d get re-elected, a guy that’s for you.
President Johnson: Russell I sure want to I’ve got a hëll of a two days that I’ve got scheduled. Let me look and see what I can back out of and get into and so on and so forth and let me give you a ring back if I can’t go, I’ll put the best man I got there.
Senator Russell Long: So now listen, we are not the least bit interested in your best man. As far as we’re concerned, I’m just a Johnson man. Let’s—
President Johnson: I know that. I know that.
Senator Russell Long: Let’s us not kid ourselves now. When I run for office next time, I’m going to be on the same dodge you’re going to be on. And frankly, if you go to Louisiana right now, you might be . . . just make it a stopover. We’ll [unclear]. You go to Louisiana right now, land at Moisant Airport.
[imagining a news story] “The President was very much upset about the horrible destruction and damage done to this city of New Orleans, lovely town. The town that everybody loves.” If you go there right now, Mr. President, they couldn’t beat you if Eisenhower ran.
President Johnson: Um-hmm. Let me think about it and call you back.
=============================
Next thing you know, it’s rain, flashlights, and a cry in the dark. We’re saved.
Posted by The StarWolf at March 2, 2006 01:39 PM
…but he did seriously destabilize the world and sent us down a path where terrorists now strike pretty much anywhere from Asia to Europe, and there is growing sense of “us” vs “them” where we and Islam are concerned.
********************
Osama’s founding of Al Qaeda and the planning of the 9/11 attack occurred before Dubya took office. Dubya’s actions may have exacerbated the threat of terrorism but he certainly didn’t create the threat, nor is he responsible for giving these monsters a global reach. Osama is largely responsible for that, having formed Al Qaeda and been its financier.
And U.S. relations with Islamic nations have had an “us vs. them” tone going as far back as the re-establishment of an Israeli state. Many Islamics in general, and Arabs in particular, hate us for supporting Israel. After 9/11, Osama issued a fatwa demanding that the U.S. sever all ties with Israel. That’s pretty “us vs. them,” isn’t it? I believe Israel has a right to exist, and maintaining ties with Israel should be non-negotiable. If Osama believes that means war, then war it must be.
I just wish I knew why people feel the need to make such wild claims about Dubya that put people like me in the position of defending him for the sake of logic and accuracy! Dubya has bungled the war on terror, further destabilized an already unstable Middle East with a botched invasion of Iraq (which is draining resources we could have used to deal with Iran and Korea, which very likely do have or are close to having the WMDs that Iraq did not), and run up the national debt by spending like a drunken sailor. There’s no need to exaggerate Dubya’s misdeeds to include things that preceded his taking office.
Sorry if my much earlier comments came across as anti-American. That was not my intent. I do agree that bin Laden is a very bad person… but I seriously doubt that he will ever be brought in alive or even killed by American soldiers. He has proven to be much more intelligent and does not let his pride affect his actions, unlike Saddam. Saddam refused to leave his country when the odds were stacked against him… and he slipped up. Osama has no qualms about hiding in caves or fleeing to other countries on a whim.
I simply hate that Bush is going after him now for all the wrong reasons. Bolstering poll numbers should be the LAST thing on Bush’s mind as a reason to capture Osama. If Bush is being altruistic and wanting to really atone for all the bloodshed that bin Laden’s inflicted… I’d be fine with it. But the administration has ulterior motives. If they could have gotten him, they would’ve shortly after 9/11.
Would capturing this guy end terrorism? Of course not. As long as there are countries that are less fortunate, feel oppressed, and have a great number of extremists with enough funds to cause trouble, evil of this magnitude will exist in this world.
Dan,
The right of Israel to exist, and the US’s continued support of Israel, is actually one of the valid arguments I’ve heard against the UAE port deal. Since the UAE doesn’t allow Israeli ships into their ports, the US could be seen as anti-Semitic if the deal is allowed to go through.
Just to go off on another tangent, and all… 🙂
Next thing you know, it’s rain, flashlights, and a cry in the dark. We’re saved.
And it was still better than Bush’s pathetic photo op “touring” the damage Katrina caused.
Even if it was set up, Johnson wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty to help the people of this country.
Even if it was set up, Johnson wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty to help the people of this country.
Or to send a bunch of kids off to fight in an unpopular war against an enemy who played by a different rulebook. The coward.
It’s probably a losing battle no matter which side you take if you’re going to argue Bush vs. Johnson in terms of shameful legacies.
The president is the face of the federal government. In times of national disaster, the most important thing that face can do is to reassure the public that the government is engaged, on the ground, and working on the problem. One could argue that by leading the relief effort in person, Johnson did a little bit of overkill, but I’m sure the people of New Orleans remember that the government was there for them that day.
On the other hand, but staying on vacation, going on the stump to talk about social security, and even the famous shot of him accepting the gift of a guitar, Bush did just about everything he could to look disinterested and disengaged and that has permanently colored people’s perception of how his government responds to their needs.
Of course, as we get more and more reports of things like FEMA actively keeping relief workers out of the area during the initial days of the flood, it’s becoming clear that this wasn’t just a perception problem on the part of this administration. The federal government really did drop the ball on Katrina.
And yes, so did the state and local governments, but that hardly mitigates the federal response.
What’s interesting is now we have “Heckuva Job Brownie” making the rounds in an effort to rehabilitate his image from an unqualified and disengaged crony to unqualified and hapless scapegoat. While things like the recent video do suggest that plenty of blame can go around to Chertoff and Bush himself, I’m worried that the fashion god will manage to make himself a martyr on the altar of his own incompetence.
I just wish I knew why people feel the need to make such wild claims about Dubya that put people like me in the position of defending him for the sake of logic and accuracy!
Bush, like Bill Clinton, has had the good fortune to have had the right people as enemies. The only chance that the Republicans have to not lose big in the 2006 elections is if the Democratic Party is unable to muzzle the crazier elements of its base. Although Howard Dean hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as Party Chairman, I think he’s smart enough to know when to tone it down and he has the street cred with the extremists to make it stick.
The danger is that instead of contributing to the party, the base may be more inclined to send money to the internet left types and allow them to flood the airwaves with ads that will only appeal to those votes that are already locked up, while energizing the conservative base and turning off the moderates. And appeal by Democrats to ratchet things down could have real resonance now but the question is whether the vocal monority within their base will let them do it.
This administration has definitely dropped the ball in a number of places, I’ll certainly grant that.
I’d be curious to know if anyone has graphed out the President’s poll numbers to and beyond the date that Scott McClellan took over as the White House Press Secretary. The biggest gaffes the WH has made has been in their PR department, not getting word out in advance of things.
At least during WWII, Lt Cmdr Lyndon B. Johnson (USNR) went into a combat area. There is some question as to whether his Silver Star was legit, or if maybe Gen. MacArthur made up the “combat” they saw while making a bombing run on Lae, New Guinea, but at least he went into a combat arena for anyway one mission.
Dubya, on the other hand, spent the Vietnam War patrolling the skies of Texas, I guess keeping the VC from taking the Alamo or something, and he couldn’t even manage to complete his time there!
Compare again – when Hurricane Betsy devastated New Orleans, Pres. Johnson, told of matters after the fact, elected to go there in person to inspect the damage, and even participated in at least one rescue. Certainly it was for primarily political reasons – the man was a politician, after all – but at least he did something.
When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Pres. Bush, told of matters after the fact, elected to fly over the area, did nothing to assist in anything, and in fact has yet to allocate budget monies for the rebuilding effort (then again, he has yet to allocate budget monies to fight the war in Iraq).
As they say down in Johnson’s and Bush’s home state, “That dog won’t hunt.”
“Or to send a bunch of kids off to fight in an unpopular war against an enemy who played by a different rulebook. The coward.”
Yeah. That was really stupid of him. A huge mistake.
It would be nice if Bush had learned the right things to do from LBJ’s example and the things to be avoided, also from LBJ’s example.
Instead he learned neither.
PAD
Bush does not have to find Bin Laden to get his numbers up. He just needs to get out there and start fighting for things again (and that is more than just saying he will catch Bin Laden or commenting on new alternative fuel sources). While it won’t convince you, PAD, past history has shown that doing this alone makes a difference.
Bush has some faults, but one thing that is true is he believes what he says, and it shows. He actually has done or tried to do all of his core policies and promises.
I don’t deny his getting out there is to get his poll numbers up. That is the nature of politics. The difference, though, is that Bush is not simply sticking his finger in the wind and seeing what soundbite will give him a momentary boost. You may deeply disagree with his politics, but he is actually remarkably consistent.
Just my thoughts on the matter. I know you are counting down the days till he is gone, but I am still glad he beat both Gore and Kerry. While there are things he could have / should have done better, I am confident he has done a far better job than either alternative.
Iowa Jim
“Bush has some faults, but one thing that is true is he believes what he says, and it shows. He actually has done or tried to do all of his core policies and promises.”
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
On what planet?
One more thought and I will shut up again. 🙂
I don’t blame his poll numbers on just the press. However, there is no question in my mind that a large majority of the press is strongly biased against him, and it shows in how the stories are written, etc. When a reporter is personally convinced that Bush is an idiot or a liar (and some even admit this is their perspective), it is hard to not let that bias seep into the coverage.
Bottom line, the so called “neutrality” of the press is a myth. There are so many subtle factors that influence how “facts” are viewed and presented that it is a joke to say the press does not have a bias. When polls overwhelmingly show much of the media having views that are strongly opposed to Republican values (tax breaks for everyone, pro-life, school choice) and are consistently for a Democratic candidate, it would take a superhuman effort — especially when surrounded by your peers you want to impress — to not let it influence your work while believing they are just “telling it like it is.”
And yes, I agree Fox News does have some bias the other way, though ultimately it is always about getting the ratings that matters most, not the truth. So I take anything Fox says (or Rush or whomever) with just as much of a grain of salt as I do CNN, etc.
Iowa Jim
Anybody know about the new twist in the Katrina story? I’ve been working all day so I haven’t actually seen any of the news reports with the pre-Katrina/Bush vidcon footage. However, if only half of what I’ve been hearing about what is in there that slaps Bush’s version of events in the face (and puts a lie to much more of it) is in there then his numbers will never climb back up no matter what he does.
Now, what the Dems do to help his numbers go back up depends on just how stupid they wanna show themselves to be in the next six months.
On what planet?
Let’s see:
War on terror, he said he would take the battle to those who sponsor terror (NOT to be confused as saying only those who were responsible for 9/11), and he has (Iraq).
Judges: Look at his two Supreme Court appointments that are now in place.
Taxes: He said he would cut them, and he did.
School Choice: While I want him to do more, this issue has come up.
Education: You may hate “no child left behind,” but he did get it passed.
Prescription Drugs: I hate the plan, but he promised and he delivered.
Immigration: One issue that I would say he has done little.
Spending: One issue that I would agree he has dropped the ball. But with a Republican Congress, he does not share all the blame. And with Democrats constantly saying he is cutting too much, I am sure Dems would have only spent more.
Faith Based Initiatives: Done
War on Terror: You can always find an issue where you disagree, but the fact it we have been spared anything close to 9/11. Going on over 4 years, that is more than just simply luck.
Iraq: Whether you like how he handled it, the reality is he did what he said. They have had elections. We have made progress. Obviously it is very shaky at the moment, but not because he did nothing or flip-flopped on what he said he would do.
Iowa Jim
Yes, Bush has made progress in Iraq, civil war and an occupying foreign force are such an improvement…
Actually, while I was reacting to the entire statement, I was looking more at the “he believes what he says, and it shows” part of the statement.
I don’t really believe that Bush believes half of what he says and half áššëš much of the rest. I remember when Bush made national news about two years before he ran for President by basically slagging on the core beliefs of many in G.O.P. base and then criticizing many of the G.O.P. policies. The reaction in the conservative press was a collective, “What the hëll is this twerp doing!!!!!!!!!!!????????”. One summer and a ramp up for the presidency later he was espousing much of what he had criticized before.
Bush has spent the last six years saying many things that he then threw out the window a week or two later. He’s still doing his stump speeches about the energy independence he spoke of in his ’06 SOTU speech while his people are simultaneously reassuring his oil base supporters that he doesn’t really mean any of it. Not really a good sign that he believes what he’s saying there.
He said lots about his conservative beliefs towards the budget when he was running and in his first year as Prez. Didn’t seem to mean much of that either. Hëll, one time he even said on a national TV Sunday chat interview that it wasn’t true that spending had ballooned in the federal government under his watch (a response to a question about his conservative critics) despite all the hard numbers in front of him to the contrary. Drove the Fox News people and the Rush crowd nuts. They didn’t want to say that the had been wrong (they weren’t) and they desperately wanted to avoid calling him a liar (Rush was so much fun to listen to the Monday after that interview). He point blank lied on national TV. If you say he believed that then he really does need to be impeached on the basis of his mental state precludes him from living in the real world.
I’m not sure how much of the war on terror or Iraq that you really give Bush credit for. Much of what is going on in Iraq directly contradicts his stated beliefs from much of his political career. Now, it does fit neatly with the espoused beliefs of many of his “handlers” and high ranked members of his administration. Some of this Iraq stuff was being pushed by them since late ’95.
Bush comes off to me as someone who can be pointed in a direction by the people around him, put on a pair of blinders and focus on nothing but his talking points no matter what facts the world throws at him. That doesn’t go too far towards convincing me that he believes much of what he says. Nor does his recent antics of coming out in defense of the ports deal a full day before he actually really new jack about the situation.
Iowa Jim –
Bush has some faults, but one thing that is true is he believes what he says, and it shows.
Well, if Bush truly believes that nobody warned him that the levees in NO could break…
How much more outright lying can you really take from this guy, Jim?
Hëll, even Brownie is claiming he should be vindicated because of this video. Which, imo, it shouldn’t: it just shows he’s still as much of an idiot as Bush.
Not to mention the fact that some of the things Bush believes in leaves him sounding like these fundamentalists we’re fighting.
Iowa Jim –
When polls overwhelmingly show much of the media having views that are strongly opposed to Republican values
You know, you were doing fine up until this point.
The real flaw in your argument is that most media is owned by corporations who donate heavily to the Republican party, coupled with the fact that Clinton sure as hëll never got a free ride.
The only “bias”, if there is one, is that whomever is in power is going to get nailed to a cross for the ratings. Simple as that.
Republicans and conservatives love to blame the media for their problems because they’ve gotta blame somebody; perish the thought they ever take responsibility for once.
Perish the thought that some people in this country want the truth, and that they’re sick of worthless morons like Bush lying to us as if we’re a bunch of 4 year olds waiting up on Christmas Eve for Santa Claus.
But apparently the Right just can’t handle people knowing the truth.
And never mind when this Administration abuses the media to smear or out political opponents, or to drum up support for a war based on false evidence.
But Dubya is not, I repeat, NOT remotely as monstrous as Osama.
No, he’s much worse.
Osama is responsible for maybe 4,000 – 4,500 people dying in his various terrorist attacks. bush has 1300+ dead in New Orleans (If you accept the government’s count), 2300+ soldiers dead in Iraq (so far), potentially generations of birth defects due to the use of depleated uranium, 100,000+ dead iraqi citizens from his invasion & occupation of that country, and now he’s looking for a war with Iran, one which Cheny has already said could involve nukes.
————–
(which is draining resources we could have used to deal with Iran and Korea, which very likely do have or are close to having the WMDs that Iraq did not)
North Korea would have to be ‘dealt with’ if not for bush. They only started developing nukes after bush included them in his “axix of evil” speech.
There is no need to ‘deal with’ Iran at all because they are building a power plant, not a bomb factory.
—————
Iraq: Whether you like how he handled it, the reality is he did what he said. They have had elections. We have made progress. Obviously it is very shaky at the moment, but not because he did nothing or flip-flopped on what he said he would do.
Mission Accomplished
——————
Spending: One issue that I would agree he has dropped the ball. But with a Republican Congress, he does not share all the blame. And with Democrats constantly saying he is cutting too much, I am sure Dems would have only spent more.
Please.
Bush is just flat out a big spender. No amount of wishful thinking changes that. And that flatly contradicts his rhetoric.
Micheal writers
North Korea would have to be ‘dealt with’ if not for bush. They only started developing nukes after bush included them in his “axix of evil” speech.
I think you meant would NOT have to be dealt with.
Though I think the South Koreans thought they had things under control, until the Bush Administration “diplomacy” screwed things up royally. We’re going back to strategy and tactics that were being carried out BEFORE his “able” handlers stuck their noses in there.
Iraq: Whether you like how he handled it, the reality is he did what he said.
Well, the point IS how he handled it (at least for me).
Competency matters. Iraq was handled in all the wrong ways, and that sticks in my craw the worse.
It should stick in ANYONE’s craw–competency should not be a partisan issue. If you do something, you should do it well, and not create more problems that you’re solving.
I’d be curious to know if anyone has graphed out the President’s poll numbers to and beyond the date that Scott McClellan took over as the White House Press Secretary. The biggest gaffes the WH has made has been in their PR department, not getting word out in advance of things.
Ahhh, you can’t blame McClellan. Bush should be out there making his case. Conservative blogs do a better job of arguing than the administration does, which is kind of amazing when you consider that the people being paid are the ones doing the lousy job. Then again, I could pick 5 liberal blogs that are both more effective and a lot funnier than Air America (in fairness, I haven’t listened in a few months so maybe they’ve gotten screamingly funny since December).
Immigration: One issue that I would say he has done little.
Gotta disagree, Iowa. I think he’s been pretty consistent and clear on this–amnesty for current workers and very little to stop any more from coming in. One of those issues that drives many conservatives crazy but he obviously believes it.
Spending: One issue that I would agree he has dropped the ball. But with a Republican Congress, he does not share all the blame. And with Democrats constantly saying he is cutting too much, I am sure Dems would have only spent more.
“He spent less than Ted Kennedy would have” is not a great epitaph for a Republican. Once you establish these entitlements it becomes almost impossible to reduce them. And I don’t think it got him any additional votes. You can’t blame the congress either–it’s hard enough to be fiscally responsible when the leader of your party is on your side, much less than when he isn’t.
North Korea would have to be ‘dealt with’ if not for bush. They only started developing nukes after bush included them in his “axix of evil” speech.
Michael, you’re joking, right? (From wikipedia) On March 12, 1993, North Korea said that it planned to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites.
By 1994, the United States believed that North Korea had enough reprocessed plutonium to produce about 10 bombs with the amount of plutonium increasing. Faced with diplomatic pressure and the threat of American military airstrikes against the reactor, North Korea agreed to dismantle its plutonium program as part of the Agreed Framework in which South Korea and the United States would provide North Korea with light water reactors and fuel oil until those reactors could be completed. Because the light water reactors would require enriched uranium to be imported from outside North Korea, the amount of reactor fuel and waste could be more easily tracked making it more difficult to divert nuclear waste to be reprocessed into plutonium.
However, with the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea secretly began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
I watched Bush on TV and I think I understand his appeal. He looks like a wide-eyed optimistic boy who really believes when he says “Yes, we are going to bring democracy to the mideast. We’re going to win the war.” etc. There is something very infectious about this. With all the cynicism around, when you hear somebody so optimistic and with so much power, you want to believe that he can and will do the things most people say can’t be done. This, I think, is especially appealing to americans, who have a certain optimistic image of America as a shining beacon of freedom. Which is not to say that Americans are more stupid than other people, the different is just in the brand of stupidity. If you want to get Israelis to do something stupid it is better to sound like an army officer laying out a plan than like a little boy. I suppose each country has its own way of spinning something so as to convince itself to do something stupid, since most countries have some really stupid decisions as part of their history.
In any case, the war in Iraq did not benefit the Iraquis, the Americans or the war on terrorism. In fact, it sidetracked the whole war. Iraq had little to do with the real war on terrorism. The only benefitiaries I can see are the Lebanese, who were freed from Syria and seem to be more democratic, and maybe the Egyptians, who had a relatively more democratic elections. Lybia claims to have stopped a WMD program. But Lybia hasn’t been doing much since the 80’s. Whether these signs of democracy in the mideast will help the war on terror is unknown at this point.
This is day-old news, but this thread got mentioned in Slate’s “Today’s Blogs” column.
Anybody know about the new twist in the Katrina story? I’ve been working all day so I haven’t actually seen any of the news reports with the pre-Katrina/Bush vidcon footage. However, if only half of what I’ve been hearing about what is in there that slaps Bush’s version of events in the face (and puts a lie to much more of it) is in there then his numbers will never climb back up no matter what he does
I thought there was some big story to all this but it turns out this was already in the news a while back–the only difference is that now those who can’t read can just watch the video. Even the LA Times explicitly admits this– While the information in the video has been public for months, and was the subject of hearings and reports by Congress and the White House, the footage is giving new life to charges that the administration was detached and unresponsive in the face of one of the nation’s worst natural disasters.
If you read the stories they give the clear impression that Bush was told that a breach was possible at the meeting. The fact that no quote is used is the giveaway that this is not the case. Actually, the expert warned that it was possible the levies would be topped.
(For the record though, I’m sure SOMEBODY must have thought a breach was possible, maybe even likely. If anyone in the Louisiana government had anything to do with a project I would expect the worst. I’m surprised their reservoirs don’t catch on fire.
Now the AP is releasing a video where Gov. Kathleen Blanco assures the Bush administration that New Orleans’ protective levees were intact–several hours after they had, in fact, been breached.
Wonder if this one will get as much play?
I think I also recall hearing this one before as well. Nothing knew here, just moving pictures to go with the words.
I think you meant would NOT have to be dealt with
I did. My typing isn’t always as fast as my thinking.
I meant to write “nothing NEW here”…but oddly, the mistake kind of works.
Jim, the idea of media objectivity is a myth. It always had been. The only difference is, in the 19th century, newspapers were open about being party organs.
The problem with looking for media bias is that you will always find examples of it from boths and often it’s in the same publication/network if you look hard enough. Most people that I’ve encounter who squack the most about media bias don’t really want truly objective reporting, they just want everything to be slanted their way. As result, their definition of “media bias” usually boils down to, “Anyone having the nerve to report bad things about my side.”
And you aren’t seriously blaming the Democrats in Congress over Bush’s spending habits? You’re joking, right? Personally, I think John Stewart was being generous when he called them the Ewoks.
As for the video, if nothing else, it gives another excuse to poke holes in Bush’s idiotic statement that “no one could have imagined” that the levees could fail, even though it’s something that experts had been warning about since the 60s.
No, it’s not really new information, but pictures are always more powerful than words. What’s really telling about it is that Bush doesn’t ask any questions. Since his supporters have spent the past year playing up how “engaged” he is on policy, his silence at this briefing is rather telling.
For the record though, I’m sure SOMEBODY must have thought a breach was possible, maybe even likely.
Just not anybody in this Administration.
Wonder if this one will get as much play?
Don’t worry. Fox “News” has it up on the front page of their website in big letters. I’m sure all the rightwing pundits have received their talking points on the Blanco video.
Of course, the headline, blares “Blanco saying N. O. Levees were Intact,” when in fact she was saying she thinks they were intact, but they had received un confirmed reports of water coming over the levees. This was about three hours after the National Weather Service issued their flash flood warning.
So, was Blanco confused over conflicting reports or just clueless? Don’t know. Does that make Dubya’s statement days later that “no one could have imagined” that the levees would fail any less idiotic? Not in the least.
Posted by Michael Brunner at March 2, 2006 07:58 PM
But Dubya is not, I repeat, NOT remotely as monstrous as Osama.
No, he’s much worse.
Osama is responsible for maybe 4,000 – 4,500 people dying in his various terrorist attacks. bush has 1300+ dead in New Orleans (If you accept the government’s count), 2300+ soldiers dead in Iraq (so far), potentially generations of birth defects due to the use of depleated uranium, 100,000+ dead iraqi citizens from his invasion & occupation of that country, and now he’s looking for a war with Iran, one which Cheny has already said could involve nukes.
***************
It’s absurd to say Bush “has” 1300+ dead in New Orleans. Bush is not the Weather Wizard. He didn’t create Hurricane Katrina. I believe he and his administration failed to properly react to it, which may have caused the death toll to be higher than it had to be. But he is not responsible for each and every one of those deaths. Also, there is a categorical difference between Bush’s incompetent handling of Katrina and Osama’s cold-blooded planning of terrorist assaults. It sickens me to hear people conflating the two.
I believe Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a stupid, bone-headed move. But again, how can you compare toppling a brutal, dictatorial regime (one that’s responsible for murdering thousands of its own people) to knocking down the Twin Towers? Again, just sickening.
Finally, Iran’s radical Islamist government has sponsored terrorism. If they gain nuclear attack capabilities it will make the world a far more dangerous place than it is today. It is absurd to compare confronting Iran to knocking down the Twin Towers.
Again, why are people doing this? As I’ve said, Bush is one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had! He should be run out of town on a rail! There’s no need to exaggerate his misdeeds. The things he’s ACTUALLY DONE are bad enough on their own without having to pile this hysterical nonsense on top of them!
I’ll agree with Den’s comment that the US needs allies…not just in the Middle East area, but everywhere.
Nice that Bush has now recognized this. If only he’d come to that conclusion before starting his war on Iraq without them.
But nuclear allies that refuse to sign the Nonproliferation treaty? I guess that might be ok. It wouldn’t be the first the the US went in a direction that the rest of the sane, civilized world had decided was a Very Good Thing. Bush, for better or worse, kept us out of the Kyoto protocols. His reasoning there at least was sound, if a tad bit unfair (developing countries would not be held to the same standards as indusltrialized countries). I disagree, but I can’t say he’s wrong.
On the other hand, disregarding the Geneva Conventions is something that I think is wrong.
It’s rather ironic, Bush’s move with India. In the past week, we’ve seen the UAE deal surface, and the Bush Administration cautioned congress that failing to allow the deal might make it look like the US is playing favorites. You know what else makes it look like the US is playing favorites? Aiding India’s efforts to expand its nuclear energy program while telling Iran it better not expand their nuclear energy program.
So, yes, we do need allies. Just like we needed allies 20 years ago, when the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan. We had allies then. One of them was some Bin Laden guy. All we gave him was conventional weapons. Wonder what ever happened to him?
Now, Bush wants to help India with nuclear fuel and technology. Anything that advances India’s nuclear technology makes it likely that they’ll expand their nuclear weapons program. And while they may be our ally today, what happens when, 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road, they aren’t? The ramifications of increased nuclear weapon capacity are too great to risk.
Recognizing that India is a nuclear power is just recognizing reality. It doesn’t matter much if they have 10 nukes or 100. Let’s just try to make it less likely that they will use them.
It’s very much up in the air whether India or China will be the great Asian power of the future. It’s probably best for us if it’s India.