I’m going to steal a lot of stuff this morning and move on.
I spent a great deal of time this morning reading newspapers and blogs. And since I don’t have a lot of time to write a post, I figured I would let others do it for me.
From the Post and NY Times:
As it turns out, and this is something I wrote about a few days ago, Karl Rove is still in charge of the Katrina reconstruction effort. Since Rove has absolutely no qualifications or experience in dealing with natural disasters or really any sort of recovery effort reconstruction experience, and neither did Director Mike Brown who resigned a few days ago, I can’t help but think that Rove’s presence is there for political purposes only. He’s there to control the spin, in his favor of course. For all the people who claim that Dems are using this opportunity as political gain, I would love to hear your excuse for Rove being placed in charge. The number one concern of the Bush administration is politics, and judging by the polls he’s doing a crappy job at that too. Bush dispatched twinkle toes Rove to New Orleans before any sort of relief efforts. Rove is politics. If people want the politics taken out of Katrina, remove Rove and then we’ll talk.
Also from the Post:
Bush is giving a nationwide televised speech tonight. Sacrifice, struggle, perseverance, humanity, terrorism, 9/11, WMD, government-- that’s the speech. I don’t even have to watch it to know it. Two weeks too late Bush.
Notice though, that it is a speech and not a press conference. How dare he be asked a question about the failures of his government. It’s time for a press conference. I’m going to have to count again, but I think he is still on number 24.
From Think Progress:
Judging from Bill O’Reilly and Secretary of State Condi Rice, the major concern in Iraq is whether or not Fox News correspondents can get a good coffee:
O’Reilly: The truth of the matter is our correspondents at Fox News can’t go out for a cup of coffee in Baghdad.
Rice: Bill, that’s tough. It’s tough. But what — would they wanted to have gone out for a cup of coffee when Saddam Hussein was in power?
I’m going to answer that and say, 200 people a week weren’t being blown up in the streets when Saddam was in power, so I’m going to have to say YES on that one.
Oh yeah, over 180 people murdered this week in Iraq with the insurgency growing stronger by the hour. But that’s not the major concern, coffee is.
And just to add some of my other thoughts to this week’s news, I think Judge Roberts should be confirmed as quickly as possible. Yes, Roe v. Wade will probably be thrown out the window and a majority of the Patriot Act will be upheld with Roberts at the helm, which is really why Bush wants him there in the first place, Bush could careless about abortion. But when the Dems lose two times to one of the most inapt politicians in history, this is the result. Bush is the president and Roberts is his choice. Remember Bush has at least one more nominee to go and I seriously doubt that that person will be any more moderate or liberal than Roberts. Win an election Dems and then we can start putting people where we want them.
Tags:
Rove, Bush, Roberts, Iraq
9.15.2005
Little Round Up
Posted by Chris at 12:49 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I love that comment from the Post and you are right on with the Robert's comment.
While reading did you by any chance hear that tomorrow, 9/16/05 is National POW/MIA Recognition Day? A day set aside to honor those who were unaccounted for after serving their country. If you have a POW/MIA Flag please fly it proudly on 9/16/05.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Woa, MJ, gotta check out that site and buy yourself some covers of We Shall Overcome eh. ;)
If the Dems didn't use this for political gain they would be idiots for one, and they gained politically anyway without doing anything just by what happened.
The speech was pathetic, did they not know we had already heard the by land and by sea thing somewhere along the way like maybe the Revolutionary War.
O’Reilly, I can't even give him credence he is so overtly biased. Let us ignore what we have no answers for or better yet blame the dems for trying to politicize everything.
If Roe v Wade goes I'm heading out for sure, the whole thing would have gone too far. I think that men can easily dismiss this as I have seen so often on many sites and in many writings as of late.
Yes please , win an election.
James, thanks for reading. Good to see you around.
Graham, I do agree about Condi. She might be intelligent, but she's no politician. And O'Reilly is biased to the core. Thanks for reading.
Schantz, I don't have a flag, but I do fly an American flag outside my home. My dad was in Vietnam, and he flies the POW/MIA flag outside his house and on his car.
Alice, I know, I hate the spammers too. I suppose I'm going to have to put that word verifier thingy on. I didn't catch Bush's speech. I will probably watch it tomorrow. Yes, I know, I'm boring and anyone who records presidential speeches is nuts. I agree.
Also, about Roe v. Wade. I totally agree with you that as a man, I can easily dismiss that case. That's partially true at least. It's not that I want to see Roe v. Wade tossed. I'm just saying with Roberts in charge the likelihood of that happening is very possible. But, what can we do? Very little if nothing at all. These are the consequences of the Dems not being smart.
Bush gets Roe v. Wade overturned, not that he cares though, and he gets to keep his base for two generations. The importance of the 2004 elections one day will surely be found.
What we can do is prepare for the '06 midterms and motivate as many as we can to see that elections do matter.
Thanks for reading Alice.
The bottom line is no one knows for sure what Roberts will do once is he is confirmed. I would guess he would support executive power to detain suspected terrorists without trial, which is one of the reasons he was nominated.
As you stated, I do not see the logic of the Dems opposing him. First of all, they probably can't win, and second even if they did someone equally (or more) conservative would be appointed. See Jonathan Chait in the LA Times for more on this.
One poster seemed to imply that men are less worthy to discuss Roe v. Wade than women, an argument which is absurd. It is the person's argument, not their sex, that should determine whether they are correct on the abortion issue. Many people who aren't eligible for combat supported the Iraq war. Surely that doesn't invalidate their arguments for war, and I say this as someone who opposed the invasion from the beginning.
While we're on the subject, I believe strongly that Roe was a bad decision and should be repealed. Whether it will be is a difficult question.
Excellent blog overall.
Jack D.
Nice recap.
I didn't watch the speech either due to work, but I am catching up now via the newspaper.
Logically there is no reason to oppose Roberts if in the end the time and energy will just be a waste, and everything indicates that it indeed will be a waste to do so. They have bigger fish to fry.
I understand the alice on the claim that men do not or that they can easily dismiss R v Wade. I didn't get the impression she meant they weren't capable of discussing the case just that they don't care to really as it has less of an implication in regard to their lives..
I watch O’ Reilly once in awhile because the man amazes me in his ability to put out anything he wants and make it believable to people who think his way. I think he lights fires under people who are already of that ideology.
Jack, thank you for the visit. I'm not sure that Alice intended what you say, but I will let her answer on that one. I think you are absolutely right about Roberts supporting executive power to detain suspected terrorists without trial. And I agree that that is why he was selected more than any other reason. That and he is a Bush insider. And it's probably fair to assume that without Roberts, Bush would have lost his Florida recount court battle.
businessman, I do agree with your Alice summation. O'Reilly is borderline crazy, and you are correct to assume that he does hold considerable sway over those of his persuasion. I think if Fox News was so fair and balanced then they would have a show of the opposite persuasion on before or after O'Reilly.
Thanks to both for reading.
Upon further review (as a side note, I'm glad college football adopted instant replay), I think I misunderstood what Alice meant on Roe and I take back what I said.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment