"Disgruntled," "total crap," "upset," "traitor," "turncoat," "Hamas apologist" are just some of the words the right wing is flinging at Scott McClellan. Yesterday morning before the day even started, I thought about writing a quick post about some of the things the right wing would do to try and discredit McClellan. Unleashing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is the most obvious. Calling him a traitor and terrorist sympathizer is like predicting the Pope to be a Catholic. The right wing bra
nd of attacking any one, even a Bush loyalist, because they don't walk the party line at all times is one of the easiest political scenarios to ever predict. I could have in a just a couple minutes time written out every tactic the right would use to attack Scottie. It would have been the easiest thing I've done in two years. But like Seth Leibsohn says, it would have been me stating the obvious. And when something's obvious why write it down?
This is how the right wing behaves. For 8 years this all we have ever seen from Bush and his cronies. Any deviation from the party line is seen as treason, as enemy action. Anyone who dares speak out against their government, or albeit, against our Grand Anointed Leader is a terrorist sympathizing traitor.
This is also how the right wing governs. There is no more cohesive a time for the GOP as when they are attacking someone for speaking out against their incompetency. It's all blatantly obvious that Bush is the least popular president in modern history. There is no denying that. The right wing is more interested in personal attacks than any sort of governing policy for this country. With 8 months left to a two term presidency, we have still yet to have an established foreign policy, any sort of energy policy whatsoever, and not one single domestic policy for this country. They are not interested in governing. What they do best, and really all they do, is run hate filled attack machines against anyone who may question why in the world we are still waiting on the president to do his job.
Throughout this entire election cycle we've seen the GOP fight amongst itself for a nominee. John McCain is hardly the person they settled on but more the person they were given. Limbaugh has called McCain the worst thing to happen to the GOP. Malkin is refusing to support him. Ron Paul still pulls 10% of the vote. And right wingers everywhere are dissatisfied with McCain. But when someone speaks out against Leader Bush and his incompetency the machine comes together quicker than Larry Craig running to the bathroom. This is when the right wing is at their best. It's like a fusion bond that pulls the right wing together. This is how it's been for 8 years. And there's no reason to believe that it will simply change by electing McCain.
*Update:
Here's what a 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign director has to say about Scottie:
"Feeling for Scott McLellan. Nice getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true anyway."
Seriously, that sums up entirely all the right wing has to say. It's not that what Scottie says in his book isn't true, it's just the fact that he said it. In the GOP you aren't allowed to speak your mind. You aren't allowed to dissent against our Grand Leader. Their imposition that everyone in the world just blindly follow everything they say is expected at all times. And for almost 8 years the entire world has been subject to the brown shirts in the GOP. Finally, finally, their right wing tactics aren't working anymore. What still amazes me, though, is the right wing's support of a president with the lowest approval ratings in modern history.
h/t Matt Stoller
5.29.2008
The Hits Just Keep On Coming (Update)
5.28.2008
Watch Out for Scottie (update)
I'm not sure I've felt sorrier for anyone in the Bush administration more than what I did for Scott McClellan. During the McClellan days I was a frequenter in DC. So I found myself watching almost daily the president's press briefings. Those are some of my fondest memories of politics. It was a time when everyone knew there was total chaos in the Bush administration but you couldn't get anyone to admit it. It was excruciating to watch McClellan stumble through those gaggles. It was almost as if he didn't know anything about anything whatsoever. And this went on for almost three years.
I'm sure by now everyone has read or at least heard about McClellan's new book “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception." If you haven't here's a link. All you have to do is read the title to know that it's not going to be very flattering to Bush & Co. McClellan covers everything from the invasion of Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to the Plame leak to being lied to by the administration to the use of propaganda to sell a war to the American public.
As expected the Bush administration isn't going to comment just yet. But Karl Rove already has and just as expected he wants to divide the political culture a little bit more by saying the book reads like a left wing blog instead of by a former colleague. As with everything Bush, if you aren't with us, you're against us. You're either staying the course or a left wing blogger. This sort of Karl Rove mentality to politics is so old. It's really proven nothing but disaster for the GOP and especially for Bush.
The right wing isn't going to like this book and they'll say McClellan is motivated by money and that he's now become part of the "liberal press." Or that he's just wanting some attention and has a vendetta since he was canned by Bush. Sorry excuses for a very sorry group of people.
*Update:
Like clockwork the right wing is predictably jumping all over Scott McClellan today. Fox News, with the help of it's Republican lineup, is leaving on its front web page Rove's response to McClellan's new book where he calls McClellan a liberal blogger. Also, I just heard über patriot Sean Hannity, who is also a Fox News host, on his radio show say that McClellan is no doubt taking the "liberal" line with his book. And the super serious The Corner is having a heyday with McClellan even questioning his "conservativeness" because he supposedly enjoyed a college course taught by Sara Weddington. Geez, my favorite college course was taught by a neocon. Does that make me any less of a Democrat?
The biggest thing I'm seeing from the right wing is their questioning of McClellan's duty to the country if what he says in the book is true. If McClellan had objections to Bush's policy why didn't he raise them when he was their spokesman, so the right's argument goes. Here's Seth Leibsohn, also from The Corner doing his best to discredit McClellan based on his "duty":
And I'll just leave you with this — having not read the book and having no plans to do so: don't you think that when someone has an objection to what is being done, they owe it to the public and as a mark of duty to do something about it or say something about it at the time, rather than wait two years and save it for a book? Does that in and of itself not cut down some of the credibility.Seth's whole post is rather odd indeed. In it he asks a very fundamental question that seems to be rather rhetorical and painfully obvious.
The first thing to ask about these kinds of books is "does it help history, does it shed light, does it add to the sum total of knowledge about a topic history or contemporary analysis can use to shed light on an administration?" OR, rather, "is this a self-aggrandizing after-the-fact justification to bolster one's own reputation and credibility?" especially after having done such a poor job in the first place.Interesting. So a book from Bush's former press secretary that states the Bush administration used propaganda to sell a needless war to the American people, was entirely involved in the Plame leak cover up, and poorly mismanaged if not entirely neglected its duty during the worst natural disaster to ever hit this country, doesn't shed any new light on the history of the Bush presidency? Seth mostly concludes it doesn't shed any new light because we all already knew it. In other words, we don't need a book telling us what we already know. But for writing the first behind the scenes book from the Bush inner-circle, Scottie is following a liberal line, disavowing his duty to his country and only doing it for vengeance and money. Don't state the obvious appears to be what the right is saying. This makes the phrase reality has a liberal bias all the more understandable.
I think we'll probably find this book is mostly of the latter category.
Editor's Note: in the original title Scottie was spelled as Scotty. I realized it was an error and corrected it.
**Update:
Just for the record, Scott McClellan is a tool. Always has been a tool and always will be. His book that he somehow wants us to believe is all in hindsight is just a part of his tooldom.
5.24.2008
The Burden of Bush
Wow! Poor ticket sales to a Bush-McCain fund raiser force the event to a smaller more private venue.
Compare this to our last two term president who is openly campaigning and raising record amounts of money for his wife. McCain has more than just a preacher problem. He has a Bush problem. How can John McCain not sale out an event in his own state with his own party's president? Yes, it's the Dems that are falling apart though.
5.10.2008
A Republican's Socialism
I'm not sure how many times I've heard Republicans and neocons refer to Obama and Democrats as socialists this election cycle. It seems like daily. Here's more from Hanson's list on how to fix the Republican Party:
...Obama's alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn't work.
[...]
Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster.
Yes more government is something only belonging to Democrats. It was fine when George Bush increased the size of government and it was not a problem at all when Reagan raised taxes and it seems to have been no big deal when George Bush created the Department of Homeland Security making the individual more dependent upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the Republicans haven't caught on that no matter how many times they keep telling themselves that they are the party of small government and individual responsibility they haven't discovered they are historically simply anything but.
The last time the size of the federal government shrank it was under a Democratic president. The last time there was a tax rate that produced a surplus and allowed for unprecedented economic growth it was under a Democratic president. Suggesting that Obama wants to move towards a socialist view of government is being ignorant to the last 8 years of George Bush.
What's sad is that Hanson is supposed to be some sort of law professor at Tennessee if I'm not mistaken. And he's absolutely and intellectually wrong when conveniently leaving out Bush's socialist government and wrong to state that Obama wants to move toward socialism. If Republicans want to chide socialism, they needn't look very far to find it.
Voting twice for a president who has done nothing but increase the overall size of government and done nothing but make the individual more dependent upon the state is okay as long as the president is a Republican. But if not, then socialism again becomes a concern of the Republican Party.
5.08.2008
The Most Relevant Question Asked Yet
Jon Stewart finally asked the most relevant question yet of John McCain. Sadly, Stewart is not a journalist. Even more sadly, by Stewart asking the question the media establishment is almost assuredly not to address the matter any further. I can just see the MSM refusing to take its cues from a political satirist/comedian. I would be amazed to see anyone actually follow up on Stewart's most reasonable question.
Last week I wrote about the publics concern of John McCain's relationship with the most unpopular president in modern history, George W. Bush. For over a month all we heard was about Obama's relationship to his preacher, and anyone else he might have met in his lifetime. Very little coverage about McCain's endorsement by hate preachers Rod Parsley and John Hagee. And nothing about George Bush's Rose Garden endorsement and the warm relationship Bush and McCain share. Even though the public is way more concerned about McCain and Bush than about anyone with ties to Obama, there's been zilch covered about the two by the media establishment.
Finally, Jon Stewart forced McCain to acknowledge something the media won't.
I wonder what would happen if the media applied the same sort of scrutiny to John McCain as it has Barack Obama? We have a two term president with approval ratings hovering around the mid 20s. These approval ratings haven't seen the mid 30s in over a year. And we have not one question presented to the GOP heir apparent about why he hasn't denounced someone who is obviously not well liked and certainly opposed by more than 70% of the population. This would be the most relevant question to ask anyone who is the GOP nominee.
*Update:
Originally I had a video of the Daily Show exchange up but it appears not to be working at the moment. Once I figure out the problem I'll get the video back up.
5.01.2008
How Republicans Govern
McCain praised the woman’s treatment and later said some earmarks were clearly worthy. “It’s the process I object to,” McCain told reporters. “We need to start over from scratch.” […] “When you earmark in the middle of the night you have no budgetary constraints,” he said.
While the media is fascinated with Rev. Wright, and while the GOP is happily pursuing every avenue of keeping the media's attention on Wright and away from George Bush, Iraq and the last 8 years of utter incompetency, John McCain's inability to tell the same story twice has went relatively unnoticed.
Besides wanting to stay in Iraq forever, McCain has also made numerous remarks about how he would handle budgetary matters as president. As routine readers will note, I have no qualms about laughing at Republican talk of fiscal responsibility and small government. Their whole platform of small government and fiscal conservatism is but a joke because once they get in office they do the exact opposite of everything they proclaim to believe. Well here we have a perfect example of how John McCain falls perfectly inline with the Republican facade of conservatism.
In July of 2007 candidate McCain said he would change how the government deals with spending budgets:...if elected President I'm going to change the way we deal with spending in Washington. The presidency has many powers. One of the most useful is the veto pen. ...Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends me, and if they keep sending them to me, I'll use the bully pulpit to make the people who are wasting your money famous.
He's going to veto every single pork barrel bill Congress sends him. We all know that can't possibly be true. The Straight Talking Express is blowing smoke, but the so-called conservatives eat it up. As the old saying goes, one person's trash is another person's treasure, the same proves true for pork spending. What one person or Fantasy World Republican might call pork another reality based person calls an earmark. For instance, after Think Progress along with many very attentive bloggers pointed out that military aid to Israel is a line-item earmark (aka pork) McCain backtracked and said he would not veto aid to Israel.
Then on April 24 of this year McCain again Straight Talked himself in circles and said that he would determine spending cuts on a needs basis.I can assure them that the earmarks that they have received, which have been few and far between because they are not represented by powerful lobbyists and special interests in Washington, that we will judge any expenditure of the American people’s tax dollars on the basis of need.
That's a far cry from vetoing every earmarked bill congress sends him. Nevertheless, circle jerk Republicans and so-called conservatives eat it up.
And yesterday the Maverick tells the American people that it's not necessarily pork earmarks that he opposes, it's the process.
All within a years time McCain has went from pledging to veto any bill containing earmarks to only vetoing bills that don't have aid to Israel, to judging earmarks on a needs basis, to not being opposed to pork at all just the process. It would not have taken nearly a year for McCain to finally come around to telling us how he would really govern if the media establishment had done it's job. Barack Obama is held to words he never said, words other people spout but John McCain isn't once held to his own.
This is how Republicans govern. Time and time again I write about it. There are no bigger recipients of welfare than members of congress. And no congress did more to expand that welfare than the Republican-controlled congress of 1995-2007. Not one time did President Bush, the epitome of modern conservatism, ever veto a single bill while the Republicans were in control. Instead Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government more so than any president since 1932. Not even as much of a whimper from the GOP during this time. Never, not in one single instance, did Bush call for a restraint on spending. In fact, he turned the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in history. Here, again, we have another Republican sweet talking conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and small government ideas on a campaign trail. And this time we have that Republican candidate openly admitting that his pledge to veto every single earmark isn't even close to being true. The attention, luckily for the GOP, by the MSM is instead focused on words another candidate never said. Latest polls show us that the American people are more concerned about McCain's ties to Bush than Obama's ties to a crazy preacher. None of that gets through to the MSM and the GOP is hoping, praying that no one catches on.
h/t Think Progress
*Update:
New CNN poll has Bush as the most unpopular president in modern American history. Fantasy World Republicans will say this only proves that Bush is a true leader because he doesn't listen to what the polls say. But not listening to what polls say has nothing to do with leading. Not to mention I would be interested in hearing one, just one, successful policy objective in Bush's two terms. Any takers?
Mission Accomplished + 1,827
That ever elusive banner Republicans wish everyone would forget about. Every year about this time the Bush administration scrambles to define what exactly was meant by hanging a banner above our Grand Warrior Leader, who had just flown shotgun on a fighter jet while landing it on a aircraft carrier, reading Mission Accomplished. And then after changing from his combat flight suit, which didn't have a flag pin on the lapel by the way, to his thousand dollar suit spoke as clearly as he's ever spoken and declared that major combat operations in Iraq have ended while also declaring the battle in Iraq as a victory in the war on terrorism.
Since then the White House has tried to say that the banner was intended for the troops and sailors aboard the carrier, that their mission was over not that the mission in Iraq was over. That hardly matches up to Bush's words that day however. Then the spiritually ordained White House tried to say that the banner was made by the sailors and the administration had nothing to do with it. After that was proven wrong just like everything else the administration has said about Iraq, the White House admitted that it had indeed designed and hung the banner above our Righteous Leader's head for all the world to see.
Let us not forget no matter how hard the Bush administration, the neocons and the GOP try to rewrite history, that this was their war. It was a war to last only a matter of weeks; which coincides perfectly with the banner and the victory parade. This was the end, their invasion was over Saddam was gone but not yet captured and it was time for the Iraqi people to rejoice and the American people to salute its Grand Leader. Everything was going smoothly. Ahmed Chalibi was on his way to setup his American appointed government and our Marines and soldiers were switching from combat operations to a security role. To Bush and his GOP everything that has happened in the 1,800 days since then isn't relative to any discussion of Bush or Republicanism. Any mention of the 1,800 days is aiding the terrorists, or treasonous, or damaging to national security.
So today instead of honoring our great warrior patriot president, let's thank our troops for their service to this nation and remember throughout this election cycle how we got where we are.
*Update:
Just like Bush in 2003, McCain declared Iraq Mission Accomplished...can we really afford four more years of a Bush presidency?
4.30.2008
Poll: Bush Bigger Burden to McCain Than Wright to Obama
Finally some numbers on how the Republican nominee has yet to get drilled by
the media establishment for his ties to very unpopular people. So far all we've heard about is Obama and his ties to terrorists, liberals and wacko preachers. But nothing so far about McCain's ties to the biggest terrorist supporters in the world (the Saudis) or his ties to one of the most unpopular people to ever grace the American public, George W. Bush.
- 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration.
- 36 percent have major concerns that Clinton seems to change her position on some issues (like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband signed but which she now opposes)
- 34 percent say they’re bothered by Obama’s “bitter” remarks
- 32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers
- 27 percent have serious concerns that Bill Clinton would have too much influence on U.S. policy decisions if his wife is elected
4.16.2008
Turning To the Graphs
I love graphs. I don't know why, but I've always loved graphs and maps. I'm like Stalin when it comes to maps. I can look at a map all day long and never get tired of it. It's the same with graphs. That's probably why I'm always posting charts and graphs on this blog. I especially like the graphs at Pollster.com. I've spent endless hours at that site.
With the PA primary a week away and with the recent hoopla over Obama's bitter comments I thought I would set another graph into play here showing the latest polling data.
As you can tell, there really isn't a post-bitter change. All that could decidedly change today once Fox News learns that their constant barrage of anti-Obama coverage isn't working and they decide to declare Deafcon III on the presumed Dem nominee. It's doubtful, to me, even that will have any affect on the primary, however.
In the meantime our Grand Leader George Bush is basking in the latest polling data. After having plateaued somewhat in the very low thirties, Bush seems to be tanking into unclaimed territory.
Republicans love to remind people that this election isn't about George Bush. That he isn't on the ballot and bringing him up only demonstrates Democratic inability to set aside our hatred of him rather than speaking about the policies and issues effecting our future. It's a genuine try by the neocon-controlled Republicans. I don't blame them at all. I certainly wouldn't want the least popular and most incompetent presidency since 1928 to be my party's legacy either. But the fact of the matter is a two term president that is solely responsible for the current state of this country is a talking point in this election. And those who voted for him, those who have looked past his incompetency and who have allowed him to run this country into the ground, are the very same ones who are now trying to exclude him from the discussion. Like I've always said, responsibility sucks.
4.04.2008
Poll: 81% Say America Is On Wrong Track
81% is the highest number since the NY Times began asking the question. Here's the most relevant part:
A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.Holy cow! Those are some pretty high negatives. Of course none of it has anything to do with the incompetent Bush administration and his long hard slog in Iraq or the slumping economy. It's all part of irrationality and some misplaced hysteria on behalf of the public.
3.31.2008
Where's The Outrage?
For the last couple hours I've been scrambling the internet trying to find any sort of outrage, or even a simple sigh, from Republicans/right-wingers/neocons about George W. Bush's overhaul of the financial industry. I've found a couple mentions of the story itself but no analysis. Granted I haven't done an exhaustive search or hit every site on the internet, just a simple browsing if you will. Either the story is too new and people haven't had a chance to digest it yet; or maybe the lack of a Republican reaction to it is the final proof of Bush's irrelevancy- he's so irrelevant his own party doesn't even acknowledge his policy proposals. Or maybe it's a combination of both, further insinuating a lame duck presidency.
Even if any of the three suggestions above are remotely accurate, none of that changes the fact that Republicans would go crazy if a Democrat proposed any changes to a financial system that included expanding the size and power of the federal government. A quick glance at the GOP homepage and you see a never ending running ticker of all the supposed Obama tax increases, spending increases and socialist program expansions they claim will bankrupt America and turn us into a failed socialist European state. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for two seconds or watch Fox News and next to Rev. Wright that's all you'll hear about. For a near perfect example of how quickly Republicans come apart, without making much sense, about Democratic spending plans see my continuing saga of The Economist and its outright "huddling the masses" portrayal of Democratic front runner Barack Obama.
If this was a Democratic plan, Republicans and their lot would be the first to call Bush's major financial system overhaul what it is, another big socialist government expansion from a tax and spend president who has no clue about fiscal matters. What they fail to mention, all of them, is the fact that ending Bush's and McCain's 100 year war in Iraq would pay for every new Democratic program out there ten times over. But when their Ordained Leader runs up the largest deficit in history and increases the size of the federal government more than any one president has done since the Great Depression all the while leading us into a ill-planned military invasion of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11, not even a whimper is heard from the GOP.
This latest move by Bush's GOP only overshadows a move two weeks ago where the federal government bailed out the fifth largest banking lender in the nation, Bear Stearns. Again, not one single Republican mention of how socialist a move this was. No mention that the government should have no more responsibility bailing out businesses than it does bailing out its own citizens. I personally see much more of a responsibility for government to protect the individual (i.e., the Bill of Rights) than to protect Big Business. But the moment I say the prime function of
a government of the people, by the people and for the people is that it owes to its citizenry the protections necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the GOP and its bandwagon circle jerkers immediately become small government capitalistic conservatives again.
There's no denying nor is it even fathomable to even begin to defend Bush's economic record. It is what it is. But what possibly can Republicans begin to say about their Beloved Leader when it comes to small compassionate conservative government? The Chosen One has increased the size and power of the federal government more so since FDR. Now with his newest proposal to give broader powers to an overhauled financial institution, I would even argue that Bush's determination and success at increasing the size and scope of the federal government is equal to if not greater than FDR's.
The
latest proposal will without a doubt be revamped by Congress but what can the Republican Party say in defense of its president who has done the very opposite of everything they have argued and prided themselves with the last four decades? In an election year when the bedrock Republican platform issues of small government, low taxes and personal responsibility...or "government is the problem" will again be heard over and over there is no denying that the GOP doesn't stand for any of it and those wishing for a true conservative led government should look towards the Libertarian Party. Bush has left the GOP with nothing more than hypocritical elitists with a neoconservative outlook for America and the world.
Tags: Bush, Republicans, Socialism, Financial Institution Overhaul
Pick On Bush Day
Since I'm back home and not traveling I'm trying to catch up on some writing. I watched ESPN last night and they must have edited out the booing on Bush's inaugural pitch cause it sure didn't sound anything like this. Here's a clip where the boos can be heard quite well.
I've long suspected ESPN/Sportscenter to be conservatively biased and now I'm fairly convinced. I'm actually surprised the boos weren't louder to be honest. The guy has an approval rating in the mid twenties and is by far the least popular president in 80 years. This is a far cry from Bush's 2001 World Series first pitch. A comparison of the two vids shows just how much has changed in the last 7 years. In this case change is a bad thing.
Republicans: Bigger Government is the Answer
Bush's Republican answer to economic woes: Bigger Federal Government.
I wonder if The Economist is going to run an op-ed labeling Bush as a communist as it did for the Democratic candidates for wanting to expand government regulation. I seriously doubt it. The GOP is not the Party of Reagan. I'm not even sure how it can call itself a Party at all.
3.12.2008
What Taxpayer Funded Report?
This is classic Bush b.s.
Remember the report I wrote about yesterday that concluded there was no operational link between Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaida? It was the second government report in as many years which concluded such. This morning the Pentagon said it will cancel the press release of the report and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.Next to destroying the report, which would be illegal, this is Bush's best option regarding access to the report. My suspicions are that the report was ordered, conducted and financed in hopes that by 2008 some good news would be available to report. News in regard to the Grand Surge and our Leaders ability to be a war president. But that didn't happen. So since it's already completed and parts already leaked to the press, squelch it as much as possible. Of course this won't keep it out of the publics hands, but it's Bush's best legal option at this point.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
On the other hand, if the report contains nothing new and nothing politically damaging, why not release it? The article I link to does say a copy of the report on a CD can be mailed to anyone wishing to have one. I'm going to take them up on that.
3.11.2008
Yet Another Government Report Refutes Administration's Iraq/al Qaida Links
A Pentagon sponsored study to be released on Wednesday concludes Saddam Hussein had no operational links to bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist group. This is the second government report in as many years to disprove one of President Bush's rationals for invading Iraq in March 2003 (the second reason being disarming Iraq of WMD).
While the study exhaustively shows no direct operational link between Iraq and al Qaida, it does show links to other terrorist groups in the Middle East. However, none of those groups had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.
This report will do zilch to convince those in the GOP Fantasy World that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead it will probably do just the opposite and convince them even more so that Saddam was a terrorist supporting dictator, which he was-- just not the one responsible for the 3,000 dead innocent people upon our soil.
2.29.2008
I Dare You To
After yesterday's Bush moment where he specifically calls out Obama, it now appears that the Democratic front runner is not only running against Hillary but also John McCain and George Bush.
He's getting hit from three sides and handling it well. Most people who don't know Obama say that he won't be able to handle the pressure. That once people start attacking him he won't know how to respond, he'll shy away and his hope message will become blurred. I've been hearing this since 2003 about Obama. And not once has he ever shied away, or not taken an argument head on. I've been telling people since the first day I met Obama that he's at his best when others doubt him. This week has been a perfect example of that.
Instead of backing away from the president's bully pulpit, Obama responded immediately to Bush. And today when Hillary ran her 3am ad, Obama wasted no time hitting back. His honest, fact-based answers are what has drawn me to him since the days I worked for him in the senate.
Obama ties all three opponents into one well rounded concise response:
I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.It's finally time the politics of fear ends. There isn't any one person taking on three opponents right now like Obama is and his momentum continues to grow. I dare anyone to doubt him.
Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer. I stood up and I said that a war in Iraq would be unwise. It cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I said that it would distract us from the real threat that we face, and that we should take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That’s the judgment I made on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation.
*Update:
How's this for rapid response?
Bringing Out the Big Guns
President Bush, with his entire 29% approval standing behind him, weighed in on Sen. Obama's al Qaeda comments.
"That's an interesting comment," Bush said at press conference Thursday. "'If al Qaeda is securing an al Qaeda base — then yes?' Well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years…. That's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere."
Notice he says for the past four years. He's actually correct in that regard because five years ago when we invaded there was no al Qaeda any where near Iraq. If the challenge we face is denying al Qaeda a safe haven invading Iraq didn't do a very good job of it. And it's still very doubtful that AQI has any actual ties to bin Laden. Not to mention the other country we invaded and are still occupying, Afghanistan, still has actual al Qaeda bases and operates relatively at will.
I-N-C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-E
2.20.2008
Bush @ 19
ARG has Bush at 19% approval. There's just no way that's accurate. His numbers are in the gutter but that can't possibly be accurate.
2.19.2008
Clinton Statue
Since Kosovo is back in the news this week, it jarred my memory of hearing about a statue to honor American President Bill Clinton in the capital city of Pristina. The article is from May 2007 so I wonder if the statue is completed and in place yet.
From the article:
I wonder if Iraq will do something like this for Bush? I could see the state depaThe three-meter (10-foot) tall monument is still under construction in a studio in Podujevo north of Pristina.
"He is our savior. He saved us from extermination," sculptor Izeir Mustafa told Reuters. "I was thrilled by the work because I know what he did for us."...
...Pristina already has a road named after him, graced by a 12-metre (25 foot) tall mural of the former president. Pristina municipal authorities say they expect to erect the statue somewhere along Clinton Boulevard later this summer.Mustafa has several more days to work before he bronzes the sculpture of Clinton, after which he will turn his attention to another soon-to-be former Western leader. . "I definitely will do a statue of (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair," he said. "He saved us as well".
rtment actually paying the bill to have a statue of Bush in the Baghdad square, after all he is their liberator. It could be included in the plans for the new American embassy. It wouldn't be fair for Clinton to have one and Bush not. Clinton accomplished his goal after 78 days. After 5 years and counting, Bush damn better have one too.Then I realized that in April I'm going to Ireland and I remembered hearing something about a Bill Clinton statue in Ireland also. So after some searching I found the Clinton statue at Ballybunion in C
o. Kerry. I will definitely have to get my picture made standing next to that statue when I'm there. This is really making my whole trip much more exciting, though I was already pretty pumped up about it. My next overseas trip will have to be to Pristina so I can have a complete set of Clinton statue photos.*Update:
That's a golf club he's holding in case you're wondering. I figured people would have a comment or two about that one.
**Update II:
Just as soon as I published this post I found where the Clinton statue in Kosovo has been completed and ready to be installed. Here's another article about it being installed on the eponymous named street.
Tags: Bill Clinton, Bush, Clinton statue
2.15.2008
For Once Bush Fear-Mongering Isn't Working
For once, probably for the first time since the beginning of the Democratic controlled congress, the equ
al branch of government ignored Bush's threats and fear-mongering and decided to stand on their own and recess without passing revisions to the 1978 FISA law that regulates government wiretapping.
Today, again, Bush tried the tired game of labeling the refusal to cave in to his demands as "inaction" backed up by the threat that terrorists are lurking and waiting for Democratic capitulation before they attack us again on the home front. After 3 solid years of 30% approval ratings, finally Democrats are beginning to understand that Bush is a lame duck grasping at the only weapon he has left to prove his legitimacy, fear-mongering. It's easy to take Bush to task on the argument that he needs warrantless spy powers when even reporters are able to see right through the Bush facade.
The current laws are set to expire at midnight Saturday. The nation's intelligence agencies then will have to go to court for warrants to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas.Even the MSM has discovered Bush is unpopular and virtually powerless.Intelligence officials said that it will cause unnecessary delays, but the government will be able to get permission to conduct eavesdropping through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Even without court permission, agents also can listen in on a suspect's calls without a warrant as long as an application is submitted within three days.
Additionally, any warrants already approved are good for a year from when the initial warrant was issued.
