March 01, 2006

THIS JUST IN: BUSH READS THIS WEBSITE, SPRINGS INTO ACTION

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

Posted by Peter David at March 1, 2006 11:33 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Mister Goodman at March 1, 2006 12:04 PM

My bet is that someday bin Laden is going to die of natural causes, and low level folks in the US government will try to insinuate that the US had him killed and made it LOOK like natural causes (even though that makes no sense) so that the US doesn't look so ineffectual.

Posted by: ArcLight at March 1, 2006 12:12 PM

My how times change.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Posted by: Bob Jones at March 1, 2006 12:26 PM

Please tell him to get rid of the freakin' IRS. All the best.

Posted by: GammaSpidey at March 1, 2006 12:47 PM

Bush does understand he can't run for a third term, right? Unless he's made some amendments that I haven't heard about.

Yeah... catching a terrorist maniac should really bump up his numbers, look how good it worked out for him when they lucked out and stumbled upon Saddam.

I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn't captured during Bush's watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election. And I honestly don't dislike Bush that much, because he's really not that intelligent. It's his monkey handler advisors that are steering him and this country into chaos.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 1, 2006 01:08 PM

>I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn't captured during Bush's watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.

Yeah, but if the choice were between them, or Billary, I honestly don't know which way I'd go.

Posted by: John at March 1, 2006 01:10 PM

Bush does understand he can't run for a third term, right? Unless he's made some amendments that I haven't heard about.

There's a mid-term election with every seat in the house theoretically up-for-grabs, and 1/3 of the Senate. (Realistically only a handful are really competitive) There is a hypothesis that the lower the opinion of the President, the less well the President's party will succeed in those contests that are competitive. Not sure what the statistics are over time on that hypotheshis.

Posted by: Virmin V. at March 1, 2006 02:19 PM

>Yeah, but if the choice were between them, or Billary, I honestly don't know which way I'd go.

Mr. Rove, is that you?

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 1, 2006 03:02 PM

Peter, wake me up when they finally catch him. Otherwise it's all just the same balloon juice we've been hearing since September 12th, 2001, and frankly, I'm not even sure the American people believe it any more.

Posted by: Robert Rhodes at March 1, 2006 03:11 PM

Peter said 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.

He hasn't cared about poll numbers before... and not now... but instead of stopping by and showing support to Afghanistan and the troops, it's really all about the polls.

But if Bush hadn't stopped in Afghanistan, and had simply gone to India... would the argument still be made it's all about the polls?

Because Bush's numbers are so low, I put it to the liberals that it really won't matter what Bush says or does... they'll suggest that it's all about bringing his approval numbers up.

If the numbers were that important, Bush would have said no to the Dubai Port World deal. Instead, he did the right thing and stood his ground. That certainly didn't help his approval numbers. But it was - and is - the right thing to do.

RLR

Posted by: Peter David at March 1, 2006 03:20 PM

If you think he doesn't care about the poll numbers, you're kidding yourself. And if you think his now-nervous supporters don't care about the poll numbers and how they could impact on their reelection, you are also kidding yourself.

You're ignoring the simple fact of my posting, Robert: My statement wasn't retroactive. I didn't say that he DID do this in ORDER to pull up his numbers. I said, in advance, that he will very likely do it in order to pull up his numbers. And he did. This wasn't 20/20 hindsight. It was foresight. So much for your notion that the opinions of this particular liberal would have created a no-win scenario for Bush.

If he'd had this stop in Afghanistan planned for a month, liberals (or at least this liberal) would have said nothing about it. But he dropped it in so suddenly that the timing simply cannot be ignored. And he talked about capturing bin Laden, holding up the bogey man to combat sagging numbers...just as, years ago, when he couldn't find bin Laden and his numbers were just starting to soften, he held up Saddam to be the new bogeyman. So Saddam was arrested, Iraq is in flames, people are getting killed daily by the carload, civil war still beckons, our soldiers are stuck there...he's gotta play the only card he's got left: Find bin Laden. This was the opening salvo...just as I predicted.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 03:43 PM

If he'd had this stop in Afghanistan planned for a month, liberals (or at least this liberal) would have said nothing about it. But he dropped it in so suddenly that the timing simply cannot be ignored.

Umm...is it possible that the timing might have something to do with the fact that he was already scheduled to be in India and Pakistan this week? Not trying to be snide, just saying...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 03:46 PM

In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism.

As for not announcing it beforehand, I trust nobody is too blinded by political partisanship to think that unwise.

Posted by: DinoBoy at March 1, 2006 03:49 PM

Dear ArcLight,

Great quotes. Best part: During the debates with Kerry "I don't remember saying that. Must be one of those exaggerations." And then the smirk. And then the red-neck poll numbers come in. Unfortunately red-neck voters don't watch the Daily Show.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 1, 2006 04:12 PM

Posted by GammaSpidey at March 1, 2006 12:47 PM

I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn't captured during Bush's watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election.

*******************

I'm not fond of the W. administration. In fact, I think Clinton, the elder Bush and Reagan were all infinitely better than our current president. Nevertheless, I'm rooting for bin Laden's capture, and I don't care who it helps or hurts politically.

I understand that bin Laden is not the totality of Al Qaeda and that his capture will not eradicate the threat from that group. But he founded the group, funded it and was involved in planning many of its despicable terrorist assaults. Capturing him would be a blow to Al Qaeda on a practical and symbolic level.

I don't like W. I think he's one of the worst presidents we've ever had. But I like bin Laden even less. He's a murderer, he's irredeemably evil, and he is an enemy of our country. I take exception to the idea that it would be better for bin Laden to be captured after Bush leaves office. Bin Laden is a dangerous and evil man and we should all be rooting for him to be captured sooner rather than later.

I just wish I could have confidence in the current administration to make that happen.

Posted by: Joe McKendrick at March 1, 2006 04:26 PM

No fear. I hear Batman is going in after him. (Hey, Bruce Wayne is a Republican, right?)

Catching bin Laden should be a priority, regardless of political affiliation. You only need to look at that hole in lower Manhattan to remember the capacity of evil.

Posted by: Arthur Friend at March 1, 2006 04:34 PM

"And he talked about capturing bin Laden, holding up the bogey man to combat sagging numbers...just as, years ago, when he couldn't find bin Laden and his numbers were just starting to soften, he held up Saddam to be the new bogeyman. So Saddam was arrested, Iraq is in flames, people are getting killed daily by the carload, civil war still beckons, our soldiers are stuck there...he's gotta play the only card he's got left: Find bin Laden. This was the opening salvo...just as I predicted."

You might want to stop patting yourself on the back for a moment and read the transcript of the Bush-Karzai event where the comments were made: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060301.html .

Bush mentions bin Laden not at all in his prepared remarks; the comments about capturing him come only in the press Q&A section. And at least one account of the visit to Afghanistan suggests that reminding people that bin Laden is at large is far from what Bush hoped to get out of his visit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html


Posted by: Bill Myers at March 1, 2006 04:40 PM

Posted by Joe McKendrick at March 1, 2006 04:26 PM
No fear. I hear Batman is going in after him. (Hey, Bruce Wayne is a Republican, right?)
****************

Batman a Republican? What, are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think he is? He's the goddamn Batman!

(I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 04:44 PM

Bill & Joe--you know, I'm getting so used to crazy talk that GammaSpidey's comment went right over my head, but when you think about it, it kind of takes your breath away. Thanks for the dose of reason.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 1, 2006 04:48 PM

Bill & Joe--you know, I'm getting so used to crazy talk that GammaSpidey's comment went right over my head, but when you think about it, it kind of takes your breath away. Thanks for the dose of reason.

*********************

You're welcome. But I warn you, it was my last dose.

Posted by: Peter David at March 1, 2006 04:52 PM

"In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism."

Well, you can imagine it, but there's not a shred of anything to hang that on. I mean, I can imagine that you and other Bushies won't bend over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt but, hey...doesn't mean much.

And yes, Arthur, I know that the comments came in response to press Q&A because, y'know...I can read AND comprehend. However, at a time when his numbers were much stronger--as has been pointed out--Bush was cavalier about bin Laden. But now that his numbers are going south, he unexpectedly shows up in bin Laden's back yard and makes with the tough talk. Notice his tune has changed as his nubmers dropped. Notice that his itinerary changed as his numbers dropped.

And I'm sorry, but anyone who supports a President who announced "mission accomplished" a mere few years prematurely doesn't get to make comments about me patting myself on the back.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at March 1, 2006 04:54 PM

"I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn't captured during Bush's watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election."

That's true enough. On the other hand, if the Magic Terrorist Fairy showed up and said that I had the choice of bin Laden being captured under Bush's watch or not at all, I'd opt for the former.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 1, 2006 05:00 PM

Oh, and about Batman taking on Al Qaeda: to me that's rather distasteful. Batman is a fantasy figure. Even though he lacks "super powers," does anyone really believe a real human could accomplish the things he does? I think it does a disservice to the brave men and women who are being put through the meat-and-bone-grinder known as war.

(By the way, I think the decision to wage the current war in Iraq was one of the most stupid, bone-headed decisions made by a U.S. administration. I think it's fair game to rake the administration over the coals for it. But I don't think it takes away from the bravery, courage and noble sacrifice of our troops in Iraq. Not one whit.)

Granted, it's not the first time super-heroes have been depicted as fighting in a war. Captain America and Bucky did it in WWII, for instance. But I still find it distasteful.

PAD wrote a wonderful BID column after 9/11 where he alternated between fantasies in which super-heroes prevented or limited the damage from the 9/11 attacks, and reflections about what really happened that day. I think he summed it up perfectly: super-heroes are often about the fantasy of good mopping up evil, but reality is invariably uglier and messier. I think it's natural to yearn for a world where good routinely trounces on evil, but things are rarely that nice and neat.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 1, 2006 05:11 PM

Oh, and I probably did a disservice to PAD's aforementioned post-9/11 column with my clumsy summary. But that's because, y'know, he's PAD and I'm not.

Sorry, Mr. David.


Posted by: Arthur Friend at March 1, 2006 05:18 PM

Mr. David, I do not support this president and have never voted for him; our politics, or at least our voting habits, are probably pretty similar. But your post is ludicrous. The "tough talk" you keep referencing is talk that Bush would have rather avoided. Shouldn't that have entered your mind before you sat down to criticize him for it?

Oh, and here's another article about how this hurts, not helps, Bush:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Bush_Bin_Laden.html

And what the hell, here's another:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060301bush,1,2109857.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 05:21 PM

Well, you can imagine it, but there's not a shred of anything to hang that on. I mean, I can imagine that you and other Bushies won't bend over backwards to give him every benefit of the doubt but, hey...doesn't mean much.

Ah. I see. I'm a Bushie. Ok. Well, you either haven't paid much attention to what I've said--and I have no reason to expect that you would want to, nor do I expect it--or you just assume that anyone who doesn't just accept your official explanation must be doing it out of unthinking loyalty.

I mean, wow, look at my statement: "In fact, I can imagine that if he had been in Pakistan and India and had NOT showed up in Afghanistan to show support for the troops it might have gained him some criticism." You're telling me you seriously don't believe that to be the case? I have no problem stating that there are people so blindly devoted to Bush that virtually anything he does will be rationalized as ok by them. You don't want to know that there are probably just as many on the opposite side of the crazy train, go ahead. But in a forum where one of the folks who agrees with you would rather Bin Laden go free than risk Republicans get any credit for his capture...kind of hard to believe.

And you are correct that imagining what would have happened in some alternate universe doesn't mean much. I've made the same point myself when reading accounts of what "would have happened" if Gore had won, if Kerry had won, if yadda yadda yadda, and, like a dope, went right ahead and did it myself. My bad.

Your larger point that Bush may turn to fear mongering to boost ratings is a good one for discussion, though it comes uncomfortably close to last week's crisis du jour wherein the UAE was going to allow nuclear bombs into our ports--ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.

(Credit, btw, to Bill Clinton--and I am certainly willing to give the man credit when he deserves it--for not following the crowd on the port issue but actually raising some good points. Obviously he couldn't completely cut the legs out from under Hillary and co but his response may indicate a less hysterical period of analysis, all of which will be to the good. I'm still so disgusted with the Arab countries that I'm disinclined to have any more dealings with them than needed but if Dubai is doing enough to earn it I'm willing to entertain potential rewards.)

Posted by: roger tang at March 1, 2006 06:54 PM

Your larger point that Bush may turn to fear mongering to boost ratings is a good one for discussion, though it comes uncomfortably close to last week's crisis du jour wherein the UAE was going to allow nuclear bombs into our ports--ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.

Well, if Bush was at all competent in prosecuting this war on terror, I'd be a lot less contemptuous of this stunt. And make no mistake, this is a stunt.

He's left the job half done in Afghanistan. The US friendly government is less than stable. Taliban supporters still have real strength in the country (still widespread reports of their killing of school teachers and women who dare to go to school, which is continuing their cultural genocide of the next generation). And there's a lot of funny business going on in the mountains between them and Pakistan. We're not even getting to Al Quaeda (and our hamhanded bombings) or bin-Laden.

Freakin' incompetents. They couldn't have prosecuted this war in a worse way if they TRIED.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 1, 2006 07:09 PM

ah,but that was scaremongering by the right people, I guess.

This Administration has spent just about every day since 9/11 drilling us about how bad terrorists are, and since they've been making untrue associations (such as between Saddam and 9/11), and calling other countries out (such as Iran), it is any surprise that there was a backlash to the port deal?

There shouldn't be.

Plus, I seem to recall a post on your part about how if Carter approves of this deal, then it must be a bad thing. Scaremongering on your part? ;)

Posted by: Will at March 1, 2006 07:12 PM

I know we're discussing serious subjects here, but I've just got to say that if Bush really were on the hunt for Bin Laden, he'd give Cheney a gun so Cheney could go shoot Bin Laden in the face. The only problem with that is that the news wouldn't be released to the media until 24-48 hours later. :)

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 1, 2006 07:33 PM

By the way Peter, your 'mission accomplished' speech in After the Fall was the highlight of the book for me. I picked up a few veiled (and in some cases, not so veiled) references along the way, but that one was a particular favorite of mine.

Posted by: scott at March 1, 2006 07:38 PM

One word, INCOMPETENCY

For your viewing pleasure George is now going to explain the virtues of the UAE port deal on next weeks' show...

I'd rather have Gerald Ford teach nuclear physics to a group 8-year olds before letting them loose to run a restarted 3-mile island...

"Anyone but a fool in '08"

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 08:23 PM

Plus, I seem to recall a post on your part about how if Carter approves of this deal, then it must be a bad thing. Scaremongering on your part? ;)

I'm not sure it IS a good idea, though the fact that Saudi Arabia and apparently every other country on Earth including Pinkus East and Left Fenwick own ports somewhat brings into question the sudden urgency of the issue. But Carter is such a creep...Anyway, I was joking, of course. One should never base one's opinions on what someone else thinks, especially someone you hold in low regard.

At any rate, I'm surprised to read articles that now claim the deal will ultimately go through. I thought it was as dead as could be. I wonder if they are being told something the rest of us aren't. (It occurred to me that this would have been a hell of a sting operation--not that I think for a moment that this was the case).

Posted by: Gracecat at March 1, 2006 09:02 PM

At the risk of my spouse being flamed... I'll admit he did vote for Bush, twice. And after I brought him up to date over the UAE port deal, even he vehemently disagreed. I find he's been more and more disillusioned with our president as time goes by.

That speaks alot to me, watching a Bush fan turn disgusted... moreso than listening to anti-Bush folk from the beginning. To me, withdrawal of support says it all. The man is evil.

Posted by: Owen Marshall at March 1, 2006 09:05 PM

Perhaps someone here can help me with this. I remember on September 11, 2001 we were wondering who was responsible for the attacks. I remember that no one came forth immediately and took responsibility for them, which was ... odd to say the least. I remember that we were told that it was most likely al Qaeda and that Osama bin Laden could have orchestrated it although there were a number of other possibilities.

I remember the chase for bin Laden for questioning and the attack on Iraq since it was believed that he was connected in some fashion.

Please take this next question as the sincere query that I mean it to be: when and how did we find out that bin Laden was definitively behind the attacks? I realize that it is possible that I missed it. I am not constantly watching the news and I do miss things.

Can anyone point me to a news article or something where we got the evidence, a confession, or something?

Thank you.

Posted by: Gracecat at March 1, 2006 09:17 PM

I'm one to stick by CNN and MSNBC constantly during devastating news. I remember the confusion at first and like you I remember hearing finally we believed Osama was responsible. But I can't recall how we got from point A to point B either.

I think during those days we were so overloaded with information, some of it just became assumed fact and we're not really sure how or why we "know" certain things.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 1, 2006 10:10 PM

I remember Bill Clinton being quoted that he knew it was Bin Laden as soon as the Towers were hit so I guess it was pretty well known in government circles that only Al Queda was likely capable of this kind of thing.

At any rate, a tape was captured in November of 2001 that had Bin Laden talking about the strike. Although an earlier tape by Bin laden denied responsibility, later tapes took credit.

It could be argued that Bin Laden had little to do with anything but the overall plan. How much of a tactical planner he is, as opposed to just being a money man/figurehead is open to debate. There may be better targets from a logical point of view--Zarquawi would almost certainly be a more desirable target to get in terms of saving lives--but there's no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.

Posted by: Yusuf at March 1, 2006 10:43 PM

To celebrate the arrival of Bush, Pakistani President Musharaff blasted 45 of his countrymen in an American style 'from the air' attack. Included in the dead were women and children, but the Pakistani spokesmen said they were all foreigners.
Now this doesn't make for Pakistani tourism...

Posted by: gmackster at March 1, 2006 11:10 PM

He may look, but he will never capture him. He promised the Bin Laden family that he would never harm Osama.

For great blog, check out "The Mack Attack" by clicking on blue "gmackster"

Posted by: Den at March 1, 2006 11:34 PM

BTW, did anyone check to see if the reporter who asked Bush about bin Laden was a gay prostitute?

Posted by: JamesLynch at March 2, 2006 12:55 AM

First, no one will *ever* capture Bin Laden alive. I read (and feel free to point to sources contradicting this) that he travels with both bodyguards and relatives who have orders to kill him rather than let him be captured. And unlike Saddam, Bin Laden is a true believer, someone who would martyr himself for his cause rather than hide in a hole and hope for the best.

Second, Bin Laden's plan was to use 9/11 to provoke a war/conflict between America and the Middle East to show how corrupt America is. And after we waged a war in Afghamistan that had the support of most of the public, we went into Iraq under false pretenses, practicing regime change and empire building for a cause (WMDs) that the President later admitted was wrong -- without apology. And if you think this went more Bush's way (they see how great we are) than Bin Laden's way (they see how evil we are), has anti-American sentiment gone up or down in the Middle East after Iraq? Why do you think we haven't found Bin Laden? For all the money and incentives we offer, he is a hero to the people there, the person who inflicted the most damage on America.

Third, I think Bush's stragegy will backfire for ome simple reason: time. If Bin Laden is killed, it would be a political and moral coup whether or not it was announced. But as time goes on, reporters can ask how Bush's pledge to find Bin Laden is going. And the longer there are no concrete results, the more it looks like Bush is promising something he can't deliver.

Posted by: Matt Butcher at March 2, 2006 01:18 AM

You're my choice for next president. What would PAD do?

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 2, 2006 03:00 AM

gmackster, I don't expect you to pay this the least attention, but in fact the bin Laden family would probably actually cheer if Osama were caught. He became such an embarrassment to the family during his mujaheddin days, they publically cast him out. What's more, he's attacked their best customers, and damaged the family's overseas assets. Unless the head of the family should suddenly renounce his wealth and become a Wahabbist, there is no way Osama will ever be welcomed back into the fold, or even acknowledged before strangers. To do so would involve a massive loss of honor for the bin Laden clan, after all, by the Middle Eastern codes of conduct...

Posted by: mike weber at March 2, 2006 05:47 AM

Posted by Joe Nazzaro at March 1, 2006 03:02 PM

Peter, wake me up when they finally catch him. Otherwise it's all just the same balloon juice we've been hearing since September 12th, 2001, and frankly, I'm not even sure the American people believe it any more.

"Any more"? Excuse me?

Posted by Peter David at March 1, 2006 04:54 PM

"I sincerely hope that bin Laden isn't captured during Bush's watch. It will only give more fuel to the Republicans for the next election."

That's true enough. On the other hand, if the Magic Terrorist Fairy showed up and said that I had the choice of bin Laden being captured under Bush's watch or not at all, I'd opt for the former.

Hear hear.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 2, 2006 06:46 AM

Be careful how loudly you say "Magic Terrorist Fairy." That one phrase combines the three top things that scare the uber right-wingers the most...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Gracecat at March 2, 2006 07:04 AM

Doh... I forgot about the video.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 2, 2006 08:04 AM

>but there's no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.

But in whose favour? Ours because we got him? Or theirs because he's now an official martyr to the cause?

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 2, 2006 08:11 AM

Posted by Rex Hondo at March 2, 2006 06:46 AM
Be careful how loudly you say "Magic Terrorist Fairy." That one phrase combines the three top things that scare the uber right-wingers the most...

*********************

I'm not uber-right wing nor anti-gay, and yet that concept creeped me out nevertheless -- albeit for different reasons. I mean, I know what PAD meant. But when I read that I nevertheless thought, "Aw, crap, is Tinkerbell working for Al Qaeda?"

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 2, 2006 08:24 AM

Posted by The StarWolf at March 2, 2006 08:04 AM
>but there's no doubt that the psychological value of a dead Bin Laden is hard to beat.

But in whose favour? Ours because we got him? Or theirs because he's now an official martyr to the cause?

*******************

It's certainly a debatable point. On the one hand, bin Laden's death could certainly be a rallying cry for the rank-and-file of Al Qaeda and its sympathizers. On the other hand, there's been a significant effort to hide and protect bin Laden. Killing him would send the message that not one of Al Qaeda's top leaders is safe.

I think the debate is of limited value, though. Bin Laden is evil, a murderer, an enemy of the U.S., and, for that matter, of the entire civilized world. We need to capture or kill him. It's that simple. Doing so won't end the war on terror but it will bring a monster to justice.

Oh, and JamesLynch, regarding bin Laden's status as a "true believer," remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves. I think bin Laden's "true belief" includes a double-standard or two.

Posted by: Alan Coil at March 2, 2006 09:15 AM

Bill Myers said:

"... regarding bin Laden's status as a "true believer," remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves."

That they are. And so are Bush and his ringreaders.
Cowards one and all.

Posted by: Howard at March 2, 2006 09:38 AM

Bill Meyers said:
"... regarding bin Laden's status as a "true believer," remember, he and his fellow Al Qaeda ringleaders are sending grunts on the suicide attacks while they go to great lengths to protect themselves."
To which Alan Coil responded:
That they are. And so are Bush and his ringreaders.
Cowards one and all.
--------------------------

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.

Actually, though, I like the picture it makes. Let's let the soldiers from all the countries sit at home, while the leaders do battle with each other instead. Just our guy vs. their guy in a steel cage match. Would certainly change the way we elect our representatives, I think.

Posted by: Alan Coil at March 2, 2006 09:40 AM

And now Bush wants to give US nuclear technology to India.

We want to go to war with Iran because they want nuclear technology, yet we are going to give it to India.

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 09:45 AM

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.

Posted by: JamesLynch at March 2, 2006 10:13 AM

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.

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 10:13 AM

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.

Posted by: tony dreamer at March 2, 2006 10:58 AM

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?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 11:42 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Coil at March 2, 2006 11:48 AM

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?

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 12:05 PM

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.

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 12:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 12:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 2, 2006 12:39 PM

I'm definitely a proponent of better relations with India - I don't want Dell to take my computer away! :-)

Posted by: Peter David at March 2, 2006 12:42 PM

"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 pussies. Not leaders and he-men like Bush.

PAD


Posted by: Bill Myers at March 2, 2006 01:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Bobb at March 2, 2006 01:23 PM

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.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 2, 2006 01:39 PM

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?

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 02:15 PM

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?

Posted by: Howard at March 2, 2006 02:27 PM

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 damn 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 damn 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 hell 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: Bill Myers at March 2, 2006 02:30 PM

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.

Posted by: GammaSpidey at March 2, 2006 02:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Howard at March 2, 2006 02:44 PM

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... :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 2, 2006 03:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Howard at March 2, 2006 03:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Den at March 2, 2006 04:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 04:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Howard at March 2, 2006 04:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 2, 2006 04:55 PM

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."

Posted by: Peter David at March 2, 2006 05:04 PM

"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

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 2, 2006 06:14 PM

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

Posted by: Jerry C at March 2, 2006 06:25 PM

"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?

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 2, 2006 06:27 PM

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

Posted by: Jerry C at March 2, 2006 06:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 2, 2006 06:34 PM

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

Posted by: Bladestar at March 2, 2006 07:16 PM

Yes, Bush has made progress in Iraq, civil war and an occupying foreign force are such an improvement...

Posted by: Jerry C at March 2, 2006 07:46 PM

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 asses 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 hell 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. Hell, 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.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 2, 2006 07:48 PM

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?

Hell, 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 hell 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.

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.

--------------

(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

------------------

Posted by: roger Tang at March 2, 2006 08:28 PM

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.

Posted by: roger Tang at March 2, 2006 08:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 08:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Micha at March 2, 2006 09:16 PM

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.

Posted by: DonBoy at March 2, 2006 09:38 PM

This is day-old news, but this thread got mentioned in Slate's "Today's Blogs" column.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 09:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 10:02 PM

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.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at March 2, 2006 10:09 PM

I think you meant would NOT have to be dealt with

I did. My typing isn't always as fast as my thinking.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 2, 2006 10:45 PM

I meant to write "nothing NEW here"...but oddly, the mistake kind of works.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 12:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 3, 2006 12:27 AM

For the record though, I'm sure SOMEBODY must have thought a breach was possible, maybe even likely.

Just not anybody in this Administration.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 08:56 AM

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: Bill Myers at March 3, 2006 08:58 AM

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!

Posted by: Bobb at March 3, 2006 09:10 AM

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.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 09:41 AM

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.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 3, 2006 09:43 AM

> 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 who trained him? Who provided him with military weaponry? OK, Not Shrub, but it did have something to do with some white-shaded building on some Avenue in Washington. The U.S. and their short-thinking politicos are often their own worst enemy. Not that this doesn't necessarily apply to other countries, mind you.

>Bush has some faults, but one thing that is true is he believes what he says,

So do Flat Earth Society members. Doesn't make them worthy of admiration or of having them lead us.

> North Korea would not have to be 'dealt with' if not for bush. They only started developing nukes after bush included them in his "axix of evil" speech.

Nonsense. Nuclear weapons development is not something you manage in just a few months. There has to be some sophisticated, specialized equipment in place. NK's announcement of having nukes came far too soon after for it to have been a direct cause-and-effect. They'd been at it for years. The thing being, once it was revealed, Shrub did nothing, ignoring a tangible threat, and concentrating instead on the fake boogeyman Saddam.

>There is no need to 'deal with' Iran at all because they are building a power plant, not a bomb factory.

And this is why they've given inspectors such a hard time. Right. Wanna buy a bridge?

> It's absurd to say Bush "has" 1300+ dead in New Orleans. Bush is not the Weather Wizard. He didn't create Hurricane Katrina.

No, he didn't. But he did embark on an agressive tax-cutting program. Right after the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report stating that the U.S. infrastructure (including among other things dams and levees) needed $1.6 TRILLION dollars over the next five years to bring them up to snuff (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103). You know, little things? Such as decaying, unsafe bridges, dams, etc? Way to go, Shrub.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 09:48 AM

Bobb, you make some good points, but I don't think the bin Laden comparison is a valid point. He made a useful ally against the because he's a radical muslim nationalist. He's now our enemy because he's a readical muslim nationalist. The agreement with India is not with some strongman, it's with a growing democracy. In fact, it's the world's largest. If Bush is serious about bringing democracy to the region, (and we know he isn't), then strengthening India should be at the top of his list.

No, they haven't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but they aren't likely to, regardless of what we do. This deal, however, does open up their commercial reactors to international inspectors in order to reduce the likelihood that the technology will be transfered into making weapons. And that's more than Bush has managed to do with either Iran or North Korea.

Is it possible that 20 years from now, they'll be under a dictatorship? Sure, but you could say that about nearly every other country. But if we want to keep that from happening, our best bet is to strengthen their growing middle class so that they have a strong electorate that will want to keep their country as a democracy. And I think this deal will help that.

You know, for all the talk we make about how the region is filled with hopeless dictatorships and insane theocracies, I find it hard to swallow that so many people are afraid of one of the few successful democracies.

Posted by: Bladestar at March 3, 2006 09:48 AM

"Again, why are people doing this? "

Because Osama's is limited to a few hundred, or a few thousand fanatical followers around the world, who are often under close scrutiny and need to hide their actions from US scrutiny.

Bush has the might of the US Armed Forces, Spying Industry, and the rest of government behind him, not to mention TONS of advisors and concerned citizens, but continues to throw away American lives and money. Osama did it once on 9/11, Bush keeps doing it every....single....day.

Posted by: Micha at March 3, 2006 11:03 AM

"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!"

Well said. Nowadays it seems to me as if everybody, right, left, European, American, Muslim, Christian, Jew, allow themselves to be caught up in their own rhetoric. It seems as if we are all living in seperate fictious worlds made of words. People use amotive words to get an emotional impact instead of talking about what is really going on and dealing with the issues in all their complexity. There are serious problems the world has to face that require serious multifaceted discussions.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at March 3, 2006 11:41 AM

And this is why they've given inspectors such a hard time.

No they haven't. The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media. Considering they all made this same, false accusation in the build-up to the Iraq invasion, I think you've already bought the bridge.

Posted by: Micha at March 3, 2006 12:23 PM

"Because Osama's is limited to a few hundred, or a few thousand fanatical followers around the world, who are often under close scrutiny and need to hide their actions from US scrutiny."

Al-Quida, or its islamist ideology is involved in any place in the world where there is discontent among muslims. That means most of the governments of Muslim countries, which are perceived as tyranical and too secular. This means the poor muslim minority in Western Europe. This means anywhere where there is conflict between Muslims and non-muslims: Iraq, Chechniya, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, the Philipines, Western China, Kosovo, Nigeria and Sudan. They are allied to many other Islamic parties and organizations around the world, which means almost anywhere where there are Muslims, and their tactic of choice is the deliberate targeting of civilian population.

Lets also set another thing straight. Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq. If he's guilty of something, it is that he removed what prevented such civil war -- the tyrannical Bathist regime.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 3, 2006 01:31 PM

>> And this is why they've given inspectors such a hard time.
>No they haven't. The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media.

Then you'd best include the Canadian corporate media, because it was in our Canadian-owned newspapers I read it. Not American ones.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 3, 2006 01:35 PM

Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq.

By removing Saddam from power, we have directly lead to the impending civil war in Iraq.

It doesn't matter what the situation was before because this is the situation NOW.

And the Baathist regime itself also had nothing to preventing a civil war.

Yes, the Baathists were Sunni, but these are two groups that have been at each others throats for hundreds of years (along with the Kurds), and the only reason Iraq itself exists is not because of choice, but because of force by Europe.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 3, 2006 01:38 PM

About the inspections, Here's Radio Free Europe link which has the President of Iran signing legislations allowing him to block such inspections.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/12/d7d42b7f-88c8-4d37-9bc9-621d62cda993.html

Or here, at the China Dailys. Or are they also part of the U.S. corporate media?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-11/21/content_496580.htm

Posted by: Gabh at March 3, 2006 01:42 PM

I was just remembering that bush was supposed to an isolationist president when he was elected, not interested in the rest of the world. Chance would be a fine thing.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 02:18 PM

Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq.

Let's think for a moment:

Saddam is left in power: No civil war.

Bush launches an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein's regime based on bogus intelligence and with virtually no planning on how to handle the reconstruction: Civil war.

Run that by me again how he didn't cause it.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 03:14 PM

Nowadays it seems to me as if everybody, right, left, European, American, Muslim, Christian, Jew, allow themselves to be caught up in their own rhetoric. It seems as if we are all living in seperate fictious worlds made of words. People use amotive words to get an emotional impact instead of talking about what is really going on and dealing with the issues in all their complexity. There are serious problems the world has to face that require serious multifaceted discussions.

True enough but I don't think this is anything new. I'm amused when people talk about how an election was the "most vicious ever" or some such thing. Check out a newspaper or magazine from previous times and see how ugly it got.

People have almost always used emotion over reason when arguing--it's easier, for one thing. It's just that now that we all have blogs and stuff so eacdh person gets more attention. But I don't think things have changed all that much. If anything I'd say the average person is better informed than they used to be--at least they certainly have a much easier time getting informed than they did back when only a few sources were available.

The only ones making this claim are bush, his administration & the U.S. corporate media.

And the Europeans, and the Asians, and...

Well, it just goes to show you, nobody ever truly stands alone. You'd think defenders of North Korea would be fairly hard to find.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 03:36 PM

Bill,

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that anyone who claims that Iran is giving the internation nuclear inspectors a hard time is a defender of North Korea?

As for people being more informed than before, wellllll, I'm not sure if blogs are really that helpful in making people more informed. A lot of political blogs that I see often recycle things that they read in other blogs, which came from yet other blogs. And very rarely is the original source of the argument revealed.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 3, 2006 03:38 PM

Posted by Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 03:14 PM

True enough but I don't think this is anything new. I'm amused when people talk about how an election was the "most vicious ever" or some such thing. Check out a newspaper or magazine from previous times and see how ugly it got.

****************************

Actually, I do recall a more civil time in politics. For all of his flaws, Ronald Reagan had a gift for working with congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats who violently disagreed with his ideology remarked about his civility and willingness to discuss issues with the goal of reaching a compromise.

And all is not lost. I'm neither conservative nor a Republican. And yet I agree with many things you've written here. And where I disagree, I find myself nevertheless impressed with your reasoning abilities. The concept of disagreeing with hating has not died yet. A spark is left, and I believe it can be fanned into flame once again.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 3, 2006 03:39 PM

Whoops, in my prior post I meant to say "the concept of disagreeing withOUT hating has not died yet."

Crap. Hope that wasn't a Freudian slip.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 3, 2006 03:57 PM

Bush did not cause the civil war in Iraq. If he's guilty of something, it is that he removed what prevented such civil war -- the tyrannical Bathist regime.

I tear down all the stop signs at a four-way-stop intersection. The resulting series of accidents kills fourteen people. Am I then guilty of fourteen counts of negligent manslaughter, or one count of vandalism? After all, I didn't really cause the accidents - I just removed what prevented them.

For all of his flaws, Ronald Reagan had a gift for working with congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. Even Democrats who violently disagreed with his ideology remarked about his civility and willingness to discuss issues with the goal of reaching a compromise.

And it must be admitted in fairness, the same was true of Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of his other flaws, it must be admitted that he did not demonize his opponents, and in fact worked civilly with them in order to reach compromises.

The problem is, in the neoconservative newspeak, where someone who adds Cabinet-level government departments and vastly increases spending can be called "conservative", "compromise" is regarded as a synonym for "surrender", and "the opposition" is synonymous with "the enemy". So long as Karl Rove and his ilk hold sway in this nation's various administrations, we will be held back from any return to civil discourse in government.

Posted by: Peter David at March 3, 2006 03:57 PM

I wouldn't say that Bush is worse than bin Laden.

However:

Osama bin Laden, an unelected power monger, sends people to their deaths fighting on his behalf.

Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people through his direction actions.

Osama bin Laden firmly believes that he has a direct line to God, that God is on his side, and that his battles should be pursued with a religious fervor.

Osama bin Laden was aware that he was going to launch an attack in the United States.

While the ice caps melt on either end of the planet, Osama bin Laden is doing nothing about global warming.

Osama bin Laden believes rules of law don't apply to him.

Osama bin Laden's followers believe the Geneva Convention is irrelevant to their activities.

No...Bush isn't worse than bin Laden. There's many differences. For instance, y'know...there's the beard. Oh...and another big difference. Bush was elected.

Kinda.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 04:05 PM

Bill Myers--Well, thank you. Reagan was an unusual guy but I remember a considerable amount of hatred sent his way. I was in college when he was shot and more than a few leftists there were not only openly expressing the hope that he would die they even wrote letters to the newspaper defending this position. It still amazes me to this day. But you are correct, the Democrats in congress at the time were nowhere near that crazed and partisan.

Of course, any Democrat who acted that way now would be treated as a traitor by the DailyKos crowd, just as many rabid conservatives criticized Bob Dole for supposedly being too respectful of Bill Clinton. I think those people are probably way outnumbered by people like me and you, despite the impressive volume of sound they make.

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that anyone who claims that Iran is giving the internation nuclear inspectors a hard time is a defender of North Korea?

No, I was only referring to Michael. But I was the one who got things confused--the inspectors bit referred to Iran, didn't it? My mistake, thanks for the heads up.

I think Michael has taken the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" too far. The Iranian and North Korean regimes are two of the worst on Earth, by any rational standard, and their nuclear ambitions (and the incredible danger they pose) and awfully hard to deny without resorting to some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Micha at March 3, 2006 04:06 PM

Here is a link to an interesting essay: What's in a Word? The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and the World of Words.

I think this is relevant.

I am not trying to say Bush does not bear responsibility for what is happening in Iraq. I just think some other people are also responsible as well, such as the Iraqi suicide bombers.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at March 3, 2006 04:22 PM

Thanks for the link to the Slate article, DonBoy! Up-front spotlighting of PAD's prognosticating skills - cool.

Posted by: Micha at March 3, 2006 04:29 PM

Here is the link to the essay:

What's in a Word? The Israel-Palestinian Conflict and the World of Words.
http://www.mideastweb.org/wordhistory.htm

The tension between rational discussion and emotion has been part of democracy throughout its history. There was always a fair share of briliant discussion and sneaky manipulation and propaganda.

Posted by: Den at March 3, 2006 04:49 PM

Okay, Bill, that makes more sense.

I don't think you can put all of the blame on the current level of political acrimony on either the Congressional Democrats or Karl Rove/the Administration. Both sides have had about equal number of hysterical rhetoric and gross distortions of the facts. The difference between the two is that the Republicans -at least until recently- have had the upper hand in public relations. That tide appears to be turning. But for the past five years, supporters of the administration have generally replied to any criticism with words along the lines of "We won the election, so sit down and shut up." While the Democrats continue to cry and whine about every little slight.

It is, however, ironic that a president who promised as a candidate to be "uniter, not a divider" has presided over one of the worst periods partisan division in my memory. Things got heated during the Clinton administration. Impechment will do that. Plus, the GOP seethed over the fact that they won control of Congress in part by promising to reform welfare and shrink the federal government, and Clinton turned around and made both of those issues his own.

There will always be idiots who will cheer when some misfortune befalls someone on the other side. I remember when there was a rash nutjobs running up to the White House and firing a shot at the gates and some of the taking heads class said that this whackos should be found no guilty by reason of defending America from Clinton.

The next president is going to have a tough row to hoe. He/she is going to have to mend a lot of fences in order to get anything done.

Ironically, Bush and Cheney's view of a "unitary executive" will likely result in a great deal of curbing of presidential power. Future Congresses are going to be less likely to issue blanket authorizations to use force if they think the president is going to use them to justify ignoring any law the administration deems as inconvenient.

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 3, 2006 04:56 PM

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 3, 2006 03:57 PM
And it must be admitted in fairness, the same was true of Bill Clinton. Whatever you think of his other flaws, it must be admitted that he did not demonize his opponents, and in fact worked civilly with them in order to reach compromises.

*********************

You are absolutely correct. The only reason I cited Reagan as an example was to avoid the perception that I was being partisan. Y'know, since I said I thought Bush should be run out of town on a rail and all.

I think Clinton and Reagan shared similar gifts in the realm of communication.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at March 3, 2006 07:42 PM

Radio Free Europe article

Yes, it says he could block inspections, and that he threatened to do so, but it doesn't say that he has done so.

China Daily article

Has lawmakers pushing for blocked inspections, but still the equilivent of a bill, not a law.

------------

I think Michael has taken the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" too far. The Iranian and North Korean regimes are two of the worst on Earth, by any rational standard, and their nuclear ambitions (and the incredible danger they pose) and awfully hard to deny without resorting to some pretty outlandish conspiracy theories.

I agree these regimes are bad, & I certainly don't consider them friends, but why should it be up to the U.S. to change them? Haven't we learned anything from the clusterfuck in Iraq that our "leaders" are looking to implement more regime change?

And, considering how an honest word rarely, if ever, issues forth from the bush administration, is it so surprising that many, myself included, won't believe them unless they provide hard evidence? Especially since they're repeating some of the very same things they said about Saddam & Iraq that have long since proven to be false.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 3, 2006 08:33 PM

Yeah but Michael, what evidence would convince you? Tel Aviv turned into a thermic mist? I doubt that the Israelis will oblige and any action they are likely to take could lead to yet another full scale war, potentially one that will dwarf all the causalities in Iraq.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at March 3, 2006 09:36 PM

No Bill, nothing that drastic. I'd just like someone who's not tied to, or a supporter of bush, who can provide some sort of real evidence that Iran is building nuke bombs.

Besides, even if they did build them, it's unlikely they'd use them. Both the U.S. & Israel, which would be the most likely Iranian targets, have enough nukes of their own to destroy Iran dozens of times over. MAD - mutually assured destruction - would probably be enough to keep them from being used.

And I doubt that even North Korean President Kim Il-sung is insane enough to use them.

Posted by: Micha at March 4, 2006 06:23 AM

It is reasonable to assume that if Iran has the technology to build nuclear bombs, it will do so.

This is bad for three reasons:
1) Are they crazy enough to use them? We would like to think not, but how sure can we be?

2) Even if they are not going to use them themselves, there is the risk that the bombs will be given to terrorists who are more likely to use them. We have already seen that terrorists are less hesitant in this department. If a bomb explodes in an American city (Israel too close to Palestinians), and the Iranian government, or any other government, denies being involved, what can the US do?

3)Even if Iran does not use its weapons, the threat of using them can reduce the world's ability to pressure Iran not to do other things, such as terrorism, conventional war, selling of weapons, or opressing its people. This is the most likely reason.

However, there is realy no way to prevent the Iranians from building these weapons. Neither Israel or the US has a military option. Deplomacy doesn't seem to work. The only option is maybe sabotage using spies. Not very likely. So we should all get used to a cold war in Iran. We got used to nukes in N. Korea, India and Pakistan.

Question 2: Does the US. or anybody else have a right to interfere against an oppressive regime?
Here is the problem.
1. If you just have business as usual with such a regime you wil be accused of pretty much supporting it. The US was accused for supporting Israel and undemocratic Arab regimes.

2. Diplomatic pressure and international opinion doesn't carry much weight.

3. Cutting deplomatic relations seems to only push countries to be more extreme. The US eventually had no choice but to talk with China.

4. Sanctions helped remove apartheid in South Africa, which is considered a good thing. But in Iraq sanctions harmed the Iraqis but not Saddam.

Furthermore, when does another country should interfere? When the regime in question is oppressive (South Afrika?)? when it is deporting civilian population (Kosovo)? Slaughtering civilian populatio (Rowanda)? To protect its allies (Kuwait)? To protect its interests (Oil)? Because the regime supports its enemies (Afganistan)?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 4, 2006 10:45 AM

For anyone still following the Katrina video flap, here's the AP saying the same thing I did. They just waited until Friday night to do it.

Clarification : Katrina -Video story

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President George W. Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina
struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 4, 2006 11:05 AM

We got used to nukes in N. Korea

Except, nobody really knows for sure whether N Korea actually has nukes.

Sure, there's a lot of strutting on their part and they say that they have nukes, but it seems that we (the US government) just doesn't know for certain at this point.

Posted by: Den at March 5, 2006 10:06 AM

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.

Posted by: Billy Suratt at March 5, 2006 10:08 PM

NOW we know where Mandy went; she switched parties and went to work as the Bush administration's senior adviser for blog-based policy initiatives!

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 10:20 PM

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.

Perhaps. There is a major difference between the damage that would be caused by a topping and that caused by a breach. But that may depend on what the meaning of the word is is...so your point stands. :)

Posted by: Bill Myers at March 5, 2006 11:23 PM

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 5, 2006 10:20 PM
I'm sorry, but that sounds like a very Clintonian argument.

Perhaps. There is a major difference between the damage that would be caused by a topping and that caused by a breach. But that may depend on what the meaning of the word is is...so your point stands. :)

************************

Say what you will about Clinton, his morals and his penchant for arguments that rely on minutae in order to dodge the big issues... but I honestly believe he'd have done a better job than George W. Bush at overseeing the federal response to Katrina. Bill, I know you're not fond of such hypotheticals, but I have to say it: I believe Clinton was a smarter and more competent president.

Clinton's biggest sin was his inability to control his sexual appetites. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has irresponsibly gotten us involved in an intractable situation in Iraq that's hampering our ability to handle other emerging foreign policy crises, run up the deficit, and has been an ineffective leader during one of the most trying times in our history.

I'll admit to being left-leaning, which is why I get so annoyed by what I consider to be demonization of Clinton. Although I freely admit he certainly had substantial flaws. As George Stephanopolous once said, he was a good president who kept himself from being great.

Of course, as I've said before, I also think in hindsight that George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both of whom I reviled while they were in office, were infinitely better presidents than Dubya. I'd be thrilled if we could put Clinton, the elder Bush or Reagan in Dubya's place.

(And yes, I know Reagan's dead. Can you blame me for fantasizing, though?)

Frankly, though, for a good long time, I've really wanted to see a monkey in office. I love monkeys. I think they're funny, especially when they're wearing suits and sticking their tongues out at people.

And before anyone makes a remark like, "We do have a monkey in office right now," or, "Having Clinton in office was like having a monkey as president," I would ask you to please not disparage monkeys in that way.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 6, 2006 12:04 AM

I agree, Clinton would have done a better job with Katrina. Just as many people would have died, more or less, but I think he would have handled the aftermath better.

You must love the ads with the guy who works in the office full of monkeys. I spend all day with 9th greders so I fail to see the humor. In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.

Posted by: Den at March 6, 2006 12:17 AM

As a state worker, I deeply sympathize with the guy working the office full of chimps.

Actually, I have about three or four people on my team that I'd gladly trade in for chimps.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 6, 2006 02:10 AM

I don't know if people in other parts of the country get to see it, but my favorite commercial on TV right now is Comcast's "Monkey with a Sledgehammer" commercial. It has all of the appeal of the Trunk Monkey, but is a REAL commercial. :P

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at March 6, 2006 02:57 AM

I spend all day with 9th greders so I fail to see the humor. In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.

You duck fast, huh?

Posted by: Rex Hondo at March 6, 2006 03:39 AM

In fairness, I have yet to be hit by feces. So far.

Parent/Teacher conferences can't be that bad, can they? ;)

-Rex Hondo-