Politics: J'accuse!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Letterman had a clip from a speech Bush gave in Orlando recently. In it, you see Bush droning on and on, while behind him a small boy is seen fidgeting, looking at his watch, yawning, and eventually falling asleep. (The boy was 12, and according to his father, up late.) It was a funny bit. So funny that CNN ran the clip in its entirety, but added that the White House had told them that the clip was made with the "editing magic" so often used by Letterman. Later, another CNN anchor ran the clip, but said the White House had told them that the kid was at the speech, but not on the stage or right behind Bush where the Letterman clip showed him. Letterman was annoyed, and claimed that both White House statements were 100% flat out lies. Then a representative from CNN calls Letterman's producers and claims that no, no, the White House didn't tell them any of those things, they were wrong. Letterman feels bad for accusing the White House, but insists the tape is accurate. Now Letterman's producers have discovered that yes, the White House, or someone acting at their behest did in fact contact CNN. And CNN again "misspoke" when they said they hadn't been contacted.

After some rather embarassing missteps, everything is now hunky-dory with the Sleeping Boy Fiasco*. Hell, the WH press office is controlling access to the boy, and they're just tickled that he's going to appear on Letterman tonight.

I'm curious to see how the interview will go. Think the kid will be prepped?

For his part, Dave smells something rotten:

"This whole thing just smells. Doesn't it smell a little bit?" Letterman asked his audience last night. "I mean, it just seems all just a little too tidy, just a little too neat. And now, the guy, the kid in Florida -- and his old man -- was really upset in the beginning. . . . Well, now everybody down there loves it. Everybody couldn't be happier; everybody thought it was hilarious. So you see, it's just a little too tidy. Stuff like this never ends happily, certainly not happily for me. I was waiting for the lawsuit, I was waiting to be arrested, I was waiting to be beaten to a pulp, and now, oh . . . we couldn't be happier."

Gattigap

*Which is a good thing, because I hear that until about 24 hours ago, when they realized that the kid is the son of a BSD supporter, WH officials were mentioning to Wolf Blitzer that there were "some weird elements in this boy's life."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So all we need for him to do now is to fuck an intern to become Bill Clinton.

Of course, there's the theory that Bush invaded Iraq because he couldn't get laid.


But I don't espouse that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
1) These numbers are for the '04 budget proposal, and I think we all know that the proposed expenditures have been well below the actual expenditure numbers for each of the last three years when the dust settles. As we see in Congress, the highway bill has already been increased by 10% above W's hold-the-line budget number. It'll be innerestin' to see how that turns out.

2) I think you are ignoring my point about gross vs. net deficits. Gross deficits take into account all the money that is borrowed to balance our national checkbook, including money borrowed from SS and other trust funds. Net deficits focus on the debt that is held in non-government hands. Like presidential advisors in a background briefing, Mr. Barry is using the net deficit numbers because that look the best for the WH's position. No harm there, I'm just trying to show you what that analysis leaves out.

In light of that gross vs. net deficit distinction, I'd be interested to hear why you think that chart I posted supports your position, that the current deficits are in line with pre-'80 deficits.

edited to clarify what was below what when the dust settled

#1 - Agreed, but even if you juice the '04 numbers by 10%, they are still in line with historicals.

#2 - On 2, I'm looking at the gross percentages, and while there is no historical average given, it looks to be somewhere in the middle. Am I wrong?

[sgtclub]

After three years of punishing job losses, the one month job creation announced today is welcome news for America's workers. I hope it continues. But for too many families, living through the worst job recovery since the Great Depression has been, and continues to be, far too painful. With nearly 2.6 million private sector jobs lost during the Bush presidency, America's families need and deserve a new economic strategy. In every single month of this Administration, we haven't seen the creation of a single manufacturing job in America. That's why I've proposed a strategy that that revitalizes our manufacturing sector and puts us on track to create 10 million new jobs in the next four years.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._xml&printer=1

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Of course, there's the theory that Bush invaded Iraq because he couldn't get laid.

But I don't espouse that.

Sorry, man, you've been outvoted. You'll be receiving your handpainted "No Blood for Punane" banner by bike messenger as soon as we get the feedback from the pollsters. We would have gotten the poll results sooner, but Pablo's e-mail was down.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
#1 - Agreed, but even if you juice the '04 numbers by 10%, they are still in line with historicals.

The point isn't the 10% number. That's just one bill. The point is that this is the first high-profile spending bill to come before congress since the SOTU where GWB smirked at the camera and told Congress that they needed to join him and hold the line on spending. They've already exceeded his max number on this one.

If they pass it at this amount and he uses a veto I will join you in applauding the fiscal responsibility of such a move, but W has not used a single veto to curb spending yet during his presidency. That's why discretionary spending has skyrocketed.

#2 - On 2, I'm looking at the gross percentages, and while there is no historical average given, it looks to be somewhere in the middle. Am I wrong?

I think so. To recap, I was supporting SAM's point that these deficits are reminiscent of those during the Reagan/Bush 41 years, not before.

Scrolling down that cite to the "RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS(-): 1940-2009 (percentage of GDP)" table, it shows the '03 gross deficit number at 5.2%. During the Reagan/Bush 41 years the gross deficit ranged from 2.8% to 6.9%, which I would agree is "in line" with the '03 number. Between '46 and '80, however, no single year's deficit reached the '03 level, and in fact there was only one year (1976) where the gross deficit was greater than 4% of GDP. In the context of an $11 trillion economy, that is quite a significant difference (5.2% versus less than 4%).

In other words, I think I agree with you that this deficit is in line with historical levels in the same way you would agree with me saying that Clinton's funding of the National Endowment for the Arts [or insert other liberal pet program here] was in line with historical precedent because Carter had funded it at the same level.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._xml&printer=1

I'm missing you. Why is this Al Gore? Besides your general distaste for both men, that is. You know as well as I do that one month's numbers don't vindicate the whole Bush economic plan, just like last month's numbers didn't make it a failure.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Bush invaded Iraq because he couldn't get laid.

I said Bill Clinton, not Hillary.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
After some rather embarassing missteps, everything is now hunky-dory with the Sleeping Boy Fiasco*.

It's funny, I think the Bush/GOP attack machine is too wound up, or maybe the hair trigger should be loosened or something.

I continue to feel that the Clarke testimony would not have caused more than a day's ripple if the WH hadn't swung into character assassination mode right away. Similarly here I cannot imagine that anyone would have even remembered this film clip the next day if the WH hadn't put the hammer down on CNN to discredit the Letterman packaging.

I'd love it if Letterman suddenly went the way of Stern and became an anti-Bush propaganda machine. Unlikely, but fun to think about. Presumably Leno would lean in the other direction to pick up Dave's GOP viewership and suddenly I'd have even more reasons to hate Leno. eeeexcellent...

the son of a BSD supporter

I had never seen BSD used with the term supporter before. I feel like Beavis as I snicker over here.

[Not Me]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02650456.htm

• 02 Apr 2004 17:08:28 GMT
  Explosives Found on Spanish Train Line
  
  MADRID, April 2 (Reuters) - Spain will bring in the army to guard key rail lines after discovery of a bomb on a high-speed line that almost certainly contained the same type of dynamite used in Madrid bombings, the Interior Ministry said on Friday.
  
  The bomb, found near the central city of Toledo, was found three weeks after suspected al Qaeda bombings of four packed commuter trains in Madrid killed 191 people.
  
  The bomb, made of 12 kgs (26 pounds) of dynamite and packed in a sports bag, was defused safely. Authorities did not say who was suspected of putting it there.
  
  Investigators believe the bombers wanted to blow up the track and derail a train, but either the bomb was not connected properly or the attempt was aborted because they were interrupted, Interior Ministry sources said.
  
  Interior Minister Angel Acebes said police were checking the Madrid-Seville high-speed train line where the bomb was found kilometre by kilometre to ensure it was safe.
  
  When this had been done, the authorities would set up a "permanent system of vigilance on that line, and on the most sensitive lines," he told a news conference.
  
  The operation would involve the armed forces, police and rail guards, backed by 45 helicopters, police dog units and army all-terrain vehicles, including armoured vehicles, he said.
  
  The new measures mark an escalation of the security put in place for the March 14 general elections.
  
  Acebes said the dynamite in the bomb appeared to be of the same type used in the March 11 bombings.
  
  Interior Ministry sources said authorities were 90 percent certain the dynamite was the same, but this would not be known for certain until later. In any case, they cautioned, it is a very common type of dynamite, widely used in mining.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tim Dunlop has a good post answering Clarke's critics:

If you want a fairly complete compendium of the criticisms being levelled at Richard Clarke, then Bargarz has a post that collects many of them. I'm not going to go through it in detail, but I did want to respond to one comment that highlights, I think, the way in which an attempt to be balanced serves to hide the facts. I mention it because it indicates that some might have the wrong idea of what the book does and does not say. Bargarz writes:

• No-one is discounting that pre-9/11 Administrations on both sides of politics failed to come to grips with the reality of Islamist terrorism. 9-11 itself is the biggest counter to such a position and 9-11 is why everything changed and the failed old policies went out the window. Clarke and his supporters are playing a very partisan game in trying to slide responsibility for years of failure to one person - namely Bush.

This is wrong in just about every sense. For a start, someone is discounting the idea that Administrations on both sides failed to come to grips with the reality of Islamist terrorism: Clarke. That is precisely what he does. He is convinced that the Clintons had come to grips with the threat, that they had adjusted their thinking, and had made solid progress in dealing with it. The foiling of the Millennium plot is the classic example. That doesn't mean Clarke's not critical of their performance, but it is absolutely central to his case that there was a quantum leap in the thinking by the Clinton administration that wasn't matched by those in the new Bush administration. Clarke summed up the difference in attitudes in his 9/11 Commission testimony: for the Clintons, Islamic terrorism was the most important issue, the top priority. For the Bush administration it was important but not urgent, a fact acknowledged by Bush himself to reporter Bob Woodward.

Further, Clarke's other very strong point is that everything didn't change in the Bush administration after 9/11. Sure, they were finally forced to confront the notion of global terrorism, but they still didn't really get it, and for Clarke, nothing underlined their failure to comprehend the problem more than their immediate and relentless pursuit of Saddam Hussein. The war against Iraq was an abdication of their responsibility to fight the war on terrorism as far as he was concerned. It was not just a distraction, it drained resources from the attack on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, what's worse, it gave al Qaeda exactly what they wanted:

• We invaded and occupied an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us, while paying scant time and attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. We delivered to al Qaeda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable and made it difficult for friendly Islamic governments to be seen working closely with us.

As for playing "a very partisan game", well, I think that is in the eye beholder. Any criticism of a particular administration is going to look partisan, especially to supporters of that administration, but I'm convinced that if the Bush administration had been a Democrat administration, Clarke would have written the same book. I have no way to prove this, but you can't read the book and think he is anything other than a fanatical, one-eyed proponent of stopping al Qaeda and fundamentalist terrorism in general. The guy is a career public servant who served administrations of both persuasions and the record suggests he did so with distinction, a record that includes the handwritten note of thanks he received from George W. Bush on his retirement. To dismiss his criticisms as merely partisan is, well, partisan, not to mention lame, unless you can show that what he says is wrong in fact and motivated by political support for the Democrats. Until people can do that conclusively, they should drop the charge of partisanship.

Finally, does he try and slide responsibility for years of failure to one person - namely Bush? Again, the answer is no. The people he blames are those inside the administration, including the neo-conservative cabal, who failed to grasp what they were up against. He is particularly critical of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, and in that order. His criticism is that they were still operating within a state-based, Cold War-influenced mindset and had utterly failed to internalise that the game had changed. He blames these people for feeding Bush unbalanced information and for downplaying to him the threat of independent operators like al Qaeda. He blames them for the invasion of Iraq. Certainly he is critical of Bush for allowing all this to happen, for his "bumper-sticker" approach to policy, but his real ire is reserved for those others, especially Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The key points are that Clarke was right about al Qaeda and the Bushies were wrong. His claim that they didn't place high enough priority on fundamentalist terrorism is not in dispute; in fact, it is verified by Bush himself. No-one has come forward with any proof that the substantial facts in his book and his testimony are wrong. You can argue with his assessment of the efficacy of the Iraq war, but given his track record on everything else to do with terrorism, we would do well to take his comments seriously. His arguments when in government didn't stop the invasion of Iraq, but his book might just get people to think twice about any future misadventures. Well, that is, if they read the book.

(internal links omitted)

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So Bush is a liar AND a thief?

So all we need for him to do now is to fuck an intern to become Bill Clinton.

Or he could sell arms to a rogue terrorist nation and use the procedes to fund facist paramilitary organizations in third world countries in direct contravention not only of general laws, but also specific acts of Congress prohibiting the action directly, and then he'd be Reagan.

Of course, he's much more likely to be doing the later. Who'd screw W?

(And of course, if he is doing the later, I'm sure the will be a clamor among Republicans to name everything that isn't already named for Reagan after Bush, rather than trying him for treason like they should, just like Reagan.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Explosives Found on Spanish Train Line

If your re: line was accurate, then the first bombing would have been in France, Germany, or Russia, not in Spain, wouldn't it?

Or maybe the bombers care less about who is president than whether Spanish troops are still in Iraq?

Or, maybe, Spanish voters suddenly realized on March 11 that not one, but both pillars of the "reasons to go to war" (the first being because of all that conclusive evidence of WMD, and the second being because the war would make all of us safer from terrorism) was wrong.

Or maybe you're right, and invading Iraq has made us all safer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If your re: line was accurate, then the first bombing would have been in France, Germany, or Russia, not in Spain, wouldn't it?

Or maybe the bombers care less about who is president than whether Spanish troops are still in Iraq?

Or, maybe, Spanish voters suddenly realized on March 11 that not one, but both pillars of the "reasons to go to war" (the first being because of all that conclusive evidence of WMD, and the second being because the war would make all of us safer from terrorism) was wrong.

Or maybe you're right, and invading Iraq has made us all safer.

My thought was that Not Me can't be a litigator, or else she wouldn't have used the words "proof" and "caused" in the title of a proof containing neither.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or maybe you're right, and invading Iraq has made us all safer.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan will make us all safer in the long run if we can establish stable governments in those countries that are accountable to the people.

As for the short run, invading both, in combination with stepped up domestic anti-terrorism surveillance, has seemed to make Americans safer in the short term given the lack of any terrorist attacks in the US. As for the Europeans, well, the US government has a limited ability to make them safer because they are sovereign countries. All we can do is pass on our intelligence and offer to help.