The Political Chase

Milbank and Pincus on Bush’s Speech

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus at the WP discredit several significant points in the speech (psychobabble) the president delivered yesterday. Milbank and Pincus employ fact based arguments rather than assertions, the president’s tool of choice.

What a novel idea – truthful statements.

Pat Robertson - Turn the Channel

As I noted previously I would be away for a few days, therefore I am behind. Due to sheer volume, I can’t opine on several things I would like to but I’ll touch on this one briefly.

Take foot and insert into mouth. Pat Robertson’s recent statements about Dover are quintessential ignorance and enmity.

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God — you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show, “The 700 Club.”

Dr. Robertson should return to first semester seminary, or better still, Sunday School for nine-year olds. His statements are so theologically inaccurate and derived from personal passion it is clear Robertson has reached the point of acedia. Any theologian will tell you acedia is the greatest sin of a priest/pastor/preacher/rabbi.

Turn the channel.

Delirious in Tobyhanna

More on the Bullshitter-in-Chief’s speech.

It is way past time for the 2.0 GPA Yale graduate impersonating a real president, to recognize he can no longer bullshit his way out of the multiple catastrophes he is personally accountable and responsible for creating.

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

It is time to rewrite history Mr. President, because history as written today is inaccurate. You and your lieutenants wrote history as you wanted to see it, not history based upon facts. 

"Some Democrats and antiwar [sic] critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," he said. "These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

Ah, I hate to be the one to bring this up and rain on your parade, but have a look around. It is not just the Democrats. Your leadership rises to the level of mediocrity at best, creating dissension in your own party, which you as president are by default the anointed leader. As to your statement,"these critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments," I beg to differ. You haven’t a clue what I know, much less the activity within my cerebrum. I can assure you many of us are clueless of any activity within your own.  Furthermore, I nor anyone else has a requirement or desire for you to put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself, if you can possibly discern between that and your puppeteer, Dick Cheney.   

"They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction."

To quote the man you wish to aspire to, but it is a distant star, "There you go again."  Your own intelligence community cannot provide accurate intelligence on domestic or international matters.  And, you have the chutzpah to profess, yet again, what I know.  Stop trying to focus on what others know and reflect upon what you know or more accurately stated, what you do not know. 

The United Nations passed resolutions relying in part on the credibility of information provided by the United States of America and specifically the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President. Once upon a time - it almost reads like a fairy tale now, credibility was a default when America spoke through its leadership. We no longer have credibility. Pardon the cliche, but you and your administration shot it to hell in a hand basket. Not only have you damaged the credibility of this great country and the majority of the people that reside in and represent it, you have disgraced the Oval Office and in the wake of destruction it will take decades to repair what you have destroyed in less than five years.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said it was "regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush than he ever did about Saddam Hussein."

It sounds like things are a little heated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and moreover, that must have been a Karl Rove previously prepared statement. Negativity and slime ball tactics are the trademark of you and your administration - try putting into action the Christianity you profess and wear on your sleeve. Taking the high ground is obviously a foreign experience for you. Mr. President the real point is, if the shoe fits wear it.

"If America were to follow Senator Kennedy’s foreign policy," Mr. McClellan said, "Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, he would be oppressing and occupying Kuwait."

Is it possible, for just once, that you provide references, documentation, and quantifiable justification for your outlandish accusations? But, let’s assume for a moment that your statement is valid, which it is not, Hussein may still be in power, and the people of Kuwait oppressed and occupied (highly unlikely).  If Senator Kennedy’s foreign policy was in place, we would not have more than two thousand honorable soldiers dead, thousands of soldiers wounded with life-long disabilities and facing cuts from the Veterans Administration you have put in place, and finally we would be respected on the world stage instead of burned in effigy and substantial protests when our duly elected leaders visit countries like Argentina. You see, Mr. President, it is easy to provide criticism based upon fact and evidence, none of which you have today or utilized historically.

Beyond taking on the Democrats over prewar intelligence, Mr. Bush used Friday’s speech to make a case that despite the violent insurgency, Iraq is making steady progress that is creating the foundations of a stable democracy.

Provide the proof of your statement or remove it from your speeches - Americans will no longer tolerate sound bites and rhetoric that are unfounded.  Pray tell, what progress has been made and whose definition of progress is being employed? I suppose blowing up hotels and scores of people innocently dying is progress. Not.

"By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq had made incredible political progress - from tyranny to liberation to national elections to the ratification of a constitution - in the space of two and a half years," he said, speaking to a friendly audience of veterans, military personnel and their families under a banner reading "Strategy for Victory."

You have got to be kidding me. From tyranny to liberation?  You’ve hung your mission accomplished banner out again, except this time it is full of holes.  National elections to ratification of a constitution - well let’s bring out the party hats. We’ve all seen the by-products of that landmark accomplishment - the death toll rises, IEDs are refined to the point of professionally manufactured grade and each day no less than 3 to 4 troop casualties. Hello, Vietnam - the average killed per day in Vietnam is now less than or equal to the average killed in Iraq today.

Regarding your "Strategy for Victory," how about emailing me a copy. Or is it that the Trappist Monks with their fountain pens have not yet completed transcribing your musings with Mr. Cheney? I know - it’s classified (or under investigation) and you can’t talk about it. Your pension for classified material and refusal to release it is getting a bit tiresome and repeated ad nauseum for literally everything. I suppose the White House toilet paper has a classified stamp on it.

At the same time, he said, Iraqi troops are showing increased ability to battle the insurgency.

There you go again. What’s the metric on successful troop transition per day? Three or did I state that a bit too high?

Georgie boy, my response to your harsh rhetoric is harsh, abrasive and down right disrespectful.  But, as Cheney has said so frequently, Washington is hardball, so there you are; let’s play hardball.  And to respect, you have to earn it first and you have a way to go to reach that threshold.

Please - just go back to Crawford and rumble around in your Texas brush.  As long as you there, you’re not out making too many speeches and pissing off the majority of Americans, especially me.

In November 2004, the day after election day, I said I do not know how this country can stand another four years of George Bush.  Much to my dismay, your performance and it’s by-product is worse than I anticipated.  I don’t have another statement that surpasses, "this country cannot stand another xx days of George Bush." Regrettably, you are an expert at putting into action what I cannot describe in words.

God bless America, because we sure do need it. 

Start in the White House

From President Bush’s speech yesterday:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges,"

This is a conversation the president needs to have with Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, David Addington and the rest of the The White House Iraq Group before he brow beats others.

Peter Drucker

Peter F. Drucker - Nov. 19, 1909 - Nov. 11, 2005.

A significant contributor and tireless author, now at rest.

The winner is…

Okay, the answer to my smart aleck question about the Medal of Freedom is (take your pick) Scooter Libby or Michael Brown. Brown gets my vote.

Why? Because screw ups and incompetence are the best way to get promoted or recognized by the president.

George Tenet received the Medal of Freedom last year after he “resigned” as Director of Central Intelligence. Tenet coincidentally resigned at the same time the 9/11 Commission issued their report, which blasted the CIA for bungling intelligence leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Condoleza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State, in spite of being oblivious to a plethora of intelligence she was presented about al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Her testimony before the 9/11 Commission. [Emphasis added.]

BEN-VENISTE. Well, my only question to you is whether you told the president -

RICE. I understand, Commissioner, but I will, if you’ll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you’ve asked.

First of all, yes, the Aug. 6 P.D.B. was in response to questions of the president. In that sense, he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about - about various aspects of al Qaeda’s operations. Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States. Now, the question is: What did we need to do about that? And I also understood that that was what the F.B.I. was doing, that the F.B.I. was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the Aug. 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations underway of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this - the F.B.I. was pursuing it.

I really don’t remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.

RICE. I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He’d talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE. Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.

RICE. I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States. Now, the P.D.B. -

BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.

OK, like…uuh, golly gee, ya think, like wow…whatever!

Enough of that — back to business.