Nov 15, 2005 at 6:14 PM by Political Chase
The members of the 9/11 commission submitted a report, which charged the Bush administration with “making insufficient progress” in trying to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The commission is a privately funded, bipartisan organization, formed after Congress ended sponsorship of the commission last year.
The report found “minimal” or “insufficient” progress in 7 of 13 areas surveyed. Ouch! That’s like getting a 53 on a final exam.
The White House’s response:
Asked about the report, Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said the Bush administration “appreciated all the hard work of the commissioners, and our focus is on building upon the steps already taken.”
“Focusing on the steps already taken” sounds like the administration will not even consider alternative solutions.
The commission obviously has a considerably higher level of concern than the administration and we know why. From the commission:
“The most striking thing to us is that the size of the problem still totally dwarfs the policy response,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. “We have no greater fear than a terrorist who is inside the United States with a nuclear weapon. The consequences of such an attack would be catastrophic for our people, for our economy, for our liberties.”
Now, to understand why, let’s take a look at a few statements the president made yesterday. First, his view on progress.
- We’ve killed and captured al Qaeda.
- Because we acted [against Iraq], the Iraqi people now live in freedom, and the people of the United States are safer.
- [W]e’re making steady progress.
- [Iraq] is making amazing progress from the days of being under the thumb of a brutal tyrant…It’s amazing progress when you think about it.
Second — the president “focusing on building on steps already taken,” or in other words, strategy.
- As we pursue the terrorists, we have a strategy to go forward.
- Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
- [O]ur strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope.
You decide whether the commission’s report should give you cause for concern.
Nov 15, 2005 at 6:52 AM by Political Chase
More signs of divide and conquer. These guys are all over each other. It’s about time.
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.
The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.
The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.
Nov 15, 2005 at 6:32 AM by Political Chase
He’s toast.
From the WP.
As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," declared his firm opposition to certain affirmative action programs, and strongly endorsed a government role in "protecting traditional values."
Nov 15, 2005 at 6:27 AM by Political Chase
The existing Supreme Court will provide their own review of nominee Samuel Alito. It is definitely a good time for the president to haul buggy out of the country.
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will review a Pennsylvania inmate’s claim that his First Amendment rights were violated by a prison policy that denies dangerous prisoners access to most reading material, television and radio.
Under the policy, about 40 prisoners considered most likely to attempt escape or harm others are confined to a special section of a state prison in Pittsburgh and permitted to read only religious and legal materials and paperback books from the prison library. They get only one visit with an immediate family member per month and may not keep photographs of wives, family members or friends.
The court’s decision to hear the case is particularly intriguing because the three-judge federal appeals court that struck the policy down did so over the dissent of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia, found that the prison policy was not justified by the state’s interest in controlling inmates. Alito wrote that he would have upheld the policy because it was consistent with Supreme Court precedent, which permits restrictions on inmates’ constitutional rights as long as they are justified by an overriding "penological" interest.
"On their face," Alito wrote, "these regulations are reasonably related to the legitimate penological goal of curbing prison misconduct" — because prisoners would be deterred from misbehaving by the prospect of being sent to a place where they have to do without TV and magazines.
Nov 15, 2005 at 6:15 AM by Political Chase
The President delivered blistering remarks in Alaska, then ducked for cover on a fast plane headed out of the country. Safe.
I don’t think it’s necessary to go into the absurdity of his speech; it’s self-evident. Here are a few excerpts.
Add ice, stir, and make your own jokes.
The President’s remarks [emphasis added]:
On September the 11th, 2001, history called on our nation to defend freedom once again…We saw the terrorists’ destructive vision for us and for all who love freedom. And in the face of this threat, our nation has made a clear choice: We will confront this mortal danger.
The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror
If [these militants] are not stopped, the terrorists will be able to advance their agenda to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to break our will and blackmail our government into isolation. I make you this solemn commitment: That’s not going to happen so long as I’m the President of the United States.
We didn’t ask for this global struggle, but we’re answering history’s call with confidence, and with a comprehensive strategy to win this war.
We’ve killed and captured al Qaeda.
[W]e are determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes
As we pursue the terrorists, we have a strategy to go forward.
[W]e’re making steady progress.
Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
[Iraq] is making amazing progress from the days of being under the thumb of a brutal tyrant…It’s amazing progress when you think about it.
The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope.
History has proven that free nations are peaceful nations, and that democracies do not fight their neighbors.
The outcome of this war will affect every single American.
If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. [Here comes that mushroom cloud again.]
Iraq was the only country that fought a war against the United States.
Because we acted [against Iraq], the Iraqi people now live in freedom, and the people of the United States are safer.
Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people.
The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was Saddam Hussein.
Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that’s irresponsible.
[O]ur troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united.
[W]e’re really happy to be back in Alaska. [I would love to know the number of times the president has been to Alaska and if any, how close to campaign time it was.]
