Sep 15, 2007 at 7:54 PM by Political Chase
The first significant indication of George Bush’s obsessive adherence to Manichaeism was in a speech he made September 20, 2001 before a joint session of Congress. Nine days after 9/11. The president made it abundantly clear. There was no gray then nor is it now. Standing before Congress, Mr. Bush, the Standard Bearer of Good, declared:
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Everything is black or white. Good versus Evil. Those who dare oppose Mr. Bush, as we have learned the hard way, are Evil. They are no different than the Terrorists.
We’ve frequently heard George Bush comment that he could care less about what the polls say about him; those writing history will be his judge. Of course, Mr. Bush would prefer all the authors wait until he is dead before history begins to weigh in on the Merits of His Presidency. He made it clear in his authorized biography, Dead Certain, by Robert Draper. It’s in black and white. The first sentence of the first page.
“You can’t possibly figure out the history of the Bush presidency — until I’m dead.”
Well too bad for Mr. Bush, because history is being written everyday and the vast majority share the same view. The Decider makes bad decisions.
Damned historians, they must be terrorists too, and Alan Greenspan has turned out to be one of them because he gave Mr. Bush a thumpin’ in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.
During Alan Greenspan’s tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and especially in the 1990’s, many viewed him as the most powerful man in the world, and rightfully so. I can remember well how the world’s financial markets would be influenced if people even thought Greenspan was just thinking about a given issue in the global economy. He did not have to utter a word — a rumor, his body language in a meeting, not commenting on a particular item, pure speculation — would create some type of impact in the global markets and particularly the U.S., of course.
Fed Chairman turned author, Greenspan joins the long list of authors criticizing George Bush, his administration, and the Republicans. While the Democrats did not come out unscathed, Greenspan praised Bill Clinton, which probably infuriated Bush more than the criticism levied on him personally.
Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint. (Emphasis added.)
[He expressed] deep disappointment with Bush. “My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan writes. “Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush’s collaborate-don’t-confront approach was a major mistake.”
Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party’s majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year’s elections. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
Bill Clinton - “The Hero”
While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan’s 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.
Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton’s mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage.”
Remember how the economy began rapidly declining after the Supreme Court crowned George Bush king and how Bush adamantly blamed Bill Clinton for it? Vindicated.
On a side note, tor those that might not know, Alan Greenspan is married to NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell.
Sep 15, 2007 at 4:19 PM by Political Chase
Rudy’s new ad attacking Hillary Clinton with Gen. Petraeus’ picture in it may have not been such a good idea.
Rudy’s new political ad attacking Hillary Clinton features multiple pictures of General Petraeus in uniform — but now the Pentagon says that the General “has not condoned” the use of his image in Rudy’s ad or any other political ads, adding that it was done “without his consent.”
Defense Department regulations prohibit uniformed personnel from appearing in political ads. And while these are stock photos, meaning that neither Petraeus nor the other military personnel actively moved to appear in Giuliani’s ad, their use in this ad makes the question of whether Petraeus or the Defense Department condone the use of images of him or other military uniformed personnel a fair one.
Greg Sargent has the scoop.
Sep 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM by Political Chase
Jeralyn at TalkLeft reports Gen. Wesley Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton. She was in a conference call with Clark this morning and was able to get Clark’s perception of Hillary’s plans on Iraq and other things. Her post is here.
Big Tent Democrat asks a good question with respect to Clark’s endorsement. What role might Gen. Clark have in Hillary’s administration? Who knows, maybe she is considering Clark for the Veep slot. If not Veep, Clark would obviously be an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense, but I have a sense (sounds like Chertoff doesn’t it), that Secretary of Defense is not Clark’s objective. (see update below)
Hillary is probably doing as well as anyone can in establishing herself. That notwithstanding, can anyone really not consider the Bill factor? I can’t. In fact, I think Bill Clinton is her best asset and seriously question how electable she is without Bill Clinton at her side. However, a Clinton-Clark ticket may be a powerful counter-offensive to Hillary’s high negative factor in the polls, which was around 48% if I remember correctly.
If there was any doubt the Iraq war would be passed to the next president, George Bush removed it Thursday evening. Bush’s failure to deal with the matter ensures Iraq will be the issue of the 2008 elections, therefore, I have a hard time seeing how Clark as a VP candidate would do anything but significantly bolster any presidential candidate’s position.
I don’t believe Clark’s endorsement alone will make a substantial difference in the primaries or general — if Hillary is able to get that far — but announcing Clark as her VP early would be entirely different. It very well may make her unbeatable.
Late Update: I did not know this until today and thought I should update this post accordingly. Apparently there is a rule prohibiting retired/former military personnel from holding the position of Secretary of Defense until 10 years after leaving service, which would preclude Gen. Clark from serving as Secretary of Defense until 2010.
Sep 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM by Political Chase
The CIA has banned water-boarding as an interrogation technique according to the Blotter. “Hayden made the decision at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes, and received approval from the White House to remove water-boarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.”
Until it gets leaked to the press otherwise, now that water-boarding has been removed from the Approved Torture List, the official policy is, “the most extreme techniques available…would be what is termed ‘longtime standing,’ which includes exhaustion and sleep deprivation with prisoners forced to stand, handcuffed with their feet shackled to the floor.”
What a relief. We can all sleep better at night now knowing that’s the “official” limit to torturing.
I may be wrong, but there seems to be some disconnects in ABC’s report. For example, the story appears to be a leak based on the sources cited, but allegedly, according to the report, water-boarding was stopped “three to four years ago.” We’ve known about the U.S. using water-boarding for years, and if the technique was stopped three to four years ago, what’s the significance of leaking theoretically old news now?
More later…
Sep 15, 2007 at 2:53 AM by Political Chase
Excerpts from a speech Dick Cheney gave Friday. He’s still drinking from the same kool-aid.
As the prime target of the terrorists, America has also enforced a doctrine that is essential to our own safety, and to eventual victory in this struggle. It is simple to state and understood by all: Governments that support or harbor terrorists are complicit in the murder of the innocent, and they must be held to account. That’s a significant commitment to make. Some may question whether we mean it — but the doubters do not include the members of the Taliban.
Those of us in positions of responsibility cannot and will not ignore the plain and foreseeable effects of abandoning our mission. America has accepted a duty that is hard, and honorable, and worth completing. General Petraeus and his troops, all of you here at CENTCOM, are doing the right thing, in the right way, and at the right time. Your success will make our nation more secure. Let us make certain that we all stand behind them in victory.
We have shown a watching world that we are a good and just nation: secure in our ideals, fearless in their defense, and willing to sacrifice greatly for the cause of long-term peace. We will press on in our mission, and turn events toward victory.
Sep 15, 2007 at 1:57 AM by Political Chase
More evidence of the Democrat’s inability to defy a president with a 33% overall approval rating (less when Iraq is the only factor).
Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraq war, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed at shifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enough Republican support for a real chance at being approved. It would require that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recent tours overseas before being redeployed.
The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who say that the practical effect would be to add time between deployments and force General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and that it would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitating deployments.
The Democrats proposal is appropriate and warranted for length of tours, but with respect to forcing Bush to end the war it is just more cat and mouse games. Bush will laugh the proposed amendment right out of the Oval Office.
