27%

In today's Los Angeles Times story commenting on the recent Bush-Sharon agreement, Bush Move on Mideast May Sway Jewish Vote, we read the following: (emphasis added)

[A] survey — conducted among 1,000 people who identified themselves as Jews — also found that 40% described themselves as at least somewhat liberal, 33% as moderate and 27% as at least somewhat conservative. That compares with roughly 27% of adults nationwide who described themselves as liberal and 41% as conservative in a Los Angeles Times poll last month.

Twenty-seven percent of Americans are liberal. And (presumably) 32% are moderate (100 - 27 - 41). So how come the word 'liberal' is still shunned by most politicians? There are a lot of people who agree with the label, and we suspect that self-described moderates aren't horrified by the term. For some reason, the vocabulary of the right-wing predominates in our discourse. That's a shame.

posted by Quiddity at 4/17/2004 07:45:00 AM

Woodward's new book:

We have heard the early news about Woodward's latest book on the inner workings of the White House, and while some of the stories are interesting, we are wary. It seems suspiciously pro-Bush. For instance, there is the story about the CIA/Tenet briefing of Bush about Iraqi WMD. We are supposed to believe that after the presentation that Bush was skeptical and therefore said "nice try". Allegedly, Tenet then says the case is a "slam dunk" and somehow this wins over Bush (or begins the process of winning over Bush).

That's incredible. Bush has - in public - displayed an extremely limited ability to process details (most visibly in his failure to recall details). If Bush was so on the ball with Tenet, how come we never see that skeptical, mature judgement outside the hidden confines of the Oval Office? And if Bush was unpersuaded then, how does one explain his acceptance of the mobile weather-balloon facility as a bio-lab? And how does it explain his claim that one reason for going to war in 2003 was because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in? (when in fact he did let them in, and they were all over the place)

That said, the other theme - besides 'Bush is an okay guy' - is that of Cheney exerting significant control over the policy apparatus. That sounds both accurate and the sorf of thing that Colin Powell and his supporters would eagerly tell Woodward.

So the book is probably a mixed bag, containing both insights and puffery. It may not be a fair assessment of what took place, but it may - as with the last book - be the basis for follow-up inquiries. That will be useful in extablishing the historical record.

posted by Quiddity at 4/17/2004 12:50:00 AM

The 1949 gambit:

Bush says this about the Israli Palestinian issue:

... it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

And John Podoretz - very happy with Bush's endorsement of Sharon's position - says this in the New York Post:

The Jewish state will not pull back to the borders of the 1949 armistice, borders that were untenable and dangerous.

[...]

When Palestinians say they accept Israel's existence, what they mean is that it should return to these 1949 borders. That's delusional.

That's something of a misdirect. Aren't we really talking about a return to the 1967 borders? Sure, they were set in 1949, but the borders were effectively in use until the Six Day War.

The reason for citing 1949 borders is to make them seem so far back in time that they are, in effect, not relevant today. But consider the following. Mexico grabs a bit of territory from Texas this year and holds on to it. Would anybody believe the argument that Mexico should not pull back to the 1850 borders? That it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the borders of 1850?

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 07:21:00 AM

Match this?

Let's see. Bush endorses Sharon's plan to:

• Annex West Bank territory
  
• Deny Palestinian refugees any right of return to Israel.

Then Bush says:

I call on the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors to match that boldness and that courage.

Huh?

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 03:20:00 AM

A day late:

We weren't particularly up for examining Bush's remarks from the press conference because it was so uninteresting. But we finally found some time (and energy) for the task. Here is a quick overview of Bush's opening remarks and answers to the sixteen questions:

we will find out from X resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions terror, terrorists, war on terror freedom free Iraq making progress I ignore polls gathering threat Saddam a threat Saddam used WMD mass graves no empty words Iraqis happy Iraqis not happy still looking for WMD I grieve, was sick, comfort families bin Laden responsible C.Rice expression   ü üü ü üü                     ü           ü ü ü ü                       ü                                                 ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü                     ü               ü   at war; 100% right                 ü           ü     at war                                   historical PDB ü                                   ü                                                                 ü ü     ü   üü ü                           ü                                     ü ü                             at war, comprehensive strategy     ü                         ü     ü               ü           ü       üü ü ü üü   ü                             ü ü               ü

And here is the table with the questions listed.

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

Bush's opening statement

ü

üü

ü

üü

ü

1

Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it. What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

ü

ü

ü

ü

2

What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

ü

3

Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

4

To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency. Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

ü

ü

at war; 100% right

5

One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

ü

ü

at war

6

You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

historical PDB

7

You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?.

ü

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

8

Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

ü

9

Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?

ü

ü

10

You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?

ü

üü

ü

11

a) Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? b) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

ü

12

You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

ü

ü

at war, comprehensive strategy

13

Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

ü

ü

14

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

ü

ü

ü

15

Looking forward about keeping United States safe, a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism ... : ... because they say it ties their hands, it gives them blinders, that they're partners. Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House.

üü

ü

ü

üü

ü

16

Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic. Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber. But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

ü

ü

ü

we will find out from X

resolve, steadfast, tough, tough decisions

terror, terrorists, war on terror

freedom

free Iraq

making progress

ignore polls

gathering threat

Saddam a threat

Saddam used WMD

mass graves

no empty words

Iraqis happy

Iraqis not happy

still looking for WMD

I grieve, was sick, comfort families

bin Laden responsible

C.Rice expression

posted by Quiddity at 4/15/2004 02:12:00 AM

The neocons won big:

At least that's the impression one gets from reading Billmon's post (over at Whiskey Bar) about the Sharon-Bush agreement on settlements and territory.

From last night's press conference, it appeared that Bush had firmly retreated back to the comfort of the neocon worldview. And now we learn that Bush has given Sharon pretty much everything he wanted, at virtually no cost. For example, we read:

The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity ...

"Progress toward a freeze"? That's an extremely low standard - and one anybody can meet. Even you the reader of this blog can make progress toward a freeze. Just make your own personal pledge to not plan on settling in the West Bank. There, see how easy that was? You've just made progress toward a freeze on settlement activity!

As a reward for such exemplary behaviour, treat yourself to a refreshing beverage or an extra helping of dessert.

posted by Quiddity at 4/14/2004 05:47:00 PM

Losing them one at a time:

Here is a list of pundits that are distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq venture and anti-terrorism efforts (as revealed by the 9/11 commission):

(approx.) when	who	where
7 April 2004	George Will	WaPo column, ABC's This Week
9 April 2004	Howard Feinman	Air America interview w/ Franken, Newsweek, Chris Matthews Show
12 April 2004	Joe Klein	The Charlie Rose Show
14 April 2004	Dick Morris	The Hill column
17 April 2004	David Brooks	New York Times column

Thanks to M.Z. for suggesting adding David Brooks to the list.

posted by Quiddity at 4/14/2004 03:31:00 PM

Bush's press conference:

Manichean, platitudinous, recycled, detached, slow, and virtually fact-free.

posted by Quiddity at 4/13/2004 06:16:00 PM

January 2001:



posted by Quiddity at 4/12/2004 10:36:00 AM

Vox populi:

In the message threads for two Yahoo stories, Bush: Nothing Warned of 9/11 Attacks and Bush Says Aug. 6, 2001, Memo Did Not Foretell 9/11, there were a number of posts critical of Bush. For your reading pleasure, we reproduce a few of them:

• POST: CAN THIS GUY GET ANY MORE PATHETIC?
  
  Bush: "No one came to my ranch while I was vacationing to wake me up and say that on 9/11/01 on flights from Boston there will be 19 hijackers taking four flights and running them into the towers and the Pentagon between 9:00 and 11:00 am. How on earth do you expect me to do my job when I have no information?"
  
  A previous quote from Bush:
  "I am the master of low expectations."
  
  
• POST: Bush voters dumber than Bush?
  
  I'm beginning to think so!
  
  
• POST: Why Bush REALLY Ignored the 8/06 PDB...
  
  10. Arena Football games on the Tee-vee were too exciting.
  9. It’s too hot in Crawford, TX in the summer to think.
  8. Uncle Dick was supposed to take of this.
  7. The title of the memo was: “bin Laden Determined to Attack America.” I thought they meant South America.
  6. Could you repeat the question?
  5. Tony Scalia and I were still celebratin’ the November election that day.
  4. The memo mentioned Al Qaeda cells living in the US and planning terrorist attacks using explosives and/or hijackings in the US, possibly in New York City. It DIDN’T give me names, addresses, dates, and whether the terrorist attacks were going to be black tie or semi-formal.
  3. I forgot about them PDBs after I realized they weren’t PB and Js.
  2. A page and a half of stuff to read?!? Without ANY pictures?!?
  1. I forgot to PULL MY HEAD OUT OF MY ASS.
  
  Folks--isn’t it time we got serious about the fate of country and elected a REAL President again? Let’s put aside debates about Bush’s intentions before invading Iraq. This man has demonstrated a lack of good judgment about:
  
  Impending terrorist threats
  Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
  The Costs of Invading and Governing Iraq
  Involving our Allies in these Matters
  
  This man is flat-out incompetent. His heart may be in the right place when it comes to defending America, but he’s not up to the job. The Presidency is not a place for on-the-job training. It’s time for Bush to go.
  
  
• POST: It's not my fault, now vote for me!
  
  Bye bye Bush.
  
  
• POST: Bush, your credibility is ZERO
  
  and sinking into the negatives.
  
  
• POST: Republican News Cycle Stuck on "Spin"
  
  Hey Karl, you fat pig: sometimes things spin out of control!
  
  
• POST: 16 US dead last 3 days & Bush in Texas
  
  "The war president"
  
  
• POST: Did he clear that comment w/Cheney?
  
  Bush shouldn't be talkin' bout complicated stuff like this with Cheney out of the country.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2004 02:44:00 PM

Compare and contrast:

Rice's statement about pre-9/11 intelligence	6 August 2001 PDB
... they don't tell us when.	CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Lladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives. Bin Ladin['s] ... attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance.
They don't tell us where.	Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, ... FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity ... including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
They don't tell us who.	CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
And they don't tell us how.	... FBI information since [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings. We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that ... [which says] Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

posted by Quiddity at 4/11/2004 08:03:00 AM