Rice rejects Clarke charges

[Patrick M]

Is the average Joe getting any of this?

Bush is leading Kerry, 46 to 43:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 07,00.html

[Rspaight]

Most of the mainstream media, from what I've seen, covered the WH response as the big story, not the allegations themselves. Before that, the Hamas assassination swamped the 60 Minutes interview. Today, it's all 9/11 commission, in which context this stuff is being mentioned.

Today's developments: Clarke's sticking to his guns, unlike O'Neill. Daschle, of all people, blasted the WH from the Senate floor. Bush popped up with a bit of silliness:

"Had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11, we would have acted," he said.

(Crap, what did he want, a registered letter from OBL with a timeline? I understand what he's *trying* to say -- he didn't have precise enough intelligence to avert the strike -- but he sounds like such an arrogant moron putting it that way. Oh, right...)

In other words, still bubbling -- it's not clear what, if anything, is going to stick.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Is the average Joe getting any of this?

Bush is leading Kerry, 46 to 43:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 07,00.html

And Nader has 5 percent. Goddammit.

Ryan

[Ron]

So what exactly is Kerry doing? Is he any less strident? Any more "presidential"? Is he making any strides in *educating* the electorate re: the administration's failures? He must speak to those other than the converted. And with no Democratic opponent sniping at his heels, he's got a golden opportunity to focus on Bush calmly and firmly without any of the unseemly [though appropriate earlier on] finger pointing and fist raising. Damn it. If he blows this, he should be shot. [Er, figuratively. Ah hell . . . shoot the fucker.]

[Rspaight]

Well, last week, he did... nothing. Went on vacation. Literally. His big news for the week was getting knocked off a snowboard by a Secret Service agent and getting snippy about it (called the Secret Service guy something the newspaper couldn't print). Wonderful PR.

Other than that, he's only been visible in the context of the supremely stupid "foreign leaders" hoo-ha.

Haven't heard a peep from him so far this week. Doesn't anyone remember that this is how Dukakis lost? I'm pretty pissed at him right now.

Ryan

[Ron]

Shit. Well, thanks for the update.

[czeskleba]

]
And Nader has 5 percent. Goddammit.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Nader might win 5% if he actually was on the ballot in all 50 states, but he's not going to be. I bet a lot of the 5% that say now they will vote for him are not going to go to the trouble of writing him in when they don't see his name on the ballot.

[Rspaight]

You're probably right...

Ryan

[TSmithPage]

For the second time in a couple of months, a former member of the Bush administration has come forward to point out that Bush had an Iraq obsession to the exclusion of more pressing concerns. The "liberal media" spends more time covering the Administration response that he is nothing more than a disgruntled employee (except that part of the media that reported on the story in the first place, which is also painted as "liberal" for allowing the story to get any mention in the first place). How many ex-administration officials will have to surface before the public starts to recognize there may be something more to this story? I am reminded of a maxim, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

[Patrick M]

"Had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11, we would have acted," he said.

(Crap, what did he want, a registered letter from OBL with a timeline? I understand what he's *trying* to say -- he didn't have precise enough intelligence to avert the strike -- but he sounds like such an arrogant moron putting it that way. Oh, right...)

He said it again today:

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of the government, to protect the American people," Bush said, appearing with Cheryl McGinnis, the wife of a pilot killed in the attacks.

[Patrick M]

Bush is leading Kerry, 46 to 43:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/s ... 07,00.html

Now, it's 48/44, in favor of Kerry (different poll, though):

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Preside ... g_Poll.htm

[Rspaight]

He said it again today:

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of the government, to protect the American people," Bush said, appearing with Cheryl McGinnis, the wife of a pilot killed in the attacks.

Man, that's almost worse. Because he *did* know "the enemy" was planning airplane hijackings. It was in the briefings. So did Ashcroft -- he stopped flying commercial jets in July 2001.

Ryan

[Ron]

So did Ashcroft -- he stopped flying commercial jets in July 2001.

From the above link: Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

And the last paragraph from that link: The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.

Ashcroft didn't know. And the FBI [who came up with the idea] had no further comment. This reads like a press release from the Cold War-era Kremlin.

[Rspaight]

It makes me all warm and fuzzy to know that our Attorney General is either a brazen liar or profoundly uninterested in issues of national security.

Ryan

[Ron]

One last addition to the previous Kremlin-speak from the above link: There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He [Ashcroft] is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

Honestly, the United States really considers itself a democracy with reasonable access to its leaders?