The Republicans post-convention line on Kerry was, gosh, he hasn't accomplished much. Ron Nantz of AOL Journal Think It Over has posted a version of this particular position.
Josh Marshall suggests that this might be a more credible line of attack coming from someone who had a substantial record of achievement in legislative accomplishments.
But coming from George W. Bush? A guy whose handlers had to get some of the more gullible run of journalists to refer to his life before he turned forty as his 'lost years'?
I mean, even if you grant that Bush's presidency has been a tenure of transcendent achievement (and it has undoubtedly been eventful), it's a bit hard to get around the fact that even by his own account he spent his first five decades kicking back, living off family connections and playing solitaire.
David Brooks seems to be sliding deeper into the pit of hackery by the week. Just after Kerry's speech, he was batting around a position that seemed to be suggesting that Kerry was too warlike on Iraq and Bush was the peace candidate. But apparently someone convinced him that he was off the ranch on that one. So by Saturday, he was making a dutiful self-criticism and reaffirming that he truly believes that John Kerry is a flip-flopper. A deep thinker, that David Brooks.
Now, just after the Democratic National Convention concludes, we have a terror alert! Ridge Warns of Specific Threats Los Angeles Times 08/02/04. Unfortunately, given the cynically partisan way this administration has handled the terrorism issue and the flakiness of their terror alert system, it's hard not to wonder whether this is just another case of "crying wolf." The Democrats sensibly reacted with caution while reminding people of the Bush team's cynicism, which Bush's campaign immediately began practicing in response:
Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, who in the past has criticized President Bush's response to the terrorism threat, sought a careful response.
His national security aide, Susan Rice, repeated Kerry's call to swiftly implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, declaring in a statement: "No matter what threats we face, the terrorists will not divide us. Our nation is united in its determination to defeat terrorism." The campaign said in a statement.
The government's announcement led former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to question whether the Bush administration sought to capitalize politically on a terrorist threat. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it," Dean said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
His comment drew a quick response from Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush reelection campaign, who called Dean's remarks "reckless and irresponsible."
"To suggest that, I think, corrodes the confidence of the people of this country," Racicot said on the same program. "And Howard, quite frankly, should perform in a different fashion, in my view."
7 comments:
I think you need to get a life,
No matter what President Bush does you are going to be Bashing him, of cource you on the other hand are so smart you could drive a trash truck.
Yes indeed this is very fishy for the President to say that he will appoint a new director of intelligence that will report directly to him. I think that the whole idea od a terrorist threat is one that was cooked up by the Republican to deflect all media attention from Sen. Kerry and give GW a chance to look good.
It was Kerry himself who said he wanted to be judged by his record, then he went on to mention next to nothing about that record. What details does he want us to judge him on?
As for the constant complaints about new terror alerts, what should the government do? Should they never mention anything about the threat of terror? Would it make you feel better if they went on about their business of tracking terrorism without ever mentioning the receipt of any threats so that no one could accuse anyone of trying to use a so-called credible threat for political gain?
Of course not. Then we'd be listening to everyone complaining that the fact that we're NOT hearing anything MUST mean that no one is doing anything.
I'm not sure what you think the best answer is in terms of reporting terror alert information that accomplishes the goal of keeping people informed AND avoids the possibility of political manipulation. If, as Dean says, "it's impossible to know how much is real or not," then what does debating it accomplish? It sounds to me that the Democrats are trying as hard as they can to make terror alerts AS political as they're think Republicans are.
Patrick
We were outraged at not being aware of intelligence the government was privy to before 9/ll. Would you not agree it would be better to have an alert, and let it go away with a scare, than to have another 9/11? We must remember that terrorists that have been captured by U.S. officials are giving us information in addition to tips that has been put into a data base; and we must take their input seriously, whether or not it proves to be untrue.
Bush doesn't need anyone trash talking him, the last four stinking years speak for themself. I mean come on, so many people out of jobs, the huge deficit he has created, not to mention, the war our country never should have gone into(Iraq). This guy does not deserve to be reelected. I really dont think America can take another four years of Bush.
We need Kerry to come in and reestablish ties internationally,that Bush has destroyed on his war kick.
Of course the Bush Misadministration is crying wolf. It's what they do.
And it doesn't really matter if the majority of Americans know the score. The real objective of Rove & Co. is to drive legitimate issues off the front page. Rove wants America to bicker about non-issues: Was the data old; how old was it; was it sufficiently new to constitute such a huge ceremony; was the orange alert politically motivated; how politically motivated was it; was Dean out of line; when did they know; and on and on and on, ad infinitum.
Amidst all the noise, no one got a word in edgewise on the truly newsworthy events. Like this story, for example:
SEC Charges Halliburton and Two Former Officers for Failure to Disclose a 1998 Change in Accounting Practice
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-104.htm
We can pretty much count on Rove & Co. and the ever-cooperative "liberal" media (Fox, GE, et al) doing exactly what they did in the weeks leading up to the 2002 midterm elections. Distract us with scary stories. The politics of preemptive "journalism."
There is nothing Rove & Co. would love more than another "sniper hunt saga."
By Tuesday (08/03), the administration was saying that there was no indication of an "imminent" threat. But Tom Ridge blames the Democrats for the alert! Because, you see, if they didn't make these vague alerts based on nothing in particular that just happen to coincide with Democratic candidates getting favorable publicity, and then something bad happened, the Democrats would criticize them for not making alerts!
Or something like that.
It's hard to see how this administration can restore the credibility of this terror aler system. It seems to be hopelessly flawed anyway. For one thing, no administration is ever going to lower the alert below the third of the five levels.
And it's unclear how useful a general national alert is in any case. If they have information that particular companies are being targeted, why not just announce that with specific guidelines on what employees, police and security personnel should do differently?
But with the administration using the War on Terror as a catch-all for so much, and making such loose claims as on Iraq, it's hard to see how credibility can be restored to this particular alert system. - Bruce
Post a Comment