Sunday, April 11, 2004

Another Political Rant

George W. Bush could earn a chunk of respect from me if he would stop saying things like, "If we'd had specific knowledge of the terrorists' plans for 9/11, I would have moved mountains to prevent it." I'm almost as sick of that as I am of jokes about Donald Trump's hair.

Is there anyone anywhere who thinks any president, given hard info, would have gone fishing rather than try to stop the murder of thousands of Americans? Hell, I think most Chief Execs would even try to do something about Donald Trump's hair if only they could.

I do think Bush is getting hammered a bit unfairly by Democrats on this. But I also think a certain amount of it is his own fault for saying things like that, and also for statements like this one. This morning, he tried to characterize a document entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." as saying — and I quote — "...nothing about an attack on America." To me, that's right up there with "I did not inhale" in the category of Disingenuousness.

I do not believe Bush is stupid but I sometimes agree with Jon Stewart's line about how he sure seems to think we are.

As we get closer to November, the Democrats are going to launch a full-scale assault regarding what Bush did the morning of 9/11. They will charge, in effect, that when he was informed America was under attack, he did absolutely nothing. They may even make commercials out of that footage of him reading stories in a classroom and put in in a split-screen with people falling out of the World Trade Center. If Bush responds with his line about not wanting to panic the children, he'll do himself an awful lot of damage.

• Posted at 1:45 PM · LINK

Funny Records

As you may know (or be able to guess), I have a pretty good collection of comedy albums. I think I own all or almost all of the fifty named in this list of what one guy picks as the 50 "Most Influential" of all time. If I made up such a list, it would be quite different but I don't find his choices all that outrageous.

• Posted at 11:16 AM · LINK

Today's Political Rant

I have no big reaction to the P.D.B. (President's Daily Briefing) that was released last night. Yeah, it does suggest that there was a bit of advance warning of the 9/11 plot but no, it doesn't convince me that anyone was negligent not to snap into action. I think Bush's foes have made a strong case that the White House should have been more focused on terrorism than it was but a weak case that someone there could have prevented the disasters of that awful day.

I was struck by the amazing contrast in how the P.D.B. of 8/6/01 is being reported, though. The following is the lede from The Washington Post...

CRAWFORD, Tex., April 10 — President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan. The information was included in a written Aug. 6, 2001, briefing to Bush that was declassified Saturday night by the White House in response to a request from the independent commission probing the Sept. 11 attacks.

And here's how the same story began if you picked up The Washington Times...

CRAWFORD, Texas — The Bush administration last night released the declassified contents of a presidential briefing document that contains mostly historical information about Osama bin Laden's terrorist plans — almost all of it compiled from open sources, including television and news reports.

Despite my view, I think the Post report is the fairer summation. Doesn't the writer of the Times piece strike you as a bit too eager to insist there's no story here and that Dr. Rice was correct to say it was a "historical" document? Usually in a news article, you lay out the charge before you provide the rebuttal.

• Posted at 10:30 AM · LINK

Today's Internet Time Waster

A website that plays 20 Questions. I hate websites that are smarter than I am.

• Posted at 12:23 AM · LINK