Iraq

Sullivan on bush

This entry was posted in bush Economics Election 2004 Iraq on by

I haven’t often read Andrew Sullivan but his analysis of bush’s MTP appearance seems pretty accurate to me:

We have a few options here: The president doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying, or he trusts people telling him lies. But it is undeniable that this president is not on top of the most damaging part of his legacy–the catastrophe he is inflicting on our future fiscal health.

And in closing:

I cannot help liking the president as a person. I still believe he did a great and important thing in liberating Iraq (although we have much, much more to do). But, if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he’s in the Caribbean.

Via Atrios where some of you may be entertained by the comment thread.

bush Meets the Press

This entry was posted in bush Election 2004 Iraq War on Terrorism on by

James Joyner considered the performance and found that:

Overall, it was largely uneventful, but the president acquitted himself well enough. He came across as thoughtful and considered. And, while he was almost certainly prepared for hours by staff members, he didn�t appear to be giving the memorized speeches that one is accustomed to from politicians on these programs. Bush actually seemed to pause and consider his answers.

Brad DeLong thought Russert could have done a better job with his followup questions

Tim Russert didn’t seem to me to do a very good job. He didn’t ask what seemed to me the natural follow-up questions…Here are three examples

Go read’m.
Now, Kevin Drum appears to disagree a bit with James:

It’s hardly surprising that I thought Bush’s performance on Meet the Press was weak (“labored and uninteresting….like he was addressing a class of sixth graders”),

and expresses some surprise at the responses from NRO:

…but the fine conservatives over at NRO are piling on in a fashion normally reserved for Jimmy Carter op-eds…For once, I find myself in full agreement with National Review….

(Kevin quotes a number of the responses he refers to.)
I’ve watched part of it and at this point find it unlikely I’ll invest the time to watch the last half hour unless it is to reconsider what James described as pausing to consider his answers. My reaction after a few of these pauses was that bush was faking them in order to pretend the answers were considered. My secondary thought was that he was pausing in order to assure himself that he was dredging up the correct practiced answer for the question.
And, as Dave Ehhrenstein notes, these are frightening words:

I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind.

Oh, Really?

This entry was posted in bush cheney Iraq on by

USA Today would have you believe:

Sen. John McCain’s presence on a panel charged with investigating U.S. intelligence gathering will give the group immediate credibility because of his willingness to criticize the Bush administration, key lawmakers say.

I also have several bridges for you.
More then a few countervailing views can be found. For instance this from Brad DeLong:

He has the most partisanship and the least ethics of anyone to sit on the federal bench in my lifetime (save possibly his masters Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). And he is there to blow up the Commission if it reaches any conclusions that the Bushies do not like.

and there is more at Orcinus.
Not only is it stuffed with stooges this diversionary commission isn’t even chartered to look at the administration’s use of the intelligence it received.

Who is Lying?

This entry was posted in bush Iraq US Foreign Policy on by

Mark Kleiman considers part of Tenet’s testimony:

But that’s separate from the question of whether the President deceived the American people about the nuclear threat from Iraq. The Director of Central Intelligence just told us, unemphatically but also unequivocally, that he did.
The least you can say about this is that it can’t be right for Bush and Tenet each to keep his job. If Tenet is lying, he should be fired. If Tenet is telling the truth, Bush should be replaced.

This isn’t quite the spin I heard on talk radio today while I spent a few hours on the local freeways. They seemed to be able to only find parts of the testimony that painted bush positive.

Partners in Abuse

This entry was posted in ashcroft Constitution Democracy Iraq Judiciary Libertarianism War on Terrorism on by

Britsh home secretary david blunkett apparently drinks from the same cup as US attorney general john ashcroft. blunkett is proposing changes to British law that fly in the face of individual rights:

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial in the event their lives would be in danger if they were deported.
…….
Mr Blunkett wants to extend this so prosecutors can take action against suspected British extremists even though the evidence may not be strong enough to win a conviction under existing laws.
This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from “beyond reasonable doubt” to what is acceptable in civil cases, “the balance of probabilities”
…..
Evidence in the new trials would be kept secret from the defendants …
…..
We have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it’s too late.
This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from “beyond reasonable doubt” to what is acceptable in civil cases, “the balance of probabilities”.

None of this is acceptable under any circumstances whether applied to citizens or non-citizens.
When dealing with someones life or when justifying war “beyond a reasonable doubt” needs to be a minimum standard.
Via David Carr at Samizdata.