Was The President's Speech On Nine Eleven Political?

Tony the Snow job promised on Nine Eleven Aught Six that the President's speech that evening was not going to be political. In fact he said:

I've been at some pains to say in the last few days, it's not a political speech, it's not trying to draw political distinctions or issue calls to action.

However, if you have a look at the president's speech, I think it was. What say you?

Now have a look at how Tony tries to defend himself and his president:

Q Was the President's speech last night political?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q How can you say that?

MR. SNOW: Because, I'll tell you -- how can I not?

Q Because -- Tony, you were here Friday.

MR. SNOW: What was the political statement? Tell me what the political sentence was. Give me the sentence.

Q I'll tell you exactly what it was. It was a crystallized greatest hits of the eight-day period in which he made four speeches where he laid out his philosophical underpinnings about the war on terror heading into the election. And he boiled it down, crystallized it and laid it out last night on network TV for 17 minutes. And it was in direct contrast to what you came in here and told us Friday.

MR. SNOW: No, that's not in direct contrast.

Q Yes, it was. You said Friday that there would be no drawing of lines, distinctions between Democrats and Republicans --

MR. SNOW: And there wasn't.

Q -- it would focus on unity.

MR. SNOW: There wasn't.

Q Was it a speech about unity, or was it a speech about a proposal about Iraq?

MR. SNOW: It was speech about -- let me -- out of the entire speech -- well, let's take a look at the Iraq section.

Q Let's do that.

MR. SNOW: Let's have some fun. (Laughter.) If you look at the Iraq statement -- let's back up. We're in a war on terror right now -- I'm going to start at the back and move forward, because the back end is something very important, which is Osama bin Laden, mastermind of September 11th, the person that many people talk about and still have concerns about, calls this fight, the fight in Iraq, "the third world war." And he says that, "Victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever."

We are in Iraq. It is now seen as the central focal point of the war on terror by the very people who mounted September 11th. If the President of the United States, in talking about September 11th, did not make reference to the plans and the strategy and the beliefs of the very people who mounted September 11th on the anniversary of that date, it would have seen as dereliction. And you guys would have been out here just clubbing me like a baby seal, saying, why didn't --

Q No, I think it would have --

MR. SNOW: -- let me finish and then you can come back -- saying, why on earth did you -- why didn't you talk about Iraq; I know why it is, because the President is being political and he understands that Iraq is unpopular.

Last week the question was: Isn't it true that he wants to talk about the war on terror instead of Iraq. If this is supposed to be political, according to the calculus that is constantly presented to me, it's kind of a weird way to do it.

Instead, what the President was making reference to after September 11th -- the war on terror didn't end on September 11th, it began. It lifted the veil to us on a world that we didn't know existed, that we have to respond to. And it is also a real fact that the war in Iraq is clearly part of that war on terror, and where we proceed with it.

Q You've got to stop right there, because that --

MR. SNOW: Why do I have to stop right there?

Q Because that is the central point that will be debated in the next eight weeks between Democrats and Republicans. That will be in large part what the midterm elections are decided on.

MR. SNOW: I agree.

Q Okay, So if the President takes time in a speech that was advertised by you at this podium on Friday as being non-political and no drawing of distinctions --

MR. SNOW: I said it was no drawing of partisan lines.

Q -- and he gets up last night and lays out his case, and essentially it is an advertisement for the next eight weeks --

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is he shouldn't have talked about Iraq. Is that what you're saying?

Q I'm saying that it wasn't consistent with what it was billed.

MR. SNOW: No, I disagree, and I'll tell you why. Throughout the day, by the way, you're getting an interesting contrast.

You had Congressman Moran going at a memorial service in Arlington and bashing the President. The President never once talked about a Democrat by name yesterday, never once said, my policy is this, their policy is that, they're wrong, I'm right.

What I told you was there would be no drawing of partisan distinctions, and there wasn't. And furthermore, if you look at the section, what part of this -- this controversy -- "Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East." That's not offensive. How about, "We're training Iraqi troops so that they can defend their nation." Both parties support that. "We will not leave until this work is done." Quick show of hands for everybody who wants to leave until the work is done.

The point is that the use of the term "partisan" I think is being now tossed around as a way to fend off the debate or say, how dare the President talk about it. I guarantee --

Q No, because it was. This was supposed to a pause in all that, for 24 hours.

MR. SNOW: And it was. But if you look at it, what the President is explaining -- and everybody in vast majorities of both Houses of Congress agree, it was important to go ahead and address the issue of Saddam Hussein. And you have wide support in both Houses of Congress. Both Houses of Congress agreed to going into this war. We're there. We have to deal with it. For the President to ignore it -- let me -- I'll give you anecdotal evidence. Yesterday morning, we're in a firehouse in New York, talking with a lot of people who lost friends and buddies. Later in the day we went to Shanksville, and the President worked a long semi-circle of grieving family members. At the Pentagon there is -- as you saw, it was a very emotional meeting with family members. Not one said, don't fight, give up, quit, get out.

But the President did not want to try to turn this into a Democrats versus the Republicans thing, but you cannot talk about the war on terror without talking about Iraq. And furthermore, you can't talk about September 11th, especially when Osama bin Laden, himself, says, Iraq is at the center of all this -- without mentioning it.

What he tried to do was to lay it out in as neutral a way as possible and explain why he did it. And furthermore the question was, why are you there? This was the question that he answered.

This was not an attempt to stir the hornet's nest. Meanwhile, Senator Levine, before the speech, on Lou Dobbs hammering the President. You had people, as you all know, had their talking points out, accusing the President of being partisan the instant the speech was over. There was no talk out of the White House yesterday of Democrat versus Republican.

And, furthermore, a good 90 percent of the speech has to deal with the things that draw us together, including many of the sections -- many of the sentences on Iraq were expressions of things that are utterly uncontroversial with both political parties.

Q But, Tony, when the President said yesterday that the worst mistake -- talking about Iraq, that the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorist would leave us alone. Who is he referring to, though? Isn't he suggesting implicitly that --

MR. SNOW: No, he's not --

Q -- that's what his critics believe?

MR. SNOW: No, he's making a statement. Look, here's the question that people will ask, should we leave right now or not? Under what conditions should we leave? The President says he wants to get out, everybody wants to get out. The question is, under what conditions?

No, what he was actually doing was summarizing testimony that General Abizaid had given, and what General Abizaid has told him directly, which is, if we leave they will follow us. That's what he was trying to do. He was repeating what he's heard from the key General in the war.

Q But he said the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out the terrorists would leave us alone. Has someone suggested that they feel the terrorists would leave us alone if we left Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, what he's trying to do is to repeat to you exactly what the terrorists think. That sentence is not an attempt -- look, I have a feeling that some people may feel pain because they think it's pointing to them. It's not pointing to them, it's pointing at the terrorists. It's pointing at the terrorists who, again, want to engage in the fantasy -- they've learned the hard way once, and let's pray they don't learn the hard way twice -- they don't realize that we love our liberty and we love our country. And if they strike, we're going to strike back. That's what that's all about. That's as much a warning to terrorists as anything else. It's not a desire to start pointing fingers at members of Congress.

Q Tony, when he says, let's put aside our differences, what is he referring to? Is he referring to Iraq or something else?

MR. SNOW: Look, I think it is perfectly possible and laudable -- getting back to David's question -- people can disagree about Iraq, they can disagree. But let's do it in a way where we keep our eye on the ball, which is to win the war on terror and do it in a constructive way to figure out how best to get the job done. If somebody wants to do it, that's fine, but don't start finger-pointing and all that kind of thing. I think the most important challenge facing the American people right now is to realize that it's a long war. And one of the key calculations of bin Laden and others is we'll run out of patience -- we won't, but that's their calculation.

And what the President -- look, it would be great if both political parties right now would start realizing that the national interest is to win the war on terror and to present a united front. It's not likely to happen in a political year. There are going to be disagreements. It's been that way in every war and in every administration, but we'll get through it.

Jim.

Where the disagreement lies is how to win the war on terror, not if the Dems are hard or soft on terrorists? Moreover, it is not helpful when one person who suggests it is healthy to debate but then goes ahead and bends the truth, how can there be a good faith discussion about anything?

True or False? Saddam Was Connected To Zarqawi or al Queda

Am I both deaf and stupid? Have I been drinking the democratic kool-aid to think that the president has more than once linked Saddam to a whole host of terrorists?

Today, Tony the Snow job gets into the finer points of what the president supposedly didn't say:

Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.

MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that.

Is Tony true or false? Or, does it look more like he spinning the rhetoric to split hairs so no one can call Bush a liar?

Really, does it matter whether or not the inference is that there was not an "opperational" connection when President Bush says,

Saddam Hussein is used to deceiving the world and he continues to do so. Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks. Saddam Hussein is a danger, and that's why he will be disarmed -- one way or the other.

Who is the great "deciever" here?

Tony Snow Admits: "I Think The Formulation Is, If Trends Continue, Then We Could Move Towards Civil War"

Sectarian violence versus Civil war: Is the distinction important? I don't know.

Regardless, in today's press briefing, you will see Tony the Snow job - who speeks for the President - admit that there is a danger Iraq will get to full blow civil war.

Have a look:

Q Tony, your own commanders have said the biggest threat in Iraq is sectarian violence, the threat of civil war. And, yet, the President keeps talking about the threat of terror. You're again saying the biggest threat there is Osama bin Laden. The President last night said the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Why do your commanders say the biggest threat is civil war? The President keeps saying it's terror.

MR. SNOW: I think they say sectarian violence. I think we're leading to the same place, Martha, which is if you have --

Q Which is the threat of civil war, sectarian violence.

MR. SNOW: -- if you have an anarchic society that collapses, and therefore you end up having a rudderless, weak, divided society -- as you had in Afghanistan, which paved the way for the Taliban to take over -- then you've got a situation that is ripe for the kind of terrorist breakthrough that we're talking about in Iraq. I think that the disagreement you're looking for is more apparent than real here. The President is aware, and he talks regularly -- he's got a conversation later this week with General Casey. We keep constant watch on this stuff, and we do care about it and we do know the sectarian violence is a key factor. And the end result of sectarian violence -- civil war, if you want to put it that way -- I think the formulation is, if trends continue, then we could move towards civil war, that was what General Abizaid told Congress.

So it's several -- I don't think anybody is projecting imminent civil war, but if you have instability --

Q But they're also saying the threat of terrorism is small, percentage-wise.

Are Democrats More Interested In Protecting The Terrorists Than America

You would think that the day after the President gives a speech on the annivesary of Nine Eleven that the press briefing would be a slam dunk for Tony the Snow job. Guess again.

In another case of, "you can't make this shit up," Tony admits that any one suggesting (including members of the extreme "fright wing") the Dems are more interested in protecting the terrorists over America would be wrong.

Have a look. It starts with a very interesting question:

Q As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is a great place or not, right? I mean, it's a lot more substantive than that, and it has to do with the path that this President took the country after 9/11.

Now, when a Republican leader of Congress says, "I wonder if Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the American people," as a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's your duty to say that that's out of bounds or not?

MR. SNOW: Frankly, again, this is one of these things -- I haven't even seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people call the President a liar or a loser, that happens. There have been all sorts of names and smears aimed at the President. And he understands and he's a big enough boy to deal with that.

The other thing is that in this present political season, unfortunately there will be a lot of -- there's going to be some name-calling. You know what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues are, let's get past the name-calling, and let's get down to it and let's talk about it.

Nice deflection Tony, but that isn't going to work.

Q But this is important, because, as a matter of fact, the Vice President said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having in this country, about withdrawing troops from Iraq, emboldens the terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people. Does the President agree with that?

MR. SNOW: What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what the Vice President said, which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists. I think it's true. Osama bin Laden has made it clear. And one of the things he says is if the United States is pushed from Iraq, it will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States.

So it is clear from the standpoint of bin Laden, who, in the past -- and you quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August, when I got it wrong -- bin Laden drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the way in which bin Laden views the United States, that is a true statement. I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.

Certainly, there is a bit of a double standard going on here. Let's see if we can drag a decent answer out of Tony:

Q Because you certainly would get into it if somebody accused the President of being a liar. I mean, do you want to let a statement like this stand from a Republican leader of Congress?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, you're presenting me with a statement I haven't seen. I'll tell you what, I'll get back to you on it.

Q It's been out there for a couple of hours. I think you had ample time to see it.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, no --

Let's cut the crap and get to the heart of the matter:

Q Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to oppose the President on the war on Iraq without emboldening the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it. But also, if you say we need to leave right now, without preconditions -- and I'm not sure anybody says that, but I'll give you a hypothetical -- that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself, that would embolden the terrorists.

If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion that they can use political means -- because they can't defeat us militarily, so it has to be a political battle -- if they can use political means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which -- like Afghanistan before -- that could mount terrorist attacks and set up their own headquarters, and this time have, in addition, oil as a weapon -- then that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand.

But there are ways of -- you can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective of having an Iraq -- and this is what's kind of interesting about the debate last night, because if you look at the President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be democratic -- I don't know that that's controversial with anybody -- an Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don't know that that's controversial. I think those are the things -- to answer your question, and I'll let you get back to this, to answer your question, it is possible to disagree. But on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, Iraq is yours, then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.

So, what you are saying Tony, is that any one who disagrees with you is suggesting we turn over Iraq to the terrorists? Isn't that the same thing as saying Dems are more for terrorists than they are for America? Let's ask him straight up:

Q Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people? What do you think?

MR. SNOW: Again, I know you think that in the last hour -- I had an hour to prepare, because we had long meetings --

Q I'm asking you that question -- forget about what John Boehner said, I'm putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?

MR. SNOW: Do I think -- no, I think --

Q That Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people?

MR. SNOW: No.

Ah, there you have it...after several minutes of rhetorical spin, you have an correct answer out of the mouth of the presidential spokesmodel. Thank you.

I Told You The President Was Going To Use Nine Eleven As A Political Lever

When the Press Secretary suggested on Monday during his press gaggle that the President's address to the people on an otherwise "wordless day" was not going to be political, you would be right to suggest he was lying. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Look, for yourself:

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

The bulk of the President's address to the people yesterday was riddled with political references and commentary. I won't subject you to a complete dissection of the whole speech, but just by the above slice you can tell for yourself that it was most certainly a political speech.

Should we say shame on Tony the Snow Job for lying to us? Or should we say shame on the President for using the auspicious date to stroke the Nine Eleven Monkey to one more political climax?

Is It Good For The President To Be "Wordless" Until Tonight?

Tony's not doing his job:

Q -- expecting the benediction in Shanksville? Did you know that was going to happen?

MR. SNOW: You know what, I did not study the schedule.

Excuse me? You don't know the president's schedule? I find that hard to swallow or is Tony lying?

I have a better question: Is it good for the President to be "wordless" until the specification to come this evening?

Q Can you give us any hints of what's to come in the speech tonight, and whether or not the President will say anything at the Pentagon, or will we have sort of a wordless day from the President until the speech?

MR. SNOW: You will have, effectively, to use your phrase, a wordless day until the speech. A wreath-laying -- the President will be meeting with the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There will be some family members also and he will meet with them at the Pentagon. But there will be no formal remarks until the Oval Office tonight.

As I said before, really it's a reflective speech, what we have learned since September 11th, where we're going. But it is, as I've been at some pains to say in the last few days, it's not a political speech, it's not trying to draw political distinctions or issue calls to action. I think this is a time to try to talk in a way that unifies the American people.

Is anything that a politician to say going to be apolitical? I think, quite the contrary. If it was not to be a political event, then why give a speech in the first place? Wordless may have been the way to go altogether if they were honest to their espoused motive of remaining apolitical today.

Let's see. If it wasn't political, then why the planned "spontaneous" changes in schedule?

Q Can you talk about the unscripted stop, the unscheduled stop last night to the firehouse and the memorial site? When was it planned, and just tell us a little about the specifics behind that?

MR. SNOW: Honestly, I don't know. I mean, I knew it had been in the works. This is a site that formally opened today and had just been previewed yesterday morning by some of the family members. This had been organized in part by family members of September 11th.

Q Why was it not on the schedule? Why was it a surprise?

MR. SNOW: Because we wanted to add some spice and zest to your life.

Oh, "zest;" it's just what we need from the Whitehouse today.

Is George Bush Gift Wrapping Victory For The Terrorists?

I am not able to pay a great deal of attention to all the MSM goings on revolving around today's auspicious date. I've got to work today. Even my local PBS station has a call in show where listeners were encouraged to pipe in their two cents. But, I don't have a lot of patients today for listening to people spout off about who did what and how we could have done things differently in the aftermath.

Five years ago, after watching the planes dive into the Trade Centers in shock and horror, I did the same thing I am going to do today. I am going to work. It's probably the single most important thing I could have done at that time, and perhaps today.

On that day in 2001, I jumped on my usual public transit commute to work and things were surreal - like a scene out of some movie. There were more police (many with dogs and automatic weapons drawn) than passengers. The eery thing about it was that despite the police presence, I didn't feel safer for it.

Today's date, I think more importantly marks another day to begin the rest of our lives. And life is for the living. Rehashing the events is only as important as it leads us to a better path forward. The wagging middle finger of blame is best put away for the day, and focus turned inward. Beyond that, the rest is ceremonial. And as the Talking Heads sang long ago, it may not matter, "well, how did I get here," more than where are we going from here.

Several questions spring to mind as we move forward into the future. Are we really on the path to "victory" in the GWoT? Might the current path only hand victory to the terrorist thugs with very little effort on their part? Has George Bush fallen victim to the pure intent of these terrorist actions and begun gift wrapping victory and delivering it daily to these thugs?

Having handed the enemy its first gift by attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Mr. Bush now bestows on them a second: victory on the battlefield of psychological warfare. The President's terror alerts, whatever their motivation, are enough to do it. Osama bin Laden is like David, slingshot at the ready, in the center of the ring. His Goliath, George Bush, cowers in the corner, repeatedly sending out warnings to his people to run for cover.

If indeed, we are now engaged in the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," I don't think we are poised to win it with the current raft of people leading the charge forward. It's time to hunker down and do what we do - which makes us dramatically different than many other nations - vote to change the regime here at home with nary the need to lift a weapon to do so.

Blog on friends, blog on all. And may our memories live with us, for if they don't we are destined to repeat our past mistakes.

Problems, Problems, Problems

Does any one listen to the President's radio address? I find that the President scripted tends to expose a good deal of trouble with the W, Rove and Co logic. Let me break it down for you:

On Tuesday in Washington, I described in the terrorists own words what they believe, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it.

• Problem 1 - When the President elevates the status of the "terrorist own words," he places them in a category of human beings that don't deserve the status nor the stature such mention warrants.

Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks, "A great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous [Caliphate]."

• Problem 2 - The President and Osama himself overestimate the ability of bin Laden's hateful course of action to unify the Muslim people. Can there be anything that can unify such a diverse set of peoples?

Information from the terrorists in CIA custody has also played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began.

• Problem 3 - If we have held supposed terrorists for this long, why does it seem that they have not been brought fully to justice?

As soon as Congress acts to authorize these military commissions, we will prosecute these men and send a clear message to those who kill Americans: No matter how long it takes, we will find you and bring you to justice.

• Problem 4 - On the face of it, it appears that the President is trying to legislate his way around the SCOTUS rather than follow already existing laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

We are safer today because we've acted to address the gaps in security, intelligence, and information sharing that the terrorists exploited in the 9/11 attacks.

• Problem 5 - Given that I live near a major port, I certainly don't feel safer because of the actions taken by the administration.

The war on terror will be long and difficult, and more tough days lie ahead. Yet, we can have confidence in the final outcome, because we know what America can achieve when our Nation acts with resolve and clear purpose.

• Problem 6 - As the GWoT turns rhetorically for the W, Rove and Co to the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century," how can there ever be an end? Is it going to become similar to the never ending "war on drugs?"

Ten Experts Tell Us How To Avoid The Next Catastrophe: What Say You?

Any one else out there tired of the fifth anniversary barrage of Nine Eleven retrospectives? Here's an different slant on the subject: The NY Times invited ten authors to tell us what they think.

I have not had time to scour these articles, but I thought I would toss the link here and have at it when I have some more spare time. Have a gander and tell us what you think are ways for us to avoid the next terrorst catastrophe:

The Op-Ed page asked 10 people with experience in security and counterterrorism to answer the following question: What is one major reason the United States has not suffered a major attack since 2001, and what is the one thing you would recommend the nation do in order to avoid attacks in the future?

CIA Repudiates Links Between Saddam and Terrorist Leaders

Why does this matter?

The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

Another Important Question Goes Unanswered

Here's a really important question not given any answer by Tony the Snow job in Friday's briefing:

Q How long has the President known Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know if he knew.

Q Could you find out for us?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: Because when you get into these things what you're asking about is details on which we're not commenting. Why don't you ask when everything has been fully litigated and when we're in a position to be able to say whatever we might want to say. But in the context of an ongoing investigation and ongoing litigation that involves Scooter Libby, as inviting as it may be to ask who ought to apologize, or who knew what when, or to do that sort of thing, it's best just to keep my mouth shut. And that's what I'm going to do.

Q Who does know?

MR. SNOW: You're the reporter. You're the reporter. You're asking me --

Q Well, you may not know because you came in late. But who in the administration does?

MR. SNOW: Again, let me repeat what I said. We've got ongoing litigation. I'm just not going to get into any of this stuff. Ask Richard Armitage who he talked to. Maybe he'll be able to do it. He's writing op-eds now.

"I don't know if he knew?" Which is worse: that he didn't know, or that he knew it and took no action as promised?

Are Democrats Bad For America?

I love reading the transcripts of Whitehouse Press Briefings. They are very entertaining.

But more than that they reveal to us how rhetorically twisted the W, Rove and Co is. Based on their logic, they must think the American people are stupid to use rhetoric to cover up and divorce themselves from the consequences of their actions. Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.

Have a look and let me see if you buy what Tony the Snow job was selling today. Ask yourself as you read this: What is the W, Rove and Co up to here? Are they uniting or dividing America?

Q Returning to the bright lines being drawn between Democrats and Republicans, I'd like to follow on a question the President was asked yesterday in an interview. He was asked by Charlie Gibson, does the President believe if the Democrats control one House or another of Congress, that America will be -- that security for America will be somewhat compromised in some way, that it's a less safe country if the Democrats control one of the Houses?

MR. SNOW: I'm just not playing ball on that.

Q It's not playing ball. It's a legitimate question, based on the last four speeches in eight days.

MR. SNOW: But I would invite you to go back and look at every one of those speeches and find for me the area in which the President tried to cleave between Democrats and Republicans.

Q So there's no attempt right now to show a distinction between Democrats and Republicans in how they handle the war on terror?

MR. SNOW: No, I think what's happening is that the President is making clear what his position is, and critics will respond, and people will be able to draw their distinctions.

Q Hang on a second. It is implicit what the President is doing.

MR. SNOW: No, but wait a minute -- the question -- no, it's not. Let me walk through a couple of things here, and I'm glad you asked.

For instance, to the notion that in coming up with suggestions for handling detainees that somehow was timed politically -- this was the first time it was possible to introduce this. The Hamdan decision came down in late June. It took a long time for people to go through this. We have had ongoing and very active efforts of senior members of this administration going back and forth to Capitol Hill, working with members of congress to try to deal with this seriously because it has interrupted out ability to collect intelligence. It has denied people the opportunity to know that people who have been charged with acts of terrorism are going to face justice. This is the first opportunity. Wednesday is the first day that both Houses of Congress were back from recess. That was the time to do it.

But what you've asked is, is there some sort of -- we're just not going to engage in speculation because we think we're going to win both Houses.

Q Okay, but -- I guess, let me rephrase that, because maybe I've done a poor job of setting up the premise. Obviously, the President is engaged in a process of drawing distinctions between Republicans and Democrats to lay out for the American people what the differences in the parties are.

MR. SNOW: Sure.

Q Okay --

MR. SNOW: He's framing the debate.

Q So let's take that to its logical conclusion. If the Democrats win, is America less safe?

MR. SNOW: We don't think the Democrats are going to win.

So, is it me or are the lies Tony is trying to feed us that transparent? Oh, and I do think they might be in for a big surprise in November, don't you?

Hope: Squashed, Spindled, Mutilated & Squandered

One of the tragic consequences that seem to be a direct result of the fear-driven & fear-mongering leadership of the W, Rove and Co is that America has lost her hope. Nay, the hope that once fed and led this fair country of ours; that rang from sea to shining sea has been squashed, spindled, mutilated, and squandered.

Hope, it appears, was traded by the W, Rove and Co for political capital and squandered on a war that has too many fronts; one of which we know to be rather suspect as it was predicated on misinformation, faulty intelligence, and the grand WMD bait and switch. And now, this Global War on Terror (GWoT) has morphed into the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

But if, as the President says "we're only in its opening stages" of this "ideological struggle," things are sure to get worse before they get better. Bush goes further to suggest that, "to win this struggle, we have to defeat the ideology of the terrorists with a more hopeful vision." Well, Mr. President, where is it?

My hopes have been repeatedly squashed by the W, Rove and Co and I challenge any one to find a message of hope threaded throughout any speech delivered by any one in the W, Rove and Co. Please, if you do find any, share the link because, I for one can use a dash as we tread closer to 11 September 2006 (a much different day than five years ago). Share with us the words spoken by W (or any Rove and Co lackey) that bring you hope and liven your step, because mine has been regularly and brazenly mutilated.

I am tired of having my hopes spindled by the fear-laced rhetoric spewed by the W, Rove and Co talking heads that has us simultaneously terrified and placated. Certainly,

President Clinton was often mocked for his declarations that he still believed “in a place called Hope.” But he understood that instilling hope is a critical part of leadership. Other than a few special interest programs — like cutting taxes on the wealthy and giving various incentives to business — it is hard to think of areas in which the Bush administration has raised the nation’s hopes and met them. This president has, instead, tried to focus the American people on the fear of terrorism, for which there is no cure, only bad choices or something worse.

As the few war-time profiteers prosper, it is our nation that suffers and grows weary of blood spilled for ideological reasons. Can we look to our President to lead us out of this morass? I say no. It's time to vote the bastards out and look for hope else where.

For decent example that illustrates my meaning, have a look at the President's proclamation regarding "Patriot Day" and see if there is any hope in there. I argue that any such hope is mutilated by the overlay of fear, which has become the hallmark of this Administration. I may be the only one, but I just can't see it, and I need help finding my way!

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we recall the fire and horror at the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. America will always remember the thousands of innocent lives taken by the enemies of freedom that morning.

In the face of these unspeakable attacks, we were reminded that the great strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of our citizens. We witnessed firefighters, police officers, other public safety officials, and ordinary Americans demonstrate extraordinary courage, risking their lives to save innocent victims. We saw our country united in compassion as Americans came together to provide relief and bring hope to others.

Today, America is fighting a war that is testing our Nation's resolve. We are once again answering history's call with confidence, and we know that freedom will prevail. Our brave men and women in uniform have stepped forward to fight our enemies abroad so that we do not have to face them here at home, and we are grateful for the courageous individuals bringing terrorists to justice around the world.

We are also confronting the extremists in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century. September the 11th made clear that, in the long run, the only way to secure our Nation is to advance liberty and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. By working together with our friends and allies, we are helping spread the blessings of freedom and laying the foundations of peace for generations to come.

The events of September 11, 2001, will always be a defining moment in our history. We hold the victims and their families in our hearts, and we lift them up in our prayers.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Is Any One Taking Bets As To Who Will Be The First To Be Impeached Come November?

Come November, things may look dramatically different in Congress. Let's hope the voters turn out in masses to prove to the idiots in charge that we don't like the path they have taken and we need to venture down a new direction.

Given the number of impeachable offenses that could be slathered on a wide number of the W, Rove and Co personnel, I got to thinking. Perhaps there is money to be made in Vegas or elsewhere by placing bets as to who will be the first to be impeached.

It might be fun to speculate as to who will be the indicted under articles of impeachment. Who will be the first found guilty of impeachable offenses, etc? Bookies aught to be all over this one.

What odds would you give Rummy, et al?:

The first and most obvious means is through the impeachment process. As a Cabinet secretary, Rumsfeld may be impeached and removed from office under Article 2 of the Constitution for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors." Rumsfeld's critics charge him with a long list of what they say are impeachable offenses, including incompetence and ordering the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other military detention centers.

Because historical practices and the weight of legal opinion suggest that impeachable misconduct generally requires not just a bad act but a malicious intent as well, it's not clear that incompetence qualifies as an impeachable offense. Although it's true that one federal judge was removed from office in 1803 for mental incompetence, Congress has never again impeached, much less removed, anyone for incompetence.

Avoiding Ahmadinejad: Why Are We Not Getting A "Steel Cage Grudge Match?"

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to address the UN General Assembly, that means he is coming to NYC. Could it be that this man would/should be allowed into our country?

And, if so, why can't we have a "Steel Cage Grudge Match" between him and our fair President Bush? That would be something I think many would buy tickets to see. Moreover, it might save lives if these two men sat down in a room, and they key was tossed out until they came to a peaceful resolution to their disagreements, no?

But you know, it looks to me like the President is avoiding Ahmadinejad in advance of his visit. Could it be our president is the “chicken hawk” many describe him to be?

Q What about the idea of Ahmadinejad -- speaking at the General Assembly on the 19th? Has the President heard about that? What does he think of that idea?

MR. SNOW: Well, you may recall, President Ahmadinejad spoke last year at the U.N. General Assembly. I believe that's where he thought people perceived a halo. And it was standard practice at the General Assembly to have heads of state attend and, if they wish, speak. So it's standard procedure.

Q Is he at all concerned about any kind of debate that might be -- pursuant to that? It's something that, obviously, Ahmadinejad is interested in.

MR. SNOW: There's not going to be a steel cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad. The President will deliver his speech and at some other juncture, President Ahmadinejad, if the General Assembly so decides, will speak. This is not going to be a U.N. version of "Crossfire.'

Q Will the President be there when he speaks?

MR. SNOW: I have no idea.

All right. Well, thank you.

W Uses Another Dead Soldier To Prop Up His Argument

I've talked about this before. Really, I don't think it appropriate for the President to use GIs KIA in Iraq to prop up his argument to stay the course. This is a sick political ploy to jack up our sympathies that must have been dreamed up and designed by Uncle Karl himself. It's just wrong.

How do we get him to stop doing this?

We see that full measure and the strength of this nation in the men and women in uniform who fight this war, and we have -- and who have given their lives in the cause of liberty and freedom. One of these soldiers was a young lieutenant named Noah Harris, who was killed last summer in Iraq when his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. Noah grew up here in Georgia; he graduated from the University of Georgia. He volunteered for the Army after September the 11th, 2001. He told his dad that people had an obligation to serve a cause higher than themselves. In Iraq, Lieutenant Harris was an officer known for his toughness and his skill in battle -- and for the Beanie Babies that he carried with him to hand out to Iraqi children. He was also known for the photo of his parents' home in Ellijay that he used as a screen-saver on his computer. When his troops asked why he chose that picture, he explained, "That is why I'm here."

Lieutenant Harris understood the stakes in Iraq. He knew that to protect his loved ones at home, America must defeat our enemies overseas. If America pulls out of Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the terrorists will follow us here, home. The best way to honor the memory of brave Americans like Lieutenant Harris is to complete the mission they began -- so we will stay, we will fight, and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.)

Too bad dead GIs can't vote in November.

Am I Misundercomprehending Something About What I Am Rememberin'?

Here's another great Mark Fiore vid. View, enjoy, and Discuss.

Every So Often Another Blogger Hits It Right On The Head

I was surfing my blog roll, i recommend to you, this evening because some times another person is just pissed off enough to lay it out better then I ever could.

Isa over at Learning to Sequence is not really a political blogger. She mainly is fun to read and a nice diversion from the usual rants. But today, I found that she really hits the nail on the head in two places.

First, reagarding Condi:

And reading about yet another bunch of twisted justification of the Iraq debacle from Condi Rice, wherein she compared this enormous fuckup in Iraq to the American Civil War, it was beyond irony to think how much she sounded like the good ole boys in the South. Uncle Tommin' it to the utmost. She's a poster child for "separate but equal."

And second reagarding who the real threat is:

The world's changing rapidly, and it's frightening to have to keep figuring out who the predators are, how to keep apace or try to moderate the pace.
The predators to watch are denned up in D.C. Not in a cave in Pakistan. If you pay attention to their howls, you can tell what's coming. And they'll eat their own if they have to.

Who Is More Like The Nazis?

Well all know that turnabout is fair play.

For a fun tour down memory lane, I defer to Shea over at Constantly Amazed. He's got it spelled out quite nicely for those deficient in the Nazi history category:

So Rumsfeld wishes to compare us (who stand in opposition to the neocon bloodbath) to Nazis. Rumsfeld, a Nazi who works for Nazis! I know the web is awash with great responses. I thought I might add a few bits from an article called How Hitler Became a Dictator by Jacob G. Hornberger.

Compare this to the 9/11 incident:
The Reichstag fire: On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the

Who is more like Nazis?

More Presidential Logic: W Tries Draw Parallels Between The Nazis And The MSM

You are not fooling us, Mr. President. Have a look at this new youtube upload:

The Fundamental Problem With The GOP Terrorist Solution

It strikes me that the President hinted, but didn't realize he was doing so, at the real problem with the GOP Terrorist Solution: That the W, Rove and Co has forgotten to address the very issues that cause would-be-terrorists to hate us.

You see, it doesn't matter how many terrorists are incarcerated in how ever many secret prisons the president is willing to admit to, like the wack-a-mole game at your local carnival, more pop up to take their place.

Even the President agrees with me:

As we prosecute suspected terrorist leaders and operatives who have now been transferred to Guantanamo, we'll continue searching for those who have stepped forward to take their places

Sure, you could blame activist judges for tying your hands in the prosecute of said detainees, but that doesn't address the fundamental roots of terrorism, now does it?

Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today. First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men -- and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open. Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program.

Or perhaps, your actions may actually violate the law, which in turn causes more people to turn toward the extreme methods of expressing their anger over the secret incarceration of their family members?

Why Is It Necessary For The President To Start Every Speach The Same Way?

When the thrust of your policy machine is predicated on fear and fighting a "war on terror," you have no choice but to amplify that fear at every corner. If there is no more fear, you have no means to justify for your actions.

Today, we saw the president start another speech the way he has started numerous speeches - by spanking the Nine Eleven Monkey. It's time for him to stop using that tragic event for political gain.

In the end, the continuous stroking and stoking of the Nine Eleven Monkey is a sign of presidential weakness. If he was actually doing good, he would be able to discuss the actions he has taken and not have to preface every policy decision with a such a reminder:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.

On the morning of September the 11th, 2001, our nation awoke to a nightmare attack. Nineteen men, armed with box cutters, took control of airplanes and turned them into missiles. They used them to kill nearly 3,000 innocent people. We watched the Twin Towers collapse before our eyes -- and it became instantly clear that we'd entered a new world, and a dangerous new war.

Anybody have a handy copy of "My pet goat" out there? I need to catch up on some reading.

Any one else care to take a stab at answering the question in the title of this post? Please, by all means, leave a comment and discuss.

By Getting The Whitehouse to Publish Their Quotes, Might The Terrorists Have Won A Significant Victory?

You may have missed it. The W, Rove and Co, in it's glorious wisdom, has decided to quote the terrorists and post those quotes on the Whitehouse web location. My question is this:

• By posting these quotes, might not the terrorists be able to claim a significant win in their battle against the 'great Satan?"

Meanwhile, Another Rat Jumps From The Sinking GOP Ship

In case you missed it, Scotty McClellan's brother, Dr. Mark,quit the W, Rove and Co today.

Who Are These "Islamo-Fascists" Anyway?

Helen asks another fantastic question that another W, Rove and Co puppet refuses to answer. Have a look Francis Townsend's failed attempt at spining her way out of a difficult question:

Q Who coined the Islamo-fascist slogan, and what does it mean --

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure I could tell you who coined it --

Q -- in this administration?

MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure I could tell you if there is a single author or who coined it. And again, Helen, I guess what I was saying to Elaine is, it's meant to try and capture what is objectionable about the ideology; that is, the use of violence to achieve these ideological ends.

Q Well, why that -- why Islamic? Does it make it a religious connotation?

MS. TOWNSEND: Absolutely. There are many peace-loving Muslims around the world.

Q So it is a religious war?

MS. TOWNSEND: No, I didn't say that. It's not a religious war. What this is about is there is a battle within Islam, itself, for -- in terms of what the ideology is, and there are many devout, pious Muslims, many of whom I've met in my travels around the Muslim world, who are deeply offended by this advocating of violence --

Q But why can't you explain the --

MS. TOWNSEND: Helen, we're going to give somebody else a chance.

Ah, Francis, but you never answered the question.

Are The "Islamo-Fascists" The Only Bad Guys

Just a quick question seems warranted given today's press gaggle statement by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Townsend:

Q What about the President's Islamo-fascism? The president of the Islamic Society of North America, the new president, said last week she didn't think that was particularly helpful.

MS. TOWNSEND: What the President was trying to capture was this idea of using violence to achieve ideological ends -- and that's wrong. Regardless of what label you pin on it, it is this form of radical extremism that really wants to deny people freedom and impose a totalitarian vision of society on everyone, that we object to.

Given that the President has said that the GWoT is "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," might he be guilty of the same thing: "using violence to achieve ideological ends?"

Here's Anoher Clue You Are A Bad President: It Looks Like The President Is Having A Hard Time Controling A Majority Of Congress

Tony the Snow Job was on a roll Tuesday. Have a look:

So this, again, is something that the President would love to see members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of cooperation we had after September 11th, where the real goal was not to try to hand out pink slips at the Pentagon, but instead to win the war on terror in a way that is going to make not only America safer, but also the rest of the world safer so that democracy can take firm root throughout the globe.

That would be a neat trick wouldn't it? Dream on Tony. Dream on. Wouldn't the W, Rove and Co be particularly distrubed if handing out pink slips is the only answer to his question?

There is a subtextual meaning to this paragraph. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the GOP control both the House and the Senate? Essentially, Tony is lamenting, therby admitting, that there is no congresional coheasion around the President's GWoT (Global War on Terror). Any guess as to how W is going to unit a Congress divided by his own hands?

Who Is Creating The Political " Boogyman?"

Primary documents are always good for a post or two. Tuesday is filled with fun and enjoyable questions to pose to the blogisphere when you scope out Whitehouse dot gov.

Let's start with hypocrisy. You have got to love it when, in juxtaposition, we find Tony the Snow-job doing exactly the thing he suggest is nefarious all in the same press conference. Have a look, first at what he suggest is wrong to do, in relation to the vilification of Rummy:

Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm wondering, does any one out there have examples where Republicans are equally perturbed with Rummy as the Democratic members of Congress? But I digress.

Here we see Tony step up to the plate to try and generate a political boogeyman or two of his own nary two paragraphs up from the one posted above:

There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but this is just an ill fated attempt to negatively paint those who would disagree with the means by suggesting they disagree with the ends as well. Nice trick Tony.

Might it not be okay to agree with the ends, but not the means? It seems like what Tony is saying here is that it is wrong to suggest that the scofflaws of the W, Rove and Co might be able to accomplish the same things but with in the bounds of the constitution, legal statutes, and without violating our civil liberties?

In the end, Rummy should be judged by his actions or inactions, not simply based on his words. Tony only uses the rhetoric to deflect attention from some one who could be performing sub par, no? Remember, the President did suggest that "Brownie" was "doin' a heckuva job" as well.

Politics As Usual: Fireworks In The Whitehouse Press Briefing Room

Really, you can't make this shit up. Any one who pays attention to the rhetoric of the W, Rove and Co. knows that one political parlor trick they use is to paint the Dems as one thing and then suggest they are not it. It's a classic pot calling the kettle black scenario.

After Rummy delivered his speech last week, Tony the Snow job had a difficult time defending Rummy's remarks. Moreover, he tries to suggest that there is nothing political about the nature of the president's recent set of PR junkets to defend his GWoT.

This exchange is long, so let's break it down bit by bit for fun. It's a doozy.At the outset, we see one reporter try to pin them down on the politics of recent speechifying by the W. The opening salvo - "Hello Pot, you're black:"

Q Tony, neither one of you have addressed the political motivation of these speeches. I mean, this issue has become a big part of the campaign, and we're heading into the final stretch right now. Is there -- you know, is there skepticism that the President is engaging in a PRESIDENT offensive here on this issue? Is there no political motivation in these speeches?

Now, granted, this particular reporter could have formulated his question a bit better, but you get the idea. Tony the Snow job goes right for the defensive - "Hello, kettle, your black, but we are not":

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way. If it's a political motivation to try to put forth a thoughtful document that lays out in a comprehensive way the way in which we intend to win the war on terror -- and I defy you to go through this document and look for political red meat; it's not there -- then, okay, we'll plead guilty to politics.

But if you take a look at what you've been writing and what the people in this room have been writing and reporting for the last two months, what's the primary topic? It's the war. If you look at what Democratic leaders did over Labor Day weekend, that would be a political act. What the President -- what this is, is a document that has been months in the preparation, and it is one that lays out for the American people a thoughtful way of thinking about the most important issue of our time. I think it belittles it by trying to dismiss it as politics.

And, again, I'd encourage you to read it, because this is not -- this is not something that was timed to coincide with a letter from Democratic leaders. It, in fact, is -- it's timed to coincide with the fact that the report is done. It was an interagency process that took a long time to do.

Now, I will tell you this --

Okay, but don't you think Tony, that what you are doing is to "belittle" what the Democrats are saying by calling it politics? Certainly, there is reason to believe that there are political motivations for the all this speechifying at great taxpayer expense, no?

Q But the timing is suspect, because today is the beginning of the last final stretch of the campaign.

Really, isn't Karl Rove's job specifically to think about such things?

MR. SNOW: Do you think it's suspect to discuss in the final stretches of the campaign the issues that are foremost in the mind of the American public? I don't think it's suspect at all. I don't recall somebody calling up Harry Reid and saying, this letter is suspect; Nancy Pelosi, this letter is suspect, why are you doing this now? Instead -- and I would encourage you to take a look at the speeches that are delivered this week, and take a look at the documents that will be presented. And I think what you're going to find is an attempt to be thoughtful, to be as comprehensive as possible, and, furthermore, there will be an open invitation for people on both sides of the aisle to roll up their sleeves, because the war on terror is real, it's important, and we've got to win it.

But it's also, as Fran just pointed out, a long war. One of the things that you can sort of read into the document today is also -- and you'll hear it in the President's speech later today -- what al Qaeda wants. And if you think of what might happen if the United States were to leave the Middle East without having completed the mission of supporting a successful democracy in Iraq, and also pursuing the goal of a two-state democracy with the Palestinians and the Israelis, what you have is the prospect of failed states with large oil supplies in a region where they can become launching pads for terrorist organizations that are going to try to do what al Qaeda says it wants to do, which is to create a (inaudible) that stretches from Asia to Andalusia. And this is something that's of significance and importance.

So certainly it's an issue of political importance. Both political parties are going to talk about it. It would be irresponsible not to talk about it. But, also, the President's view is, talk about it in a serious way. And that's why we're going to be supplying you with a lot of information; you can do with it what you will.

Okay, so it is of political import, but not political? Here's where it starts to get rocky for Tony:

David.

Q Hey, Tony, how are you?

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q The President, in his last speech, made very clear that the American people have a choice -- right? -- in the way forward in the war on terror, which suggests, by definition, that he is trying to frame the political debate for the midterm election when it comes to national security. Is that fair?

MR. SNOW: I think both parties -- if you take a look again at the letter --

Q But I'm asking about the President. I'm not asking about Democrat -- you don't speak for Democrats. I'm asking about the President.

Yes, that is right. Tony: "You don't speak for the democrats," but that won't stop him from trying to, now will it?

MR. SNOW: Well, but I'm trying to answer, because there are two parts of this equation, David. There seems to be a presumption that if Democrats make political points the President shouldn't respond because that would be political. The President -- these are important issues, and you can call it politics, you can call it whatever you want, but the most important thing to do is to provide a basis for people to take a look at the facts and reach thoughtful conclusions.

We do have a choice to make as a country: Are we going to acknowledge that this is a long war, analogous to the Cold War in the sense that we have a dispersed ideological following -- this is not one where, like in World War II, or other wars, you have a grounded political enemy --

Oh, I see. Now Tony is trying to frame the debate the way he would like it to be framed. That doesn't sound like the kind of "healthy debate" they suggest they are open to, but I digress.

Here is where we see Tony admit that this is all about politics:

Q I'm not asking for the major points. I understand that. I'm asking --

MR. SNOW: Well, it's important to talk about the major points --

Q Right. But you don't disagree that he's trying to frame the debate for what is an important political choice?

MR. SNOW: Absolutely. Of course, of course.

Here's the thrust of the argument and the painful political reality to which Tony is in public denial over. I wonder what if he talks the same way in private with his compatriots.

Q Okay. There's so much emphasis by the President on his resolve and on the consequences of failure, which seems to dovetail to the political strategy of casting the vote as not a referendum on his leadership or his conduct in the war on terror, leading the war on terror, but on a choice between two parties and their visions. And I'm curious whether, in this document, there's any reflection on the fact that this White House, this administration failed to anticipate a violent terrorist-based insurgency in Iraq, and also failed to adapt once it learned of its presence? And shouldn't that be put before the voters this fall?

Let the fireworks start:

MR. SNOW: I think you've admirably expressed the Democratic point of view, but I don't think --

Q Actually, Tony, I don't think that's fair, if you look at the facts. If you look at the facts.

MR. SNOW: Well, I do, because -- no, because, for instance --

Q No, no, no. No, I don't think you should be able to just wipe that, kind of dismiss the question --

MR. SNOW: Well, let me --

Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.

Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.

Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.

Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.

MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --

Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

So that's why -- I apologize for interrupting, but I think it's important to challenge that presumption. Now, did we fully anticipate --

Q If you want to challenge that presumption -- no, no, wait a second. If you want to challenge that presumption, why don't you describe in some detail how you accurately anticipated the insurgency, and what was done to deal with it at the time.

"Factually tendentious?" Oh, my, who is trying to spin his way out of answering the question? The reporter has every right to challenge Tony here.

MR. SNOW: I was just about to go back to that part.

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: See, there were two assumptions. I was taking --

Q No, you described me as rude in making a Democratic argument and said --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because I kept trying to answer the question, and you kept jumping in. We need to come to an accommodation, because I'm perfectly happy to take on both sides.

No sir, you are not. You only present your side and the negative aspects of the other. That's politics, my friend. But I interrupted; please continue:

It is accurate to say that nobody fully anticipated what was going to happen. However, you also -- if you go back to the days right after the end of major combat, there was concern about the so-called dead-enders. You may recall the Defense Secretary -- you may recall that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the time was asking pointed questions about, what does this mean? Are we creating enemies? You may recall that that was one of the very early stories.

It does not serve our purposes to take a rosy-eyed view about what's going on. It's irresponsible. What you have to do in a situation like this is to realize that in any conflict there are going to be things that you don't anticipate. It's just -- it's humanly impossible. And, furthermore, there weren't a lot of people on Capitol Hill or elsewhere. And in a time of war, you're not -- you do have to acknowledge in the sense of going ahead and tackling problems that you didn't anticipate, and trying to respond to new realities.

Part of what's going on in this report today -- and you missed Fran's presentation -- is that this is a discussion about evolving strategies and dealing with an evolving enemy. This is not a static picture; never is, never will be. And so I think that you find that there are a lot of different moving parts here.

You have diplomatic efforts that involve the government of Iraq and governments throughout the region and governments throughout the world. You have cultural angles where you're trying to make the argument about -- you know, there was a debate here just a couple of minutes ago about the term "Islamic fascism," or so on. This is not a slur against Islam; it's a slur against people who try to use Islam as a shield for killing people and suppressing human liberties.

You have efforts to go after it financially; you have efforts to try to deny safe haven. In other words, it's a huge task with a lot of different moving parts. And it would be unreasonable to expect that something is going to be perfect throughout it, but it would be reasonable to expect -- and this is what we've been trying to do -- is to respond as the situation changes, and to find ways to deal effectively with old problems and new ones.

Are you satisfied with this load of rhetoric? I know one reporter who wasn't:

Q Just one final point.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Is it fair, in the context of this report that you're putting out and the argument about the consequences of failure in Iraq, for voters to judge this party which supported the war, and this President, on how he has managed, and this government has managed, the war in Iraq?

Yes, good question. You be the judge and Tony suggests that's okay:

MR. SNOW: We're perfectly happy to let people take a look not only at how the government has managed the war in Iraq, but the other thing is to keep in mind that both parties supported the war; 73 members of the Senate voted for the resolution -- or was it 72? Knoller, you usually know this stuff. Is it 72 or 73? It was a large number. You had large majorities in the House of Representatives. You've had significant support at various junctures for different parts of it.

I think it's important -- I think it's important, constructive and necessary for us to debate not only the past conduct of the war, but the future conduct of the war. So, no, I think it's absolutely legitimate to have people draw conclusions based on this. As I said earlier, you've got to ask which way of approaching the war on terror is going to be more effective at guaranteeing American safety and security, and also, in the long run, is going to create the kind of planet, the kind of world in which people are going to be able to live in greater harmony in the long run. So, yes, those are legitimate questions.

Is it fair to talk about past support for the war when we now know that people were having WMD blown up their skirts based on false intelligence? I don't think so. So, let's have another stab at trying to expose the political games the W, Rove and Co are playing with the Nine Eleven Monkey:

Q Tony, this report and these speeches not only coincide with the kickoff of the election season, but also with the run-up to the 5th anniversary of September 11th. That is a day that many Americans feel should be reserved for solemn remembrance of those who died. Are you not concerned that, in effect, the President is open to charges that he is politicizing that day?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so -- no, I don't think so, because you'll have to listen to what the President has to say on September 11th, won't we? But I think --

Q But in the run-up he's coming just up to the edge of it, and will take a momentary pause.

MR. SNOW: Well, do you think it's -- why would it be exploiting on the President's half, and not exploiting when people are criticizing him about the very same issues? No, there's a debate. I don't think it's exploitative. The one thing that September 11th taught us is that not only is evil present in the world, but terrorists mean business. And both parties want the same thing, I believe -- certainly they say they do -- which is to have an end to terror, and also to have American troops back after you've got a successful conclusion in Iraq. The question is, which way is going to lead you to those goals? What's the most effective way to approach those? That is going to be a critical issue in this election.

Far from besmirching the memories of September 11th, I think it's a way of saying we're serious. We're serious about making sure that, to the best of our ability, this never happens again. As Fran said, we're safe -- we are safer, but not safe. But that we ought to devote every ounce of our energy and will toward preventing repeat acts of terror on our shores, but also for going after the terrorist network that openly espouses it, has organized it, has tried to conduct it and has hit other countries around the globe. That, to me, seems to be not only an effective way of remembering those who died, but also to say that you will not have died in vain.

In reality, it comes down to this:

Q And, finally, what's the big new thing in this report? What is new about this report?

More fireworks:

MR. SNOW: Read it. I will challenge you --

Q You've read it --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, it --

Q -- you tell me what you think is new.

MR. SNOW: The fact is that the world has changed considerably since February of 2003. And what you have here is a comprehensive but not nuts and bolts look -- again, we're not going to give away sources and methods, it's not operational, but it is strategic. And it tells you all the various different ways in which we are trying to fight the war on terror, and the philosophy behind it -- not only the short-term strategies but the long-term goals, and how we think it is best to pursue and achieve those things.

Q I'm looking at the priorities -- I think there were four priorities or so listed -- and it doesn't seem like there's anything so groundbreaking there that couldn't have been written in February of 2003. So --

Hmmm, nothing groundbreaking. Therefore, it certainly looks like this is more of a political tool than anything else, now doesn't it?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, actually -- no, no, because not only do you have WMD, you also have -- look, at this time, in 2003, at this time in 2003, we had not, in fact, completed restructuring our government in response to the challenges raised by September 11th. We have done considerable work, and it's described in here, in trying to reform our intelligence apparatus, our military apparatus, to try to reform the way in which the government goes about the business of trying to intercept and to foil terror plots.

A considerable amount of things have changed. I mean, I suppose you could say it hasn't changed, the principle is we want to stop terrorism. That's true. But I think you will find that the look here is far more comprehensive because they have more experience now. And also what's happened is that the enemy has evolved. And I daresay that we will continue, and we do continue each and every day to try to revisit what's going on and, as David pointed out, what succeeds, what fails, and how to move forward effectively.

Are you sure you want to draw the WMD case one more time Tony? I think he caught himself before he reiterated it.

Okay, a couple more and then I've got to go to the Oval. I apologize.

Q Tony, isn't it a little contradictory to say the President wants Republicans and Democrats to return to that spirit post-September 11th, in the days immediately afterwards and then have the administration officials continue to try to paint the Democrats as the "cut and run" party?

Good question, to which he gives a non-answer:

MR. SNOW: You haven't heard it from this podium. I think what you're reflecting is some of the back and forth with members on the Hill who do that. You know, it's an election season and they're going go do that. But, look, we'd be perfectly happy -- there's one thing that we will not accept, which is the notion of a phased -- it's not -- what term did they use in the letter? I'll have to pull the letter out --

Q A phased redeployment?

MR. SNOW: A phased deployment -- no, you do a redeployment when the job is done, when it's appropriate to do it. You don't do it according to a timetable, you do it according to realities on the ground. Again, those are -- but the President, I think, and we're going to have opportunities to talk about this in coming days, how do you best foil them. How do you conduct surveillance? How do you deal with some of the thorny issues of dealing with terrorists? And we will be discussing those. And there will be opportunities for both parties to work together.

I'm still waiting for him to unite his own party, let alone unite the republican and democratic parties. That will be a neat trick if W can pull it off, but I am doubtful as he and the remainder of the W, Rove and Co have caused the divisions:

...Q Tony, just to follow on Elaine's point here, very briefly. I mean, you have Secretary Rumsfeld's comments last week. You have this whole debate about are people appeasing the latest in a long line of totalitarians, and the Vice President has been out there, rather active in suggesting about this sort of "cut and run" implications to opposing the administration's efforts. So you're calling for this moment on September 11th of national unity, this squandered chance, and yet look at the run-up and the context, it hasn't just been laid maybe not at this podium, but certainly from the White House.

MR. SNOW: Well, look, there has been a lot of -- there has been a lot of conversation along those lines both ways, and there has been a lot of attempts to make political hay with. I think what you try to do -- the President, as leader, is going to try to reach and see what we -- there is important business to be done, and he's going to hope for Democratic support.

What about support from his own party? But don't let me interrupt:

As far as the Rumsfeld speech, I've got it here. And what's interesting about the Rumsfeld speech, again, it's a thoughtful speech that talks about the hard nature of realities on the ground. What he talks about is some of the questions you have to ask, and I'm not going to go through it because I don't have time right now, but you and I can chat if you want to call, or anybody else wants to call today.

But the fact is, the Rumsfeld speech, I think, is one of those that has been singled out for criticism, quite often not fully in context. And I saw Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech as something that is not an attempt to be sort of calling out or picking fights, but to raise some thoughtful questions about what goes on, on the ground.

Really, is that a good defense of Rummy? I told you it was impossible to make this shit up. Let me know what you think.

Here's Some Thing The President Says To Which We Can All Agree

In the close of today's speechifying by the President, we finally see something stipulated to which we can all agree:

I can't help but look at a man over there in uniform and think about our military right now on Labor Day. First, thank you for serving. (Applause.) And our soldiers and sailors and Coast Guard men and Marines and Air Force have got to understand this -- that this country supports them in the mission; that they may hear all the political discourse going on, but the people of this country, the people of the United States of America stand squarely behind the men and women who wear our uniform. (Applause.)

And on Labor Day, we think about those who are sacrificing for our freedom and peace, and we think about their families, too.

Do we all agree with the president here? Or, do we differ here as well? My initial thinking was that we could cross the lines and all shake hands over this one, but perhaps that was rather superficial of me. In particular, I am fairly certain that there are vast areas of disagreement as to what that support for the troops should look like.

One Vacation The President Didn't Take, But Maybe He Should Have -Subtitle:"And My Message To The World Is This: Just Treat Us The Way We Treat You "

Just when you think there is nothing fun to blog about, the president opens his mouth, and there you go. In case you don't keep track of the president's whereabouts on holidays such as this, you would not have noticed that the W was busy delivering another speech today in front of another friendly audience.

The message from the Presidential Propaganda Catapult continues to be about the same things he has been saying for quite some time. From a political stand point repetition is good. But perhaps the president should have taken the day of and cleared some brush at the hobby ranch in Crawford instead.

Stick with me and wait for the punch at the end. Let's have a look:

A couple of other things we need to do, as well. We got to do something about energy, in order to make sure that we're competitive, that this economy will remain strong, that people are able to find work.

Gee, ya think?

...But one things is clear, is that dependence on foreign oil jeopardizes our capacity to grow. I mean, the problem is we get oil from some parts of the world and they simply don't like us.

Gee, ya think?

And so the more dependent we are on that type of energy, the less likely it will be that we are able to compete, and so people have good, high-paying jobs.

I don't know about this prior sentence. Does it make any sense to you?

And now, here's where it starts to get good. I wonder which speech writers developed the text for this one, but perhaps W had too much of a say in it as the speech is not up to the usual W, Rove and Co standards. Have a look at the second to last sentence for an illustration of what I mean:

And finally, one of the ways to make sure that we're a competitive nation is to continue opening up markets for U.S. products. If I was somebody who was driving a ship, or an engineer on a ship, I'd want to hear a President say, we want you to be selling U.S. products -- transporting U.S. products around the world. See, we got 5 percent of the world's people here in the United States, which means 95 percent are potential customers. And therefore, it's important for us to be aggressive about opening up markets.

And finally, here's the punch line. I know that the President was talking about opening up markets, but really, he should be careful about what he wishes for, because he may just get it for us.

And my message to the world is this: Just treat us the way we treat you. That's all we expect. We just want the rules to be fair -- because I believe this country can compete with anybody, any time, anywhere, so long as the rules are fair. (Applause.)

Boy, I sure hope he meant that folk of the globe should treat us like most average Americans treat them, not the way our government treats them otherwise we are in for a world of shit.

Some One Forgot To Turn On The "Beacon Of Liberty."

Does any one listen to GW's radio address or am I the only consumer of all things propaganda related. This week's address squarely fits in the "rose-colored-glasses" category again.

First, he tries another stab at dividing (not uniting, I might add) the country and the globe into two diametrically opposed ideologies:

On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, worship, and live in liberty. On the other side are those driven by tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest.

This statement suggest to me that he is leaving out large swaths of human beings who could give two shits about his "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." For example, how about folks starving on the streets of America.

But I digress. Really, when the president speaks, he only presents what he wants us to hear and disregards the rest:

A vital part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists is to help establish a democratic Iraq, which will be a beacon of liberty in the region and an ally in the global war on terror. The terrorists understand the threat a democratic Iraq poses to their cause, so they've been fighting a bloody campaign of sectarian violence, which they hope will plunge that country into a civil war. Our commanders and diplomats on the ground believe that Iraq has not descended into a civil war.

This speechifying is laced with very contradictory points resting on a hope (certainly not a predictable outcome) that Iraq becomes a "beacon of liberty," for which we find no proof.

Certainly, one could argue that Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists, and as such become a beacon of another stripe. Moreover, what makes W think that a beacon of liberty will do much, if anything, in his push to "spread freedom" particularly given how gruesome and grim Iraq has become?

Might he not be listening to his commanders on the ground? Have a look:

WASHINGTON — Attacks and civilian deaths in Iraq have risen sharply in recent months, with casualties increasing by 1,000 a month, and sectarian violence has engulfed larger areas of the country, the Pentagon said Friday in a strikingly dismal report to Congress.

The quarterly report, based on new government figures, showed the number of attacks in Iraq over the last four months had increased 15% and Iraqi casualties had risen by 51%. Civilian and military deaths and injuries have surpassed 3,000 each month since May.

Over a longer period, the increase in violence is more dramatic. Weekly attacks have nearly doubled, from 423 in spring 2004 to 792. More than 110 people a day died violently in Iraq in the last three months, the report said, up from fewer than 30 a day in 2004.

The Iraqi government reported that violent deaths in Baghdad declined sharply in the first several weeks of August, but civilian deaths rose again in the last week. The current report covers a three-month period that ended in early August.

The report held to previous Bush administration statements that Iraq is not in an all-out civil war, but conceded that "conditions that could lead to civil war exist."

What Happens When America's Military Might Is Focused On The Wrong Thing?

If we were not in Iraq to begin with, might we have been able to martial those resources toward a better end?

Are there any other bloggers out there who are tired of the "stay-the-course" strategy bolstered by the bait and switch argument that "the-world-is-a-much-better-place-without-Saddam" rationale?

Well, I asked the other day for proof the latter statement from the President and as of yet am unrequited. Here's proof of the antithesis:

Unless something changes soon, by the end of President Bush’s second term North Korea will have produced enough plutonium for 10 or more nuclear weapons while Iran’s scientists will be close to mastering the skills needed to build their own.

That’s quite a legacy for a president sworn to keep the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world’s most dangerous regimes.

Again, I wait with bated breath for an the proof that we are better off given that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war we shouldn't have initiated (by which I mean the Iraqi Conflagration, not the "war-on-terror;" which by the way is poorly named as well, but that is best left for another post).

If We Leave, Will They Follow?

I should fire up my itunes and click on U2's "I Will Follow" when reading comments to this question.

When the president says:

...if we leave the streets of Baghdad, the enemy will follow us to our own streets in America. (Applause.)

Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

"I Saw A Threat In Iraq" and "I Think When The World Speaks It Must Mean What It Says"

Yes, the President did utter the words that title this post. Any one else react by saying, "WTF?"

The problem with the President is that he cannot admit his mistakes. He still is trying to win opinions with the old thinking. Moreover, he does not see that he has lost the hearts and minds of the American people.

Remember way back when, just after W was selected? W said that he had tremendous "political capital,” and that he intended to spend it. Well, it's been spent. Have a look at this bit he tossed out at an Orin Hatch for Senate fund raiser:

I saw a threat in Iraq. As a matter of fact, members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw the same threat. Nations around the world saw the threat. And the threat was a tyrant who brutally murdered thousands of his own citizens; a tyrant who had invaded his neighbors; a tyrant who had used weapons of mass destruction on his people; a tyrant who previous administrations had declared a state sponsor of terror; a tyrant who, when the world spoke through the United Nations, ignored the world. I think when the world speaks it must mean what it says. And so we gave the tyrant one last chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences. It was his choice to make. The world is safer, the Iraqi people are better, the cause for liberty is more advanced because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. (Applause.)

Why people still lap this up is beyond me. And those that agree with W when he says, that "the world is a safer place because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," I say prove it.

True Or False?

The President had this to say on the advent of Labor Day:

My Administration remains committed to fostering an environment where innovation succeeds and opportunity thrives.

True or false? Discuss.

The Next Time A Republican Asks, "So What Plan Do You Have For Getting Us Out Of Iraq"

I was over at Pissed Off Patricia's for my Morning Martini, and she has a very interesting post that starts off thusly:

Dan Bartlett, was on Hardball last night and said that he wants to know how the Democrats plan to get out of Iraq. I would turn that question back on him and ask what is the Republican plan for getting out of Iraq.

Well, I thought that was a rather good way to handle it; flipping the question. Certainly, the folks of the GOP use that political trick all the time. But then I got to thinking.

If I were to begin a plan to fix the Iraq mess, the initial phases would be to replace all civilian military leaders and those military leaders loyal to W. But that is besides the point. The main reason why the GOP asks such questions is to throw a political drape over the real problem, that they have no plan themselves.

So, I think the minds of the blogisphere might be well suited to help opponents of the GOP win arguments by coming up with pithy statements to help sway the minds of thinking Americans when ever some republican "frightwing" puppet tries to suggest that the Democrats would be bad for America. This leads me to today's contest...drum roll please...

Windspike's Pithy Rejoinder Contest

• Come up with a one sentence response to the question: "So, what plan do you have to get us out of Iraq?"

Patricia starts us off and says: "What plan do you have to get us out of Iraq."

My response is thus: "Do you really need or want my assistance to help you get out of the Iraq problem that you cannot solve?

Your turn...

Blog on All.