Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BLUMENTHAL: "Bush's faltering credibility"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 09:46 AM
Original message
BLUMENTHAL: "Bush's faltering credibility"
<snip>

The 9/11 commission report is a devastating and irrefutable record of Bush's passivity on terrorism, beginning with his first act: the demotion of Clarke. The report documents that the administration "was not ready to confront Islamabad" on Pakistan's support for the Taliban or to "engage actively against al Qaeda" and that it "did not develop new diplomatic initiatives on al Qaeda with the Saudi government." Bush told the commission that the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," was "historical in nature," though it contained current information. And, the report said: "In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute." The administration's neoconservatives, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, are depicted as dismissive -- Wolfowitz opposed retaliation for al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole as "stale" -- and obsessed with Iraq as the source of all terrorism.

Bush's campaign must try to blur memory of his history. When Kerry seized upon the commission's recommendations, Bush reacted a week later by endorsing a new national intelligence chief. But he would give this new post no control over budget, no White House office, no power over personnel and no authority over intelligence operations. Once again, he appeared to be acting only on political motives.

In the meantime, various bills for homeland security languish before Congress, neglected by Bush. His paltry $46 million proposal for port security, for example, is more than $1 billion short of what the U.S. Coast Guard says is required. On port security, 10 Democratic amendments have already been defeated while Bush has slept. He prefers that the money be appropriated for more tax cuts skewed to the upper bracket.

Bush is haunted not only by the ghosts of his own past but by the ghosts of other presidents past. While he attempts to redeem his father's political fall by avoiding his mistakes, his effort at reversal is creating a similar estrangement from voters. The elder Bush won his war against Iraq and withdrew without toppling Saddam; his ratings were then at their peak. But his obliviousness to economic circumstances undermined the heroic image. Lyndon Johnson had an ambitious domestic agenda backed by a landslide electoral mandate. But he squandered it in the Vietnam quagmire, and his political credibility undermined his party's for a generation. Now, Bush's faltering credibility is tearing at trust in U.S. national security. Perversely, his campaign must exploit the fears, real or not, that his failures have helped engender. For him, the campaign is not a war of choice, but of necessity.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/08/04/terror_alerts/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthspeaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Faltering? How about "long-lost".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. did you hear this interview, just before she released the letter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. utterly brilliant
damn, why do we have idiots in charge of the WH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. once again the media ignore the whitewash aspect of the report
BUT, for the millions of people who are apparently reading the report for themselves, they're going to be smacked in the face with how completely the junta ignored the DIRE warnings put to them in reports like the Aug 6 PDB, and others that had Tenet's hair on fire not to mention the FACT that they refused to pay any attention to the likes of Hart Rudman, Berger, and Clarke

media likes to play down theses aspects, but the commission report, without coming right out and saying how feckless they were, has it there in print for all to read

the conclusions, which both the commission AND the media, refuse to draw, are PLAIN for anyone that reads it, just as Blumental says
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Easy. We have idiots in charge of the White House because. . .


there are idiots on the Supreme Court Bench.

It's just too damn bad idiocy isn't painful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. They are NOT idiots
They know exactly what they are doing. They just don't care how it looks because they are in power and they know they will stay there.

They have robbed the nation, put PNAC into high-gear, and trashed public education. They KNOW what they are doing.

They are not idiots, they are wisened criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. awol never read the damn report.... he's glossing over what was
reported...move along -- Boo!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skygazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. How many people are reading the 9/11 report?
My husband laughs at me because I'm reading it with a highlighter in my hand. It's pretty grim. Starting on the first page where they relate how they were commissioned Nov. 27, 2002!! Over a year after the attacks! There's a whole lot in there that disturbs me though I've really just begun. It disturbs me that Rumsfeld went out in the parking lot "to aid the rescue efforts" - the Pentagon had just been hit by an aircraft! The WTC had collapsed! We were obviously under attack and the Sec. of Def. was out in the parking lot playing EMT? Why wasn't he on the phone doing his job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. that's just it.... bush jumped all over approving it...but does nothing
what the 911 report says.... it's pure bullshit..once again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC