On Monday, the President spoke at Kansas State University, and, unlike in most of his public appearances, he actually let people in the audience ask questions. The White House is, as usual, sufficiently proud of its chief occupant that it put a transcripts of the event on its web site.
You can read through the questions yourself and see that vast majority were of the extremely "soft" type that makes one (me) wonder if they came from people planted in the audience.
Mr. Bush did get one kind of touchy question from the audience on how the government was helping students' futures by cutting the student loan program by $12.7 billion. Unfortunately, it looks like he got his answer wrong. I had decided earlier that I wasn't going to launch into another "rant" about the White House today. Then I made the mistake of going to the White House's web site looking for a transcript of the forum that discussed the NSA surveillance program after Alberto Gonzalez gave his vague defense of it. I found my way to the "Ask the White House" page where Alberto Gonzalez answers questions supposedly submitted by ordinary, uncoached Americans.
The page describes itself as "where you can submit questions to Administration officials and friends of the White House."
Uh huh. Where "you" can ask questions. If "you" are a panting administration sycophant. Or a paid stooge planted to ask just the right questions. Then, to top it off, he answers the only substantive question--why can't you get a court order under the emergency procedures of the FISA statute--by apparently misrepresenting what the statute says.
See for yourself. Every now and then, a political animal gets caught up in the moment and responds honestly to a question. Maybe they simply didn't realize how normal folks would view their comments, maybe they got excited and forgot to think about that. Who knows; it happens.
Witness Republican strategist Ed Rogers on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, talking about the NSA spying issue:
"I hope [President Bush is] going to talk about the wiretap issue. Maybe I`m missing something, but I love this issue for us, in a partisan context.
"In Washington, we always say, a bumper sticker beats an essay. Right now the Republicans have a bumper sticker. The Democrats have a convoluted essay, and the degree to which the election is going to be about who is tougher on terror and who is not, that`s a clear Republican advantage.
....Now we have a 21st century national security issue where again the Democrats are reverting to form as being more passive, more docile, more weak on national security issue. I like this NSA issue." You Approve of Domestic Spying?
Then Start With Skull & Bones!
Let's get it straight, you actually believe that the government has the right to spy at will. You really think there's nothing wrong with listening in on domestic phone conversations or intercepting personal e-mail or cell calls. You really have no qualms about bypassing the courts and warrants to spy on Americans who might have expressed opposition to the invasion of a militarily castrated nation? You bought into the idea that secret government spying will keep Americans safe. And you have no problem with spying on grass roots peace organizations whose members walk around with signs demanding a safer and friendlier world?
All right then, if spying is the way to go, why not snoop in the right places? In your future blogging about what used to be referred to as "unwarranted domestic spying", please change all future references to the policy as "terrorist surveillance program." [Six here, folks, I caught this wonderful piece over at The Crisis Papers, and thought it explained a little too much....enjoy!] Today Forbes carries the AP wire service story of Alberto Gonzalez's role in the political theater production of "obscure that annoying fact."
Keep in mind as you read that this is the same Gonzalez who was so cavalier in dismissing the Geneva Convention and concluding that torture really doesn't mean what you always thought torture meant, and, besides, if the good guys are doing the torturing, it must be okay. The one thing you can count on from our President and his staff is the zealous ducking of responsibility. Who could have known that there wasn't a nuclear weapon program in Iraq? Who could have predicted the Iraqi insurgency? Who in the world thought we'd need many more troops? Surely you can't blame us for not predicting the disaster in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
One by one these claims have been shown to be bogus, and today's Washington Post has a story debunking the Hurricane Katrina dodge. That's pretty much the gist of an editorial from the Fort Wayne Sentinel:
"Both Republicans and Democrats in the past few days have revealed, with great fanfare, reform proposals that include new ethics rules and tougher restrictions on how much lobbyists can spend and how much access to members of Congress they get in return.
"It is in a way a silly exercise. Do members of Congress need new rules telling them to obey the existing rules? They are under no obligation to accept gifts from lobbyists and it already is against the law to accept a gift to vote yea or nay on a particular piece of legislation. Think about it. Congressional members who have been accepting questionable gifts from lobbyists are proposing new ethics rules to stop the practice. It's kind of like a serial killer writing a "stop me before I kill again" note.
William Blum's Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower was ranked 209,000 on Amazon.com's sales list before bin Laden mentioned it in an audiotape released on Thursday. By yesterday, the book was number 30 on the Amazon.com list. |
