Word For The Day, Friday, August 1, 2003

In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of “word for the day”. Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the “word of the day”; in a sentence. The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day. Practice makes perfect.....post on....

carouse \ca*rouse\, verb
carouses, carousing, caroused; intransitive verb
carousal, carouser; noun:

1. To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.
2. To drink excessively
3. To drink up; to drain; to drink freely or jovially.

Guests carouse the sparkling tears of the rich grape. --Denham.
Egypt's wanton queen, Carousing gems, herself dissolved in love. --Young.

Etymology: [German garaus, all out, drink up : gar, completely (from Middle High German, from Old High German garo) + aus, out, up]

Word History: The origin of the word carouse can be found in a German interjection that meant “time to leave the bar.” German garaus, which is derived from the phrase gar (“all”) aus (“out”), meaning “all out,” then came to mean “drink up, bottoms up,” and “a last drink before closing time.” The English borrowed this noun, with the meaning “the practice of sitting around drinking until closing time,” sometimes spelling the word garaus but usually spelling it closer to the way it is spelled today. Soon after the word is first recorded as a noun in 1559, we find the verb carouse, in 1567.

1. Most See Intel Criticism as Political Game, But Media Obsessed
The majority of the public believes Democrats are “playing politics” in their attacks on President
Bush over pre-war intelligence claims, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll discovered.
Nonetheless, reporters at the presidential news conference on Wednesday repeatedly pressed
the issue and ABC, CBS and NBC led their evening newscasts with it, providing further
evidence of how the agenda of liberal Democrats matches the media’s agenda. ABC’s Kate
Snow demanded: “So do you take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?” CBS’s John
Roberts highlighted his own derisive question: “But when asked by this reporter why he took
the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed the
subject.”

2. Reporters Focus on Tax Cuts, Ignore Bush’s Soaring Spending
At the press presidential conference, the White House press corps once again displayed its
hostility to Bush’s tax cuts, describing them as ineffective in stimulating the economy and
blaming them for soaring deficits. And in the only question about spending, a reporter pressed
Bush about the lack of follow-through in one spending promise. But reporters continue to
overlook another factor in causing the deficit: Out of control spending. In piece creatively titled,
“The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton,” Veronique
de Rugy and Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute charged that “George W. Bush is the most
gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.”

3. LA Times Reporter: Is Recall “Legitimate, Democratic Exercise?”
Loaded question of the day: At Wednesday’s presidential press conference, Los Angeles
Times White House reporter Ed Chen asked President Bush about the effort to recall California
Governor Gray Davis. Chen described Bush as “someone who came into office under
extraordinarily partisan circumstances,” as if not all elections are partisan, and then demanded
to know: “Do you view this recall, which was funded almost entirely by one wealthy Republican
who would like to be Governor, as a legitimate, democratic exercise?”

4. “Top Ten Signs Your Neighbor is Harboring Saddam Hussein”
Letterman’s “Top Ten Signs Your Neighbor is Harboring Saddam Hussein.”

Most See Intel Criticism as Political
Game, But Media Obsessed

The majority of the public believes Democrats are “playing politics” in their attacks on
President Bush over pre-war intelligence claims, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll
discovered. Nonetheless, reporters at the presidential news conference on Wednesday
repeatedly pressed the issue and ABC, CBS and NBC led their evening newscasts with it,
providing further evidence of how the agenda of liberal Democrats matches the media’s
agenda.

Tim Russert came aboard Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News to recite some fresh poll
results, including how 30 percent consider Democratic criticism of Bush on intelligence claims
to be “legitimate criticism,” compared to 56 percent who see it as “playing politics.”

Despite public rejection of the media’s obsession with 16 words in the State of the Union
address, the broadcast network evening newscasts still considered that the top news of the
day. “On World News Tonight,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson teased, “President Bush says
he takes responsibility for the mistake in his State of the Union speech.”

New ABC News White House reporter Kate Snow, fresh from CNN where she praised
the wonders which communist dictator Fidel Castro has bestowed upon the Cuban people,
filled in the details: “For the first time, the President said he takes full responsibility for that
statement he made in January’s State of the Union, suggesting Iraq was trying to acquire
uranium from Africa.”
Clip of Snow at the July 30 press conference: “So do you take personal responsibility for
that inaccuracy?”
Bush: “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course, absolutely.”

Snow’s question in full, as posed at the 10:30am press conference held outdoors in the
Rose Garden: “Mr. President, you often speak about the need for accountability in many
areas. I wonder then, why is Dr. Condoleezza Rice not being held accountable for the
statement that your own White House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the
Union Address regarding Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium. And also do you take personal
responsibility for that inaccuracy?”

(See the end of this item for more on Snow’s soft spot for Castro.)

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams announced at the top of the program: “Before
leaving Washington to spend a month in the Texas heat at his beloved Western White House,
the President knew he would first have to take some heat on the issues that have been
swirling around the Bush White House. And so today, at his first formal news conference
since the start of the war, he took responsibility for that discredited portion of his State of the
Union speech and then some.”

Campbell Brown checked in from the White House and first noted: “Many of the
questions centered on the President’s credibility. He was pressed on whether he had used
exaggerated, or even non-existent evidence, to justify war in Iraq.”

(Brown’s question at the presidential news conference: “Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to
al-Qaeda were a key part to your justification for war, yet your own intelligence report, the
NIE, defined it as quote 'low confidence that Saddam would give weapons to al-Qaeda.’
Were those links exaggerated to justify war, or can you finally offer us some definitive
evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda terrorists?”)

Soon, Russert ran through fresh polling numbers from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal
survey. It found Bush’s approval at 56 percent versus 38 percent disapproval, down from 71
to 23 percent in April. By a wide 66 to 28 percent, the public approves of “Bush’s war on
terror.” On the question, “Should U.S. have taken military action in Iraq?”, yes responded an
overwhelming 69 percent compared to 27 percent who said no.

“Did Bush Exaggerate Iraq Threat?” read the NBC on-screen graphic. “Accurate
information: 48 percent, exaggerated threat: 47 percent.” But, is “Democratic criticism
legitimate?” 30 percent called it “legitimate criticism,” but 56 percent labeled it “playing
politics.”

Russert’s assessment of those last two findings: “They believe the substance, but they
don’t like the politics.”

For more on the poll: www.msnbc.com

The CBS Evening News was the most-obsessed with the
16 words. Dan Rather led the broadcast, as taken down by
MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: “Good evening. President Bush
said today for the first time that he is personally responsible
for making a now-discredited claim in his State of the Union
Address, the claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain
nuclear materials from Africa. That claim was one of the
reasons the President gave at the time for going to war
against Iraq. The President today explained the reasons differently during an hour-long news
conference at the White House. CBS’s John Roberts is there. John?”

Roberts began: “Dan, the daily attacks against U.S. soldiers aside, President Bush today
declared America is making progress in Iraq. He pointed to the deaths of Saddam’s sons as
evidence of that, though he admits Saddam himself remains a huge question mark.”
George W. Bush: “I don’t know how close we are to getting Saddam Hussein, you know.
Closer than we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we’re on the hunt.”
Roberts: “The President did go some distance to repairing the damage wrought by his
State of the Union claim Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. He stood squarely
behind his national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and for the first time acknowledged the
buck ultimately stops with him.”
Bush: “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely.”
Roberts highlighted his own derisive question: “But when asked by this reporter why he
took the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed
the subject.”
Bush: “The free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of
the world that needs freedom.”
Roberts then showcased the views of a disgruntled former staffer: “It was a clear
example of how the White House is shifting the goal posts on Iraq from weapons as a
rationale for war to liberating the Iraqi people to now promoting global security. Rand Beers,
who recently quit the National Security Council in protest over the President’s handling of the
war on terror, to become presidential candidate John Kerry’s national security advisor, says
it’s a way for Mr. Bush to deflect the credibility issue.”
Rand Beers, former Bush National Security member: “I think it’s important for the
administration to have a justification that will stand up in front of the American people under
any circumstances.”
Roberts: “President Bush insisted again today that while it may take time, the truth about
Iraq’s weapons and its alleged ties to al-Qaeda will come out. But according to Beers, who
saw much of the intelligence on al-Qaeda, that connection was way overblown.”
Beers: “I didn’t see it. It wasn’t there.”
Roberts concluded by previewing the next line of attack: “The President’s critics say that
his claims of an Iraq/al-Qaeda alliance may be the next shoe to drop in the intelligence
controversy, and that while the world may be better off without Saddam Hussein, that alone is
not a rationale to take the nation to war.”

The full text of the question posed by Roberts: “It’s impossible to deny that the world is a
better place, and the region certainly a better place, without Saddam Hussein. But there’s a
sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world that the U.S. has lost credibility by
building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained,
nonexistent evidence. I’m just wondering sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in
that way?”

The “world”? I thought Bush was leading a unilateral effort.

And as promised above, a look back at new ABC News White House correspondent
Kate Snow’s affection for Fidel Castro’s generosity toward the Cuban people, as expressed
last year on CNN when she traveled to the communist nation to cover Jimmy Carter’s visit:

-- May 13, 2002 CyberAlert: Castro’s wonderful “safety net.” From Havana on Saturday,
CNN’s Kate Snow expressed awe at how youngsters get “incredible training” in athletics
which leads to “all kinds of” Olympic medals. She oozed with envy over “how every Cuban
has a family doctor. You cannot go without health care here because there's a system set up,
a safety net, where, if you live in a neighborhood, you're covered by somebody.” She even
marveled at how some have DirecTV and “get more channels than I get at my home.”

For more and a still shot of Snow in Cuba: www.mediaresearch.org

-- May 14, 2002 CyberAlert. On CNN’s Monday night “Live from Havana,” anchor Kate
Snow fretted about the “hard line” views of President Bush and Cubans in Miami, as she
hoped Jimmy Carter’s visit might “moderate” the Cuban-Americans. She touted the
“successes” of Cubans under Fidel Castro and she praised their schools and admired how
“every Cuban has a primary care physician” who gets “to know their patients and even make
house calls.” And it’s all free! “Everyone has access” to health care “and the concept of
paying is completely foreign.” See: www.mediaresearch.org

-- May 20, 2002 CyberAlert. To CNN’s Kate Snow, the only thing standing between
better relations with Cuba and the United States is not dictator Fidel Castro, but President
Bush and Cuban exiles who refuse to agree with former President Carter’s wish to end the
embargo. She made the claim three times in Friday interviews. Given Bush’s support of the
embargo, she asked a Castro henchman, “is there any chance during the Bush presidency of
improving the relations?” See: www.mediaresearch.org

Closer to home, in May of this year Snow delivered an entire story, about how low-income
families were denied an increase in the child credit, without bothering to mention how those
families already live income tax-free with most getting more back via the EITC than they pay
in. See: www.mediaresearch.org

Reporters Focus on Tax Cuts, Ignore Bush’s
Soaring Spending

At Wednesday’s press presidential conference, the Washington press corps once again
displayed its hostility to Bush’s tax cuts, describing them as ineffective in stimulating the
economy and blaming them for soaring deficits, questions which match overall reporting on
the subject. And in the only question about spending, a reporter pressed Bush about the lack
of follow-through in one spending promise.

As reporters fret about the lack of enough spending and blame the tax cuts for increasing
the deficit, they continue to overlook another factor in causing the deficit: The out of control
spending hikes pushed for and approved by the Bush administration.

In a piece Monday on National Review Online creatively titled, “The Mother of All Big
Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton,” Veronique de Rugy and Tad
DeHaven of the Cato Institute charged that “George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big
spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.” They detailed how under President
Bush “non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent.
Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago,
such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70
percent and 65 percent respectively.”

But, naturally, no reporter asked Bush about spending too much.

Here are the tax cut and spending questions posed at the July 30 press conference in the
Rose Garden at 10:30am, as tracked down by MRC analyst Ken Shepherd:

-- Richard Stevenson, New York Times: “Since taking office you’ve signed into law three
major tax cuts, two of which have had plenty of time to take effect, the third of which you
pointed out earlier is taking effect now. Yet the unemployment rate has continued rising. We
now have more evidence of a massive budget deficit that taxpayers are going to be paying off
for years or decades to come. The economy continues to shed jobs. What evidence can you
point to that tax cuts, at least of the variety that you have supported, are really working to help
this economy and do you need to be thinking about some other approach?”
Bush: “No.”

-- Richard Keil, Bloomberg News: “As you said just a few moments ago and say
frequently in your speeches, the deficit was caused variously by the war, by recession, by
corporate scandals, the 9/11 attacks. But just a couple of weeks ago on July 15th, the Office
of Management and Budget put out a report saying that without the tax cuts that Congress
passed, the budget would be back in surplus by 2008, but with those tax cuts factored in, we
have deficits that year, and further years out, of at least $200 billion, to use the phrase 'as far
as the eye can see.’ Aren’t tax cuts in part responsible for the deficits and does that fact
concern you? Are we now in a period where we have deficits as far as the eye can see?”

-- Carl Cannon, formerly of the Baltimore Sun and now with National Journal: “I want to
ask you about something else in your State of the Union. You spoke and got great applause
from both sides of the aisle about a new initiative in Africa for AIDS. You mentioned the
figure $15 billion over three years. When the AIDS community and some of the activists got
into the budget, they said when they saw your budget, they said it was really a little less than
that. And these conversations have gone back and forth, and they said, really more like $10
billion in new money. And then somebody told me it was really more like $400 million for the
first year. I want to ask you here, in the Rose Garden, will you reiterate that $15 billion figure
and make sure, personally, that it's really delivered to Africa?”

For a transcript of the press conference: www.whitehouse.gov

In a July 28 piece for National Review Online, Cato fiscal analysts Veronique de Rugy
and Tad DeHaven outlined a subject that’s not of concern to the Washington press corps:
President Bush pursuing liberal spending levels. An excerpt:

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget
deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February.
Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit
on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because
George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy
Carter....

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just
three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent....

[N]ational defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According
to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came
into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed
by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less
than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending
increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was
going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the
business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free-spending into
the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to
reduce costs....

That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's
fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which
happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the
Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection
machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by
throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration
calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm
programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How
else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt
the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year
before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.

But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted
terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in
his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense
discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's
three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in
non-defense discretionary spending.

Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political
expediency....

END of Excerpt

For the piece in its entirety, as posted by Cato: www.cato.org

And as posted by National Review Online: www.nationalreview.com

Sadly, all too true. But in recalling how after Clinton’s “first three years in office,
non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent,” the authors could
have noted how that coincided with the election of a Republican Congress which put a check
on the President’s spending. If only they would do so again for this President.

LA Times Reporter: Is Recall “Legitimate,
Democratic Exercise?”

Loaded question of the day: At Wednesday’s presidential press conference, Los Angeles
Times White House reporter Ed Chen asked President Bush about the effort to recall
California Governor Gray Davis. Chen described Bush as “someone who came into office
under extraordinarily partisan circumstances,” as if not all elections are partisan, and then
demanded to know: “Do you view this recall, which was funded almost entirely by one
wealthy Republican who would like to be Governor, as a legitimate, democratic exercise?”

Of course, if hundreds of thousands of citizens were not enthused enough to wait in lines
to sign the petitions, it wouldn’t have mattered how much money one wealthy guy put in to
hire petition-takers.

Chen’s “question,” in the form of a polemic, in full: “I'd like to ask you about the recall
campaign. Since you're not only the leader of this country, but as someone who came into
office under extraordinarily partisan circumstances, do you view this recall, which was funded
almost entirely by one wealthy Republican who would like to be Governor, as a legitimate,
democratic exercise? And do you have a candidate in this fight, since one of the potential
successors is somebody you've backed before?”

“Top Ten Signs Your Neighbor is Harboring
Saddam Hussein”

From the July 30 Late Show with David Letterman, the “Top Ten Signs Your Neighbor is
Harboring Saddam Hussein.” Late Show Web site: www.cbs.com

10. A lot of "Sorry about the deaths of your monstrous, sadistic sons" bouquets being
delivered

9. His garage door used to be white; now it's white with a giant mural of Saddam Hussein

8. Mailman mistakenly puts "Deposed Dictator Monthly" in your box

7. He asks, "When are we having the Baath party -- I mean, the block party?"

6. You hear his television blaring "Queer Eye for the Fallen Dictator Guy"

5. The hourly deliveries of hummus

4. The Kurdish family across the street have really been on edge lately

3. He's in the yard chopping wood to build a beret rack

2. His last houseguest: Haitian dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier

1. Floating in his swimming pool: an inflatable goat

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.