Posted on 02/12/2004 4:18:12 AM PST by johnny7
All week long in the capital, worried Republicans buzzed about George W. Bush's Sunday interview on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' Supporters of the president were surprised that he would ask to be questioned by Tim Russert. What flabbergasted them was the absence of any plan to use this event to stop being the target as the 2004 campaign began.
This failure was Strike Two for President Bush. Strike One was his humdrum State of the Union address. Fortunately for the president, this is not baseball, where three strikes are out. During more than eight months before Election Day, Bush will have many opportunities for recuperation. For now, however, the president is in political retreat, with Democrats unimpeded in challenging his competency and credibility.
The ''Meet the Press'' performance raised disturbing questions for Republicans. How could Bush be put out to confront the most feared questioner in Washington without a careful scenario? How could he face Russert without precise answers on the decision to go to war in Iraq and on his National Guard service? The suspicion is that his 2004 campaign organization, a fund-raising juggernaut, is otherwise inadequate. The Bush White House is cloistered, where even Bush aides seem restrained from debating strategy even behind closed doors. The belief in Republican circles is that Bush, tired of battering by Democrats and alarmed by his descent in the polls, asked for an hour on television. This questions how it could be possible for a president who claims to neither read newspapers nor watch television. In any event, no aide dissuaded Bush from embarking on this course or devised a plan to make the most of it.
Democratic operatives, including Sen. John Kerry's advisers, groused that Russert permitted Bush to escape -- reflecting presidential blood lust by Democrats in the sight of Bush's wounds. Actually, no president ever before had been subjected to such tough questioning in the Oval Office. The private Republican complaint is not with Russert but with Bush. It was thought the president would have sat down with carefully structured language to defend himself or even produce news. Yet, the newsiest tidbit contained in excerpts of the taped interview distributed last Saturday was the unsurprising declaration he would not fire CIA Director George Tenet.
While gay marriage embarrasses Democrats because of their homosexual constituency, Bush did not try to capitalize on this Sunday. He was informed in advance that Russert had no plans to bring it up but that the president, of course, could raise this important social issue. He did not. Most disturbing to the president's supporters was his reaction to whether young Lt. Bush skipped Alabama National Guard duty in 1972. This chestnut from the 2000 campaign dropped when leftist agitator Michael Moore called Bush a military ''deserter'' and Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe labeled him AWOL. Kerry linked Bush's National Guard service with ''going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector'' as forms of draft avoidance he would not criticize. ''The political season's here,'' Bush told Russert, launching a tepid defense of his service record. The president did not lash back by exposing Kerry's unsavory record in the antiwar movement's extreme wing following his heroic service in Vietnam. That reluctance might have been prudent, but it maintained the protective shell around Bush's probable challenger. The president would not deign to even touch the senator. Nearly a year ago in March, Vogue magazine reported Kerry as denigrating Bush's ''lack of knowledge,'' adding: ''He was two years behind me at Yale, and I knew him, and he's still the same guy.'' I reported the president telling aides he did not know Kerry at Yale. On Sunday, Russert cited the Vogue quotations and asked: ''Did you know him at Yale?'' ''No,'' Bush replied. ''How do you respond to that?'' Russert persisted. The president answered with one word: ''Politics.''
That's not nearly an adequate retort to John Kerry. Republican heavy thinkers regard him as second only to Howard Dean as a vulnerable nominee. But Kerry, merciless in slashing at the president, remains untouched. It seems difficult for an incumbent president to lose amid economic recovery, but George W. Bush is showing it might be possible.
1. His opponent is Kerry and Kerry isn't a tenth as slick as Clinton.
2. W cut taxes, his father raised them, creating a lot of anger in his base.
3. The economy is doing significantly better than it was in '92.
4. There will be no sucking sound from a third party candidate (Perot).
5. The dems will likely have to deal with their own third party problems with Nader,Dean or possibly both.
I'm completely capable of independent thought, and I do my own thinking.
And, I think Dubya didn't do a very good job on the SOTU nor MTP.
Regarding WMD and AirNG, he needs to say:
1) Iraq had WMD, they used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on their own Shiia' population.
2) We have other, well-documented evidence, even before 1991, Hussein was also pursuing biological and nuclear weapons programs aggressively.
3) After expulsion from Kuwait, a condition of surrender required Iraq to reveal the details of Iraq's WMD programs, and to dismantle and destroy all remnants of those programs.
4) Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of surrender,
5)There were 17 UN resolutions over a period of 12 years urging Iraq to disclose the details of its WMD programs, still they did not do so.
6) In 1998 the U.S. Congress passed an act calling for regime change in Iraq.
7) Believing Iraq to represent a clear danger to U.S. security, recognizing Iraqi failure to comply with conditions of surrender, 17 UN resolutions (especially 1441), and obeying the 1998 mandate of the US Congress, we demanded Hussein step down and seek exile.
8) After Iraq rejected all international efforts to seek a diplomatic solution, the U.S. and 56 (or whatever number)of it's allies formed a coalition to act militarily to protect the safety of our citizens.
(9) A secondary benefit of our action has been to bring a new measure of safety and freedom to the Iraqi people themselves.
10) We did not have perfect intelligence about Iraq.
11) Iraq had a sophisticated and close knit leadership that practiced a high level of operational security and engaged in deceptive practices designed to mislead world opinion. Collecting intelligence in Iraq is not a matter of reading open source material
12) Our own coalition intelligence capabilities were diminished for several reasons:
(a) Budget cuts;
(b) Over reliance on Imagery and SIGINT and too little HUMINT;
(c) Organizational deficiencies within our own intelligence architecture.
13) I will not discuss publicly the details of our intelligence apparatus or how we are restructuring them to be more effective. In WWII, we did not post headlines on the front page of the NYT proclaiming "Enigma Captured - German Code Broken."
14) The search for WMD in Iraq is not finished, I ask America to be patient - there is much still to be done.
15) We did the right thing going to Iraq, we have many successes there. Our forces are conducting themselves brilliantly. God bless America.
16) Some folks are politicizing the character of my military service during the Vietnam conflict. As you know, I served in the Texas Air National Guard. I completed my service obligation satisfactorily as did many other Americans during this divisive era. I will not discuss the matter further. Instead I choose now to focus on America's future.
17) Thank you for your continued support.
End of story - stop the debate.
I believe the panic is premature.
|
The Tonight ShowYou know something, this is this stuff has got to stop, somebody's got to say something good in this community about this man. I'm starting a new web sit, pro-Bush, called www dot w. And you know something, if you're watching tonight, President Bush, and I'm not sure you are because I got a feeling you watch the national network reruns of "BJ and The Bear," but if you're watching, I want to just say, I think you're doing a hell of a job and I'm proud that you're my president. I want to thank you and wish you Godspeed because you got a tough deal of the cards. I think there are a lot more people out here on your side than you would think.
guest Dennis Miller
And I don't understand it. If he is still under the presumption that he can win the votes of independents and/or democrats by being 'Mr. Nice Guy', he's very wrong. Nice guys finish last.
I want a president that has the guts to stand up to the Democrats and their lies... Quit pandering, hoping for more votes. Instead it is going to cost him Republican votes...
I have no problem seeing what the history books will record about this election, this administration, and these times. Well that does depend on who is writing them, I intend to do my best to see the author is conservative.
I tailor my argument to the person I'm arguing with.
Bull, there isn't. Not only his economics guy but Bush himself support losss of jobs as a good thing. I'm not going to argue for/against the point. Just that it is Ivory tower thinking that you should say that at this time with millions out of work. It scare the s**t out of people that - if he doesn't care about job creation on the front end of an election, you can be the ranch he won't spend two minute in the next four years on it.
When you surround yourself with Ivy league pinheads who see someone's job loss in Nowhereville, Ohio as no big deal, your in an Ivory tower with no windows.
But its their falut, right? They can leave the stell mill and go to Cornell and get a Phd in economics and be like the rest of the Bush bots.
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.