The mystery of the missing trifecta has been solved. Sort of.
In this space last week, it was noted that President Bush often tells audiences that he promised during the 2000 presidential campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency, but he never imagined he would "have a trifecta." Nobody inside or outside the White House, however, had been able to produce evidence that Bush actually said this during the campaign.
Now comes information that the three caveats were uttered before the 2000 campaign -- by Bush's Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore. The Post's Glenn Kessler found in the archives this promise from Gore: "Barring an economic reversal, a national emergency, or a foreign crisis, we should balance the budget this year, next year, and every year." Gore said that to the Economic Club of Detroit in May 1998, then repeated it at least twice more, in speeches in June and November of that year.
There is still no trace of Bush making such a caveat; in fact, shortly after taking office, he declared that "we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." On the other hand, Bush can fairly argue that his top economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey, endorsed the caveats during the campaign. When Kessler asked back then about Gore's three exceptions, Lindsey said the same caveats would apply for Bush.
Is Natan Sharansky working in the White House speechwriting office?
Sharansky, Israel's housing minister and deputy prime minister, is the former Soviet dissident and head of a right-wing Russian-immigrant party. But by coincidence -- or something more -- the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan Sharansky published in the Jerusalem Post on May 3 sounds a lot like the peace proposal Bush delivered in the Rose Garden on June 24.
"The time has come for new leadership" for the Palestinians, Sharansky wrote. "The Palestinians must be encouraged to form an open and free society that is not burdened by the fear, hatred, and terror that have been sown in recent years by Arafat and his leadership."
Here's Bush's version: "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."
Sharansky wrote that his seven-point plan "cannot happen overnight" and called for a "three-year transition period."
Bush, in turn, said a final agreement "could be reached within three years from now."
Sharansky envisioned an "international coordinating body" headed by the United States that could, with a Palestinian Administrative Authority, "develop the infrastructure for democratic life among the Palestinians." There would also be an "international economic fund" for industry and infrastructure.
And Bush? "I've asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution building." The president said the United States would work with the World Bank and international donors on "a major project of economic reform and development."
Finally, Sharansky argued that only a "free and open" society "can serve as a solid guarantee for normal relations between the two peoples." For this reason, "we owe it to ourselves and to our future to help the Palestinians help themselves."
Bush, seven weeks later, submitted that "a stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for." Israel should "take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state," he added.
The Sharansky and Bush plans are not entirely the same; notably absent from Sharansky's version was Bush's call for Israel to freeze its settlements in Palestinian territory. Still, Sharansky themes began to tumble from the lips of Bush officials.
Speechwriting director Michael Gerson did not return a phone call asking about the coincidence.
Laura Bush had a difficult choice to make: her beau or her books.
Librarians are riled enough to suspend borrowing privileges for the president after learning that FBI investigators have been coming to libraries to inspect the reading records of people they think may be involved in terrorism. The feds are allowed to do that under a Bush plan to increase surveillance powers, passed by Congress last fall as part of the Patriot Act.
"It's nobody's business what you read but your own," fumed Judith Krug of the American Library Association, which is protesting the law. "We have not repealed the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." Krug said virtually all of the association's 65,000 members would share her opposition -- and she believes the first lady was once a member of the American Library Association. So how does the first librarian feel about it? "I'd be interested," Krug said.
Laura Bush is siding with her husband over the librarians. "These are extraordinary times for our nation because we are at war against terrorism," the first lady said in a statement read by her spokeswoman.
