Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 5 of 5   <      

Bush Unplugged But Unrevealing

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

John Dickerson writes in Slate: "The pictures of Abramoff and Bush are politically damaging because they show that the disgraced lobbyist was closer to the White House than officials there have suggested. But just how damaging is hard to tell: Are the photos the meaningless trinkets given out to big contributors? Or are they the meaningful trinkets that are a crucial part of the dance of influence between the White House and the lobbyists it uses to promote its agenda?"

Here's McClellan trying to duck -- and change -- the topic in yesterday's gaggle aboard Air Force One en route to Topeka.

"Q [W]hy not just say, and just get it over with -- say, here are the issues that he talked about -- he came to the White House to talk about, here's who he met with, and then move on. Why not --

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of anything that has anything to do with the investigation. I know that there's some Democrats that want to try to make this -- try to engage in partisan attacks. But what we do know from media reports is that Mr. Abramoff gave directly or indirectly to Democrats and Republicans. Trying to say there's more to it than the President taking a picture in a photo line is just absurd."

But McClellan's continued attempt to portray the Abramoff scandal as bipartisan doesn't exactly help his credibility on the question of White House meetings. His assertion flies in the face of the facts and is a Republican talking point espoused only by the most partisan or most credulous.

Katrina Revisited

Joby Warrick writes in The Washington Post: "In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.

"A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's 'situation room,' the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document. . . .

"The documents shed new light on the extent on the administration's foreknowledge about Katrina's potential for unleashing epic destruction on New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and towns. President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. 'I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm,' Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC's 'Good Morning America.' "

Eric Lipton writes in the New York Times: "A White House spokesman, asked about the seeming contradiction between Mr. Bush's statement on Sept. 1 and the warning as the storm approached, said the president meant to say that once the storm passed and it initially looked as if New Orleans had gotten through the hurricane without catastrophic damage, no one anticipated at that point that the levees would be breached."

Karl Rove Opinion Watch

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Well in advance of Election Day, Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, has a habit of laying out his party's main themes, talking points and strategies. . . .

"[S]ince Sept. 11, 2001, the plan has focused on one variation or another of the same theme: Republicans are tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown up, vote Republican."

But Dionne says some "core questions must be asked: Are we really safer now than we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains under the sway of one-party government?"

A Louisville Courier-Journal editorial says: "There may be depths to which Karl Rove wouldn't sink, but it's difficult to imagine what they might be.

"Mr. Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, defended the administration's domestic eavesdropping program last week by saying that 'President Bush believes if al-Qaida is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree.'

"What rubbish. Once again, when this administration is challenged, it lashes out at the patriotism of its critics."

Today's Calendar

Don't expect Bush to get a tongue-lashing during his visit from a Pakistani leader this morning, even though many in the Islamic nation are blasting the United States for a Jan. 13 airstrike in a remote area of northern Pakistan that killed at least 13 civilians, including women and children.

Foster Klug writes for the Associated Press: "Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz brushed aside tensions with the United States as he prepared for a meeting Tuesday with President Bush."

In the afternoon, Bush holds a photo op with 2005 NASCAR Nextel Cup Champion Tony Stewart.

Poll Watch

Susan Page writes in USA Today that "Bush, the 43rd president, has had a job approval rating of 43% in the past four USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Polls. . . .

"Bush's rating has reached an 'equilibrium point' with support from his 'hard-core base,' says political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University in Massachusetts. (A year earlier, Bush's equilibrium point was about 10 percentage points higher, in the low 50s.) Only significant outside events are likely to appreciably change it, Eichenberg says."

Where Is Osama?

Bush in Kansas yesterday, describing the evolution of his thinking after September 11: "The decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again."

But earlier in the day, Agence France Presse reported: "Osama bin Laden, even in hiding, may still be able to mastermind a major terrorist attack inside the United States, a senior aide to US President George W. Bush said.

"Asked whether the Al-Qaeda chief could engineer such a strike, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett told CBS television: 'We have to assume that he can. We have to be very vigilant in what we do to protect our country.' "

Scooter Libby Watch

Toni Locy writes for the Associated Press: "Lawyers for a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday made their first request to use classified evidence at his trial, launching a highly secretive court process that could bog down the case.

"In the filings made under seal in federal court, lawyers for I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby put the judge and prosecutors on notice that they want a jury to hear evidence the government now says is classified.

"Their action puts the Libby case on a dual track -- one public, the other secret -- that often can delay criminal cases from going to trial."

Last Friday, Carol D. Leonnig wrote in The Washington Post that Libby's attorneys had told a federal court "that they plan to subpoena several journalists and news organizations to obtain their notes and other information they consider useful in defending their client from perjury charges."

Bush and Abortion

Reuters reports: "President George W. Bush on Monday told opponents of abortion their views would eventually prevail and urged them to work to convince more Americans of 'the rightness of our cause.' "

Michelle Boorstein writes in The Washington Post: "President Bush addressed the [March for Life] event by telephone from Kansas, where he traveled yesterday for a speech on terrorism. In four minutes of remarks that largely followed the language he has used in past calls to the march, Bush vowed to continue fighting for what he calls a 'culture of life' and the principle that every life has value."

Here's the text of his remarks.

"By changing laws we can change our culture," Bush said. He added: "We, of course, seek common ground where possible."

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post from amid the marchers that "when Bush allowed that 'we're making good progress,' everybody knew that he was, ultimately, talking about Roe's end."

And Milbank writes: "On the Mall at Seventh Street, tens of thousands of antiabortion activists were listening to the Rev. James Nesbit, whose invocation was so passionate that his voice cracked and warbled as he delivered the jeremiad.

"'It has been told by the prophets in the land that there is a president coming out of Texas, a Burning Bush,' Nesbit prayed. 'He will deal with abortion in the land. We ask you to give him an executive order and mantle him and give him a mandate with the fear of the Lord.'"


<                5


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive