Somebody throw Candy Crowley another hoagie, we need some damage control here…

Looks like Ari Fleischer won’t be returning Eleanor Clift’s calls for for…eternity.

He said he would change the tone in Washington and dispel the dark cloud of partisanship that clung to the Capitol. Democratic leader Tom Daschle says Bush has indeed changed the tone, but not for the better. Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, says that relations between the White House and Congress are “the most poisonous in 30 years,” which takes us back to the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.


But it’s not true that Bush is a man of his word. He has shimmied and shifted in lots of areas, including Iraq, manipulating language the way Clinton did and exaggerating in the same way that he once pilloried Gore for doing. Bush says “regime change” doesn’t have to mean deposing Saddam Hussein—that the regime would be changed if Saddam disarmed. This is rhetoric worthy of Clinton, and it doesn’t mean that Bush has altered fundamentally his commitment to displace Saddam through military force.

Even though there is no credible evidence linking the Iraqi president to the 9-11 attacks, Bush persists in suggesting on the campaign trail that Saddam might use Al Qaeda as his “forward army.” Polls show that two thirds of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9-11, a useful myth irresponsibly fed by Bush. The president said in a speech last month that Saddam is experimenting with unmanned drones capable of reaching the United States with weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don’t know about, that scenario is equally implausible

and then, to put Bush out of his misery:

There is hardly an issue where Bush hasn’t pulled a fast one. The rules he announced with great fanfare this week to make it easier to move generic drugs onto the market were passed by the Senate in July. Bush opposed them then; now with polls showing voters think he hasn’t done enough on domestic issues, he’s flipped.

How does he get away with such crass duplicity? The media doesn’t want to disturb the story line. Gore was the prevaricator; Bush was intellectually challenged. So when Bush fiddles with the facts, the media doesn’t see malevolence. They see a man who’s not articulate, who doesn’t speak with lawyerly precision. And they can’t believe how believable he is.

Alright. Who woke the media up? Not you Fineman, you just keep on sleeping….

Previous post

Next post



Yeah. Like I would tell you....