Will Bush Veto the Fence Bill?
He hasn't signed it yet.
Many of his examples are recent (Israel, India). ... P.S.: Conor Friedersdorf makes the liberal case for a border wall--and not the traditional immigrants-lower-wages case either ... 4:15 P.M.
Bonding without bending? Note that even in Hillary's recent "unusually blunt" attack on the Bush administration, she did not criticize Bush for invading Iraq. Nor did she call for any kind of withdrawal or "redployment." She said
The administration has lost focus on winning the war on Iraq** ... [emph.added]
This suggests her vaunted spouse-led bonding with the netroots left may be less than complete. (Eric Alterman, for one, isn't satisfied.) ...
**--Not even the "war in Iraq," but the "war on Iraq"! Is this Hillary's subconscious anti-imperialist coming out? I assume she just misspoke.. ...3:27 P.M.
Demovloguery: Aside from one breathtaking assertion--"We didn't learn very much after the war that we didn't know before the war"--Eric Alterman was kind of shockingly good on bloggingheads.tv, I thought. ... He sketched a highly plausible account of what's going to happen in the Dem presidential primaries (assuming Gore stays out) ... He explained why the Mearsheimer-Walt attack on the Israel Lobby is oversimplified, and even said a few kind words about Paul Wolfowitz! ... He said Tom Edsall had convinced him of the political importance of welfare reform. ... And he met expectations in his unyielding denunciation of TNR's Marty Peretz! ... Like many on the left, however, he seems way too spooked about the mighty Karl Rove Attack Machine, and the need to nominate a candidate (like Obama) who may be less vulnerable to attack because he has no record--and may also be unqualified for the Presidency because he has no record. In retrospect, it didn't really take a mighty attack machine to bring down John Kerry, did it? ...
Update: Alterman defends his breathtaking assertion, refines his Rove Paranoia, and says he went easy on Peretz. ... 2:00 P.M.
'Intent on striking' ...: Here's the second paragraph from Raymond Hernandez' Wednesday NYT story on Hillary:
In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration's response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes. [emph. added]
Doesn't that sound as if the presidential briefing had warned Bush that Al Qaeda would use planes as weapons? It does to me. But here's the briefing itself, which mentions "hijackings' but only in the traditonal context--i.e. taking over a plane "to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd-al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists." An old controversy, I know--but that's why it's so astonishing to find this casual, loaded distortion in the lede of an important story. Hernandez--or whatever anonymous Times editor decided to goose up his second graf--had to have known that the sentence was deceptive, no? Or if they didn't know they didn't care. ... We're a month away from an election! They're manning the battle stations at the NYT. ... 1:38 P.M.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Photograph of Ann Coulter on Slate's home page by Brad Barket/Getty.