GEORGE BUSH ran for president in 2000 promising to raise the tone of debate in Washington. He was not saying merely that he wouldn't have sex with interns. He was talking about basic honesty, promising to look facts in the face, not to spin (too much), not to make policy by opinion polls, and to give an honest accounting of his actions. He reiterated that position last month in an interview: “The American people [will] assess whether or not I made good calls...And the American people need to know they've got a president who sees the world the way it is.”
Yet the administration's reaction to accusations by Richard Clarke, its former counter-terrorism co-ordinator, raises doubts not only over its judgments but, still more, over whether and how the administration accounts for its decisions. When set in the context of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the ballooning budget deficit, this reaction raises profound questions about the administration's credibility, honesty and competence.
[T]he Clarke affair has a pattern: "never apologise, never explain."...The reason this pattern is disturbing is that all these features can be seen in the policy debates over both the war in Iraq and tax cuts—the policies on which Mr Bush deserves, above all else, to be judged.
Best New Blog finalist - 2003 Koufax Awards
A non-violent, counter-dominant, left-liberal, possibly charismatic, quasi anarcho-libertarian Quaker's take on politics, volleyball, and other esoterica.
Lo alecha ha-m'lacha ligmor, v'lo atah ben chorin l'hibateyl mimenah.