Reading the morning papers

Reading the Morning Papers 6/4
Reading the Morning Papers
6/4/04 - Bush Watch

An editorial on Tenet's resignation in the WP concludes with this paragraph: "While there is no proof that CIA reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons were falsified to please Bush administration hawks, the available facts suggest that crucial parts of them were, as postwar arms inspector David Kay put it, "almost all wrong." After months of prickly defensiveness, Mr. Tenet barely acknowledged that reality in a single speech last February; like the administration he serves, he has never fully accepted responsibility for what will surely be remembered as one of the most significant intelligence failures in U.S. history. The ongoing damage of that failure is only compounded by the conspicuous absence of accountability. Yes, Mr. Tenet is going, but Mr. Bush has yet to face up to the reasons why his departure was inevitable."

Recall that Dick Clarke reports in his book that before 9/11 Tenet was running around Washington "with his hair on fire," warning anyone who would listen that something big was coming. He met with Bush every morning to fill him in, but we've been told by the administration that 9/11 came as a surprise. Later, Condi Rice allowed bogus WMD statements into Bush's State of the Union speech after she was warned by the CIA to keep such statements out of previous speeches. Her response was, Oops, I forgot! Where's the accountability? Yet, the Bush scenario continues. Reports by a Bush-majority 9/11 group found the CIA at fault, as did a recent Senate committee report, as will a number of other Bush-majority reports scheduled to be released. Tenet was telling the truth when he said he was resigning to spare his family future exposure to his job pressures. Some of those pressures have been caused by faulty CIA intelligence, but other pressures have come from defending the Bush presidency in the face of reports by Clarke, O,Neill, Woodward, and others with access to the inner workings of the Bush administration. Time after time, qualified statements by the CIA that created a bias toward the war goals of the Bush neocon hawks were turned into fact, either implied or stated as such, in radio and TV interviews, press conferences, and speeches by Bush and key members of his administration.

An editorial in today's NYT begins, "Bush appears to be planning to run for re-election as a tax cutter without discussing what federal programs will be sacrificed to make up for the lost revenue. That can't be allowed to happen. Voters have the right to see the whole picture, including the downside. Chances are they won't like the view." Government estimates indicate that the folks who will pay are kids, the poor, the elderly, military vets, and the disabled, groups that the government traditionally protects, not punishes for the benefit of the rich and greedy.

Why do families that earn less than $300,000 a year vote for Bush. It's not in their best interest. Someone reported that the Bush government sent him a tax rebate check of $37, but the last time he went to his docter for his usual yearly physical, he learned that Medicare was no longer covering it, and it cost him $192. Same thing happened in Texas. While Bush as governor worked out a tax cut that, on average, amounted to a hamburger meal for four at McDonald's, the rich made a killing.