Bush's Incompetence Bends Space And Time

The Ace drops the gloves and almost lets Jimmah off the hook.  The 20th century hook, natch.

Comments

[MaidMarion]

I was particularly chilled and disheartened by Stephen Moore's comments/attitude during the WSJ roundtable. He was the former head of the "Club for Growth" which is the only PAC I've sent contributions to since 1998. Makes me wonder whether Pat Toomey, the Club's current head, is hiding similar feelings on the issue.

Moore helped Newt put together the Contract with America...would love to see the two debate this now.

[PatrickR]

Gee, reading Ace was like the good ol' days at Semi-Daily Journal where the usual suspects, having lost the argument on merit, resorted to vicious rhetoric so they could continue to feel superior.

[Laddy]

So who has lost the argument on merit in this case and is resorting to vicious rhetoric? Ace? The President? The WSJ? NRO?

[Jeff Dobbs]

I think the debate offered by NR to WSJ is a good idea. But I also think NR is being juvenile in how their going about it.

Taranto had a piece on York cancelling an appearance on the weekend WSJ show. NR comes back and says blah de blah.

Pick up the phone, make the arrangements and negotiate the terms. In private. Just let me know the time and place so I can tune in. I DON'T need to see a public pissing contest on who is right or wrong ON SETTING UP THE DEBATE.

Sorry. In a bad mood. Someone scheduled an all morning meeting. I hate meetings. I really hate four hour meetings. You know what this meeting is good for? Keeping me from posting on JOM getting the actual work actually done that we're friggin philosophically talking about in the meeting.

At least bring in some decent coffee. Or beer.

[Maybeex]

I do have to admit that in response to the WSJ saying the Right is no longer rational, Ace saying:

Hey, President Bush? Fuck off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century.

And you know what? You are, pretty much, a fucking moron.

is pretty hilarious. And illustrative.

It's hard for me, because it isn't my issue. I don't care if people don't like Bush, don't agree, or get mad at him. I just think the response we're seeing- IMPEACH! IMPEACH! is pretty unhelpful. I don't want to be the country that impeaches 2 Presidents in a row.
If people want to unseat a president when he makes policy choices they don't like, maybe we should have a constitutional amendment to add no-confidence votes.
Otherwise. Man, is it so hard to simply disagree on things anymore, and disagree civilly?

[Maybeex]

oh P.S. to h&r

I'm in a really good mood, and I agree with everything you just said.

[Semanticleo]

OT, but of interest on the day of Libby's sentencing. Marcy Wheeler on the idictment
of William Jefferson:

"But I do hope Democrats look on the indictment of Jefferson as a way to remove someone who someone who (appears to have) abused his office and sold out the interests of the American people. As we go forward and try to tamp down calls for Libby's pardon and claims that we're criminalizing politics because we believe in the rule of law, having a Jefferson indictment in the background (hopefully with a nearly unified Democratic voice applauding the investigation and indictment) may well serve as a useful counterpoint."

Huzzah! Throw every lying, cheating bastard in the slammer without regard to race, creed, religion or political party.

[fschmieg]

I feel nothing but disgust for people who trash the President in a hissy-fit because they don't get their way or he doesn't do what they want. The immigration "debate" has made me ashamed of my fellow Republicans. Also, it is just foolish to deny the demographics. The % of hispanics is growing and most so in the youngest age cohorts. Therefore, not only for the morality of the situation but for simple common sense the country needs comprehensive immigration reform. Acting like an adolescent about it won't accomplish anything for anyone. I follow the President on this one.

[lurker9876]

I think calls for Libby's pardon barring appeals will increase exponentially over time.

I seriously doubt that the Jefferson indictment will unify the Democrats. What we are seeing is a double standard. They are claiming Jefferson's innocence until proven guilty when they claimed Tom DeLay guilty until proven innocent.

If Libby gets jail time, this will be one innocent man going into the slammer.

[lurker9876]

"But I do hope Democrats look on the indictment of Jefferson as a way to remove someone who someone who (appears to have) abused his office and sold out the interests of the American people"

Only difference is that they wanted the indicted Republican out NOW versus letting Jefferson stay. What hypocrits.

[PatrickR]

'So who has lost the argument on merit in this case and is resorting to vicious rhetoric? Ace?...'

C'mon:

Hey, President Bush? Fuck off. You are going down in history in a neck-and-neck battle with Jimmy Carter as worst president of the twentieth century.

And you know what? You are, pretty much, a fucking moron.

If you have an actual argument, you don't resort to this kind of thing. You've lost, and you know it.

[Rick Ballard]

Florence,

I agree with you. What is the President doing that contradicts what he said he would do when he ran for the office he holds? It takes a very peculiar sense of propriety to castigate someone for maintaining his word. Is it preferable that the President either 'play to the base' or simply act as a weather vane, pointing himself in whatever direction the breeze of opinion polls happens to be pointing?

I must say that Pew and its allies have done a great job in ginning up the extrapolations necessary to create this 'wedge'. The lies have been repeated often enough to have become the truth.

[Jane]

Based on what is going on right now, the final word for me will be if Bush pardons Libby. If he doesn't I'm done.

[clarice]

I don't follow the President on the immigration matter. I KNOW the federal government will not be able to administer this and it will be a disaster, even though there are many good features in the present Bill.

I am not sure a departure from the status quo is so important--but I'll consider it if we will secure the borders and improve the immigration services and not before that.

But it is true that the "hair on fire" folks get under my skin. I didn't think Harriet Meirs was such a terrible pick though Alioto is far better.Internal polls taken just before the President withdrew her name indicated she had substantial party support despite the NRO and the unusal suspects screaming bloody murder.

[cathyf]

Those who read Best Of The Web yesterday found out that the WSJ already hosted the debate, and the NR refused to come.

What NR's editors didn't mention is that a week earlier, they had bugged out of a chance to debate. In an email, editorial page editor Paul Gigot explains what happened:

Two weeks ago we wanted to have an immigration debate on our Fox TV program, "The Journal Editorial Report," with two WSJ writers squaring off against two anti-immigration conservatives, and me as moderator. We invited the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who accepted and appeared. We also invited National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, who declined but told us to ask Byron York, who accepted and agreed to fly up from Washington to New York.

York then called us late Thursday to cancel, first saying he didn't want to debate us after all. Our producer asked him to think about it, and he then called her back about 6 p.m. to say he had decided he was willing to debate but was still canceling because he had a story to pursue. Because we tape at 9:15 a.m. on Friday in New York, this left us at the last minute with only one anti-immigration guest. When our producer told York what he was doing to our program, he said it was no big deal, that he'd done TV for years and had lots of shows blown up at the last minute. We scrambled to find a substitute but failed. Heather did appear and had plenty of air time.

So imagine our astonishment to hear a few days later that National Review was challenging us to a debate. Had they wanted to debate, they could have. But we have no interest in participating in what is merely a publicity stunt.

If you're interested in an immigration debate, just read the transcript.

Looks to me like NR stepped in it pretty well.

[maryrose]

I am on pins and needles waiting for the sentencing of Libby!
clarice:
One of your best articles yet ! Kudos again for hitting on all cylinders.
President Bush 's position on fighting terrorism is the trump card for me. Even my son felt the dems were a pretty lame bunch in their CNN debate on Sunday.

[Cycloptichorn]

Oh, I'm on pins and needles waiting for the sentencing as well, I must say.

[Maybeex]

Bush could easily win as worst president of the 21st century, no? Although Clinton did have a difficult 20 days.

[Other Tom]

Anybody here going on record concerning whether he steps back right away, or remains free pending appeal?

[Memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ fschmieg

The immigration "debate" has made me ashamed of my fellow Republicans.

Do you know *anything* about the amnesty bill that's got so many conservatives angry?

Just curious. Because a lot of the Republicans I've seen with that attitude know pretty much zip about the subject. Now I'm not making that assumption about you. But if you do know something about the subject, this specific Senate bill, then perhaps you'd like to explain why it's so good for the country.

[Memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ clarice

I am not sure a departure from the status quo is so important--but I'll consider it if we will secure the borders and improve the immigration services and not before that.

You've got a long wait then. One interesting provision in the Senate bill forbids employers from using any federal services to determine the legal employability of a prospective employee *prior* to hiring.

Instead the employer has to hire first and then go through the process of determining if the newly hired employee is legal to hire and then go through the process of termination. And if that employee is now a member of a union? Good luck with that.

But it is true that the "hair on fire" folks get under my skin.

Thanks. I'll remember that the next time you get worked up over something.

[Maybeex]

OT- I say free pending appeal.

[Semanticleo]

Just in;

Walton; "I don't think high end is necessary. 30 months FIne him $200,000"

[maryrose]

Maybeex:
I agree with you.

[Other Tom]

As I understand it from Drudge, Walton hasn't said yet whether he remains free.

[Deagle]

Per Fox News:

30 Months Jail time, 250,000 dollar fine and free while on appeal.

[Pofarmer]

as a federal judge said the evidence overwhelmingly proved his guilt.

Yeah, either that or Matt Cooper and Judy Miller take crappy notes.

And Pumpkinhead? Still not sure what's up with all that.

[Tom Maguire]

As we go forward and try to tamp down calls for Libby's pardon and claims that we're criminalizing politics because we believe in the rule of law, having a Jefferson indictment in the background (hopefully with a nearly unified Democratic voice applauding the investigation and indictment) may well serve as a useful counterpoint."

Classic - back the Jefferson indictment becasue it is good politics. SClown, go ahead and cite the bit where Ms. Wheeler supports Jefferson Out because it is the *right* thing, not the politically expedient thing. Assuming she expressed such a sentiment, and she may not have.

[MikeS]

Before the Libby trial I had cynically assumed that he was probably guilty. Even after Russert’s testimony, I still thought Libby was guilty. I couldn’t have voted for a conviction because of Russert’s honesty and memory problems, but I did think Libby was probably guilty.

The day Pincus, Woodward, and Novak all testified that Libby wouldn’t confirm the Plame story to them was a turning point for me.

If Libby wasn’t confirming the story at all, why would he make up a lie claiming that he did confirm by way of saying that he had heard the story from other reporters? If Libby wasn’t confirming the story at all, he would have no motive to make up a story that he did discuss Plame with Russert when he really didn’t?

I suppose the answer could be that Libby did tell Judith Miller the story without qualification, and he told Cooper with only the qualification that “he didn’t know if it was even …” Even though telling Miller and Cooper was no crime and even though Libby didn’t deny telling them, after several months of worrying about it Libby decided to lie about how he confirmed the story.

Maybe my doubt is unreasonable, but I couldn’t possibly have voted guilty.

[DEMO]

Walton cited "overwhelming" evidence that Libby violated the law and breached the trust given high public officials and sentence Libby to 3 1/2 years plus $200,000 fine. Walton is leaving the matter whether Libby remains free pending his appeal until next Thursday after briefs have been filed. For what the right-wing describes as no underlying crime that's a whole lot o' nothing. It's remarkable he remembered his probation officer but couldn't bring himself to express even a tiny shred of sympathy for a CIA agent who lost her career because of actions taken by him and others. I'm sure he feels he is innocent on some level, but he still could have acknowledged what she has suffered. My guess is Libby didn't do himself any favors in the sentencing and I am inclined to believe Walton will not allow Libby to remain free pending appeal.

[topsecretk9]

UM -- why do the Democrats have to force him out? Why didn't he do it on his own? Nevermind.

Anyways - I predict there is a major war happening within the Dem party - the CBC being all marginalized by the leaders

[JM Hanes]

cathyf

"Looks to me like NR stepped in it pretty well."

Actually, I think the NRO Byron York "bugged out of the debate" before the WSJ editorial roundtable video came out. That's where the entire NRO crew was essentially tagged as foaming at the mouth racists. I'm nearly as disgusted by Gigot's disingenous statement above, as I was by the insulting, sanctimonious superficiality on display in the video -- where, ironically, conservative John Fund appeared to be the only voice of reason in the room.

[Maybeex]

Maybeex:
I agree with you

Ah, poor Maryrose. It didn't really pay to agree with me, did it? Maybe Walton will change his mind next week, but I think not. Walton hearts Fitzgerald.