« In Defense of FEMA | Main | Bush is Leading What? »


Matthew C. Aycock

I agree that the administration is not the right group to investigate what went wrong here just as much as I agree that neither you nor the media are. I would recommend a similar structure to the investigation as the 9/11 commission.

I won't go so far to say that Bush/Rove have lost their touch. Right now, they are more concerned with these issues:
1. Katrina
2. Iraq
3. Weakening Bush's image to allow him to take the bad issues when he leaves and provide for an opening for the future candidate of the Republican Party

Bush is done, from a political standpoint, in a couple of years. Why push so hard to build him up at this point? Now is the time to create the pocket for someone like McCain or Giuliani.

I do wish to correct a serious flaw in your fact finding though. Bush DID meet with Sheehan in June 2004. As you know, the President is a busy man and has a lot to do. Why should he meet with everyone as many times as they want?

If Bush were to have a 20 second meeting with every U.S. Citizen, it would take him 68,775.35 24-hour Days to complete the task. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

This woman never offered any suggestion as to why she needed the interview or what she hoped it would accomplish.


The idea that a weak Bush means a Republican wins in 2008 is a new one. You can't make Bush responsible for "all the bad issues" without putting them on the Republican congress as well, since they marched in lockstep to his tune. And a weak Bush means an fractured Republican party and the loss of his second term agenda - ending the estate tax, rewriting the tax code, continued public support for the war in Iraq, et al.

And there's no serious flaw in my fact finding. Don't intentionallly misunderstand me - you know very well that I'm talking about the political wisdom of not meeting with Cindy Sheehan when she went to Crawford. My point isn't that she had a right to a meeting, it's that by refusing one Bush/Rove stumbled politically and gave a face to the anti-war movement. And BTW, she did say why she wanted the interview - to challenge Bush on his propaganda, what she saw as the use of her son's death to justify continuing to fight in Iraq, by asking what Bush meant when he said that those who died in Iraq died for a noble cause. You may think that's lame, but you can't say she didn't say why she wanted the meeting - and she stuck to that despite efforts of far-left groups to get her to adopt a broader message.

Matthew C. Aycock

First of all, BOTH parties "marched in lockstep to his tune" on the most unpopular issues right now.

You stated, "The refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan and prevent the birth of a new anti-war movement." That is not a fact. You should have included that he refused to meet with her for a SECOND time. The woman had nothing positive to add or should would have said it already. Am I sorry she lost a loved one to a war? Yes. But that is something entirely different.

Bush will fail on getting Social Security reform and tax code changes. He will succeed on "extending" estate tax provisions and enhancing them for the wealthy. That is something that is an easy sale to people for whatever reason.

The war in Iraq is never going to be popular (it's not technically a war anymore, but we can call it that for simplicity). I don't think anyone can fix that and we can't just leave at this point in the game either.

McCain could easily be pitched as a candidate with experience in finishing the job. Because he and Bush didn't appear to be good friends throughout the primaries a few years back, it makes it easy to see where he can capitalize on the fact that he isn't Bush.


Um, I'm afraid you're incorrect when you say that both parties marched in lockstep with Bush. A majority of House Dems voted against giving Bush authority to invade Iraq. And a large minority in the Senate did the same.

On other issues - the "bad" issues, there's no Dem support. Gitmo Bay and torutre memos? Nope. Privatization? Nope. Tax breaks for the wealthy? Nope. Cronyism? Nope.

As for Cindy Sheehan, I say "whatever". First time, second time - big deal. I'm sure that anyone who knows who she is knows that she's requesting a second meeting. And the point here is the political missteps of Bush/Rove, not whether Cindy Sheehan is right or not.

Of course you think she has nothing positive to add. You don't agree with her. I believe that the sacrifice of her son obligates me to listen. As I listen to those who have lost loved ones and support Bush.

Matthew C. Aycock

The House approved the war by a 296-133 Vote on October 10, 2002. This included 81 Democrats and 215 Republicans.

The Senate approved the war with only 31 opposing. Of those that approved the war, were Tom Daschle. The 31 that opposed the war were trying to get an alternative bill past which limited Bush's power to keep us there to 2 years. That was essentially the only difference, so it was a unanimous decision in the Senate for us to go in some capacity.

Personally, I think she is abusing the fact that her son gave his life in Iraq to gain national attention. It's pathetic, and I wouldn't be suprised if that wasn't why her husband left.


29 Dem Senators voted for the war authorization and 21 voted against.

In the House, 126 Dems voted against it. Many of those that voted for it did so to avert war:

"Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations." CNN

As for Cindy Sheehan, people's views of her are influenced by their politics, so of course you think she's abusing the fact that her son died in Iraq. But I can't believe she's that callous. She may be wrong, but she'd have to have a hard heart to use her son's death. You think she does - I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Matthew C. Aycock

I seriously hope you don't think Gephardt is that stupid. The guy always seemed VERY intelligent to me, and if you truly think that he believed that when he voted the way he did, then you have taken their bait.

Most of those that voted against giving Bush authority, did so in support of a different Bill that gave similar authority, but for a limited timeframe.

Almost ZERO Senators or Representatives completely voted against the war.


I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some potbs gold
Having more fun here


I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some Perfect World Gold
Buy Perfect World Gold

Having more fun here

aoc money

Welcome to our aoc gold center. We can provide all what you want if you want. Our conan gold are specialized, professional and reliable website

cheap Tales Of Pirates gold

We often buy cheap Tales Of Pirates gold on Monday. As if it is a rule. I think it is the real friendship. buy Tales Of Pirates Gold is already become the essential thing. So I will introduce my friends have it.

Sword of the New World money

I have it cheap snw vis. I buy Sword of the New World money .


I always heard something from my neighbor
شات الخليج
شات الحب
شات السعودية
I always heard something from my neighbor

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Search this Site with Google