Statistics, Bush, and Damn Statistics
by Duckman GR
Because the BushCO has such a fine and outstanding track record, I find the latest job numbers to be just that, numbers. Whether they have any validity or reliability, I cannot answer. I suspect that something will come up that brings these numbers into question, and I for one will not be surprised.
They've done it time and time again, from the Medicare costs to Condilieza and her airplane hijacking musings, from those hilarious WMD follies to the Houston Miracle school system of Education Minister Rod "There's terra ists in the classrooms" Paige.
As others have noted, here and elsewhere, there's a lot of ambiguity in those numbers, with grocery workers returning, full time vs part time, good paying vs Wal Mart paying etc, but little ambiguity in the mendacity of the Bush White House.
Courtesy of reader ripley at the friendly competition, Eschaton, this article from the New Pravda Times (nod to Billmon) about the White House and the 9/11 Commission adds another dollop to the ledger.
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job," Mr. McClellan said.
The commission said it was awaiting a full answer from the White House on why any documents were withheld.
Now, I don't know about you, but one of the things that I find disturbing in this is that, as they have done many time before, the White House is deciding what's important or not to the investigation. Just like the redacted Saudi imbroglio before, just like the AWOL papers, they decide if something is relevent or not. Seems a little bit bass ackwards don't you think?
I do like the spin at the end of this article though.
The White House decision to release some of the wording of the classified September 2001 presidential directive on Al Qaeda and the Taliban was an opening volley in what is expected to be an aggressive public relations campaign on behalf of Ms. Rice in the days before her testimony next Thursday.
The so-called National Security Presidential Directive envisioned the military action as the last step of a three-to-five year plan. It called for two earlier steps — a diplomatic mission to the Taliban and covert action — and envisioned military strikes only as a last resort.
The actual language in the directive could be interpreted in two very different ways when Ms. Rice testifies. On the one hand, she will undoubtedly use it to build her case that the administration took the Qaeda threat seriously.
But because the policy was supposed to unfold over three to five years, it suggests that the threat posed by Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan was not considered an urgent one by the White House, bolstering Mr. Clarke's accusations. [my bold-ed]
Yeah, they need to compare that leisurely approach and her 9/11 undelivered speech to get a reel good sense of their priorities. 3 to 5 years????? That's taking the threat seriously?? 3 to 5 years is about how long it takes to get information out of this frigging administration, not solve a problem.
We need to communicate to the Dems on this commission that this is unacceptable, that these frauds must be held accountable, and punished for their failures.
The Failures should not be deciding their own fate. And the punishment needs to fit the crime. Big time.