The White House admits to NBC News that the decision to escalate in Iraq and throw more money into the hands of reconstruction contractors ostensibly to provide the economic development that Halliburton, Bechtel, and the other Bush campaign contributors have siphoned off from the American taxpayers was a political decision and not a military decision. I’m glad to know that Bush will be guided by the generals on the ground and not anything Cheney says.
The White House wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal over Bush’s name today that pledged he would work with Democrats on energy security, immigration reform, and affordable health care. He also wants his way on making his tax cuts permanent, and after six years of funding every pork project a GOP member of Congress wanted, he suddenly converts to the Democratic position on eliminating earmarks. He claims that his tax cuts and a newfound spending restraint that has been alien to him will allow him to meet his goal of balancing the budget by 2012, but the Times never mentions in its story that Bush is plundering the Social Security trust fund each year to maintain this fiscal fiction. Now he wants the Democrats to trust him as his Justice Department gives the finger to Patrick Leahy. Nice try George. Been there, done that. Once you make your speech next week on Iraq without explaining adequately how you plan to pay for your escalation, your claims of newfound fiscal prudence, sacrifice, and collaboration with Congress render you a lying prick looking for a life vest.
The Post reporter who used to cover Hillary Clinton has penned a piece in today’s paper that looks into whether or not Obama’s candor about his prior drug use while in college will hurt or help him.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid haven’t even taken over yet, but there are already a slew of stories about how the “100 Hours” agenda will run into problems in the Senate, because the Democrats have only a slim margin in that chamber. Yet the items on the “100 Hours” agenda have significant public support, and the media's reporting doesn't say why a vulnerable GOP senator or representative up for reelection in 2008 would side with Bush and against the minimum wage increase, against expanding stem cell research, against reforming the Medicare Part D program, against implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and against lowering the cost of student loans.
Mitt Romney will make a run for the White House, which will be entertaining if for no other reason that to see him go after McCain and Giuliani while he panders to the right wing himself.