I hear a little Tiny Tim song playing in the background....

Steve - you have forgotten Molly Ivins deconstruction of how GWB operates. He always goes for broke. Sometimes it works. When it doesn't he accepts the compromise, declares succcess and takes credit for it. The Christo-facists will then be told by their ministers that GWB's brilliant tactics once again defeated the evil liberals and reminded to stay the course because that's how they will get everything they desire when the time is right. These are very dangerous people to compromise with because they always think three moves ahead of the DEMs. They score enough wins that they can live with a few draws. Rove etal have been boxing in the DEMs for four years -- just look at the IRW and Terri's bill -- whatever makes anyone think that they have lost their political skills? Compromise, appeasement, policy proposals/demands (which Party benefitted from the establisment of the Homeland Security Dept.?) are all losers against the GWB team. Principled, clear, concise and consistent opposition is the only option until the DEM Party has earned some political capital.

*Quasi-Off Topic*

Steve (or Mary), you need to make one of these pictures a capper to an open thread.

Anybody who doesn't understand how deadly these images are to Bush's own self-styled mythology is insane.

Anybody who doesn't understand how deadly these images are to Bush's own self-styled mythology is insane.

I don't know what the hell he was thinking. Sure, it might show he "cares" enough to beg for more oil production, but America--particularly Red America--has significant hangups both about casual homosocial contact and about Arabs.

It doesn't even make him look like a big shot; it makes Abdullah look like a big shot.

Far more interesting, though, is what Reid is trying to do in the Senate. Reid's policy choices aren't the same as mine, but he's playing better politics than Daschle by a pretty wide margin.

Marie said:

These are very dangerous people to compromise with because they always think three moves ahead of the DEMs.

I don't think they are thinking three moves ahead. It's just that after any battle--win, lose, or draw--the next move is always to increase the pressure. It's like dealing with a boa constrictor.

I think the Schiavo thing threw them off their rhythm a little. For a couple of weeks now, the GOP has been threatening to do all sorts of things, and the Dems, far from caving, have gleefully said, "whatever!"

America's odds of evading the slide to Depression and Fascism are slowly (though not surely) improving.

Noticed the cover and headline of the ultra-conservative New York Post today. Full page photo of Bush walking hand in hand with Abdullah with "HIGH PRICE OF OIL" in large print below it.

I don't think these photos are at all a positive thing for Bush domestically. Nothing to do with sexual overtones either. I think it conveys a weak image. Bush being lead by the hand of the arab despot. Bush as supplicant. I think that's the intent of the Post cover.

It seems to me a bit of the shine has started to come off the Bush presidency in the eyes of the media.

I don't think these photos are at all a positive thing for Bush domestically. Nothing to do with sexual overtones either. I think it conveys a weak image.

I don't think those two things are as separable as you do. But you're right, that picture does not support an image of strong leadership.

The Bush family has been holding hands with Saudi's for years and years. Maybe someday we'll know the full extent of their cooperation (and it will be revelatory)on a variety of issues, not the least being events leading up to and after 9/11. But for now, one thing is clear. When gas prices go up, Bush's ratings go down. And he runs to the Prince as fast as he can to genuflect and hold Oil Daddy's hand,"Please help me again dear Prince".

I don't think those two things are as separable as you do.

Oh I have no delusion that a large segment of the Post's readership and their ilk will not scoff at the photos for their sexual undertones.

Beyond those people however I think it's still an image that really can't have any appeal to the American populus. I mean if it was Saudi custom to bend over and literally kiss the princes ass would Bush be doing that too? That's the kind of reaction I think these photos evoke from people.

How about a photo caption contest? Mine is:
"Sure Prince, how many flight school scholarships did you want?"

What a sweet picture, with all those pretty blue bonnets serving as a background

Not to quibble but the blue bonnets are in the foreground.

:)

Matt -- the Schiavo issue is very complex. Agree that GWB didn't expect this to be quite the loser that it was. However, it made his fundie base very happy to see him going to bat for them. As the DEM Party went along with Terri's bill, Reid's statement and bipartisan bill with Santorum will insure that the DC DEMs are unable to capitalize on it.

Wish I could see as well as many of you that the DC DEMs are really behaving differently from how they have in the past for years. So far, the new boss looks like the old boss. The major difference is that GWB is trying to spend "his political capital." He's going for the hard sells -- not succeeding too well on those yet, but in the interim is getting a lot of the smaller stuff through Congress with little difficulty and a lot of help from some Democrats. When I start seeing DEMs acting more like the GOP in 1993 when not a single GOP crossed the aisle to support the tax increase, then I'll start to believe.

They're also in the background anon, but who's quibbling, right?

Two points on the powers behind the 9/11 attacks.

There is substantial evidence that points to the Pakistan ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) as organizers and funders of the 9/11 terrorists. Google "ISI 9-11" and see what comes up.

Second, the first version of an article in the Baltimore Chronicle said that the fired head of Saudi Intel organized the flights out of Las Vegas after the 9/11 attacks. The key passage disappeared quickly -- because it was false, or because of it's political incorrectness? We report -- you decide.

====

Why was the Fired Head of Saudi Intell in the US while 15 Saudis were Carrying Out their 9/11 Mission? by Margie Burns

http://baltimorechronicle.com/040904SaudiCIA.shtml

Former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke was asked about the flights at the April 8 hearing of the 9-11 Commission. Clarke responded that "someone" in the Saudi embassy had requested that some persons be allowed to fly out and that he refused, kicking the request over to the FBI, which permitted them. ...

Two of the flights departed from Las Vegas, where at least five of the September 11 suspects visited several times between May 2001 and August 2001. At least one suspect from each of the four planes hijacked stayed in Las Vegas. Suspected ringleader Mohamed Atta checked in at a Vegas hotel on June 29, checked out on July 1, and returned on August 13. Marwan Al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Ziad Jarrah all traveled there at least once. All together, the hijackers made at least six trips to Vegas. Yet, a few days after 9-11, 31 passengers were allowed to fly out of Vegas, including one passenger named Al-Hazmi. One Saudi royal aboard was Prince Turki bin Faisal, famous as the head of Saudi Arabia's bloodstained and much feared intelligence service from 1977 until he was abruptly fired in August 2001.

Whoa; time out. What, exactly, was the longtime head of Saudi Arabia's secret police doing in the United States, while 15 young Saudis were carrying out their attacks? Prince Turki's brother was also on board the Vegas flight; another of their brothers is Saudi Arabia's foreign minister.

Why, exactly, did the fired head of Saudi intelligence hotfoot it over to this country, right after getting the boot? Or was he in the US when he was fired? His replacement was officially announced on August 31, 2001. Did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, or anyone in the White House national security office, even know that these persons were in the United States? Given Prince Turki's documented contacts with Osama bin Laden and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence, which propped up the Taliban, why did the White House let these persons leave? ...

On Schiavo's bill you can make the argument that the Dems just let them proceed so that the Courts could make a decision, knowing full well what that decision would be. "Sure, go ahead, pass this bill, you want it so bad, we won't stand in your way."

They may not appear to be behaving all that differently, but the circumstances have changed quite a bit. The 9/11 terrorism scaremongering doesn't hold so well since Saddam is in jail, they've voted for something (nothing) in Iraq, Arafat is dead, etc. SS is bringing reality to some of these Congresscritters, as real votes count more then real dollars as far as getting re-elected, and voting against an aware constituency who lets you know they know what you're doing, is causing some changes in underware.

Having delay come front and center, with all his ugliness, having the American Taliban vocal and visible in the mainstream, those things make for ugly politics for the goppers, and they know it.

You watch, when delay goes for that one way helicopter ride, DC will breathe a sigh of relief.

They're also in the background anon, but who's quibbling, right?

I'd have given you...

...pretty blue bonnets serving as a setting.

Or even...

...pretty blue bonnets serving as a backdrop.

Maybe!

But background?

See. Now you've really got me quibbling!

Bonnets of blue
Come into view
But this isn't new
The oilmen are screwing you.

Bush finallyg got a real mandate.