Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (23890)	7/30/2003 5:08:21 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Bush takes the blame for uranium gaff in SOTU. Is it "better late than never" or "too little, too late"? WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After weeks of blaming others, President Bush for the first time accepted responsibility on Wednesday for making a now-discredited charge that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say," Bush said when asked about the disputed claim during a wide-ranging White House Rose Garden news conference. Bush also denied exaggerating the Iraqi threat in the runup to the war as some Democrats have charged and said his decision to go to war was based on "good, sound intelligence" that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. "I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision," he said. It was Bush's first formal solo news conference since March, the eighth of his presidency, and came shortly before he departs on Saturday for what amounts to a month-long vacation at his Texas ranch interspersed with various official and fund-raising events. A main focus of the news conference was the chaotic situation in Iraq, where U.S. troops are dying daily three months after major combat operations were declared over, where the hunt for weapons of mass destruction is so far fruitless, and where Saddam Hussein remains at large. The claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program was made by Bush in his State of the Union address last January as evidence that Iraq represented a threat to the United States. In recent weeks the claim has been discredited as being based partly on forged documents, and in the uproar that followed, Bush and his top aides blamed CIA Director George Tenet for failing to head off the 16-word line in the speech. Deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley accepted a White House share of the blame but Bush had declined to take personal responsibility. 'CREDIBILITY GAP' His acknowledgment represented an attempt to put the issue to rest as Democrats claim Bush has a "credibility gap." He defended national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has drawn fire for letting the claim into the speech. "Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person and America is lucky to have her service, period," he said, as Rice watched with other top aides nearby under the shade of a tree. On the hunt for Saddam himself, Bush said U.S. forces were "closer than we were yesterday, I guess." Bush had said in the pre-war period he was convinced Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but now said he was confident Saddam had a "weapons program" and that the truth will come out as mounds of seized documents are analyzed. "It's just going to take a while," he said. Bush is under strong pressure to produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction since he cited it as the main cause for war. He was briefed about the search on Tuesday by David Kay, who is leading the search for the U.S. military. He acknowledged that he needed to produce the evidence. "In order to, you know, placate the critics and the cynics about (the) intention of the United States we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand it, and I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe: that Saddam had a weapons program," he said. He predicted that as Iraqis become less fearful of a return of Saddam to power, "we will gain more cooperation in our search for the truth in Iraq." Bush spoke as Americans are increasingly uneasy about the U.S. military deployment in Iraq, with 50 U.S. troops killed in hostile action since May 1. "The American people are proud of our armed forces and we are grateful for their sacrifice and their service in fighting the war on terror," he said. Bush urged patience as the United States seeks to develop a freer society in Iraq. "Even our own experiment with democracy, it didn't happen overnight. I've never expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period. And so this is going to take time," he said.

To: coug who wrote (23890)	7/30/2003 8:16:46 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Josh Marshal's Talking Points Memo... talkingpointsmemo.com (July 30th, 2003 -- 1:44 AM EDT // link) As if we didn't have enough signs that the administration's priorities on the war on terrorism are seriously out of whack, now this. The same day we hear of a renewed threat of 9/11-style hijackings, we also find out that our new air marshal program is being scaled back because of tight budgets at the Department of Homeland Security. The number of screeners is being cut too. Transportation Security Administration spokesman Brian Turmail wouldn't get into the specifics of what changes were being made. But he did tell an MSNBC reporter that all programs at TSA are “subject to ongoing review.” He went on to say, “TSA’s current task is to balance the need to meet changing threats with the need to live within the agency’s budget. The federal air marshal budget is under review to determine how best to meet these two objectives.” Can someone talk to this guy? Or maybe his boss? I don't think these guys quite understand the 'task.' Forget balance. As nearly as I can figure it, the 'task' is to do everything possible to prevent anyone from flying another one of our jets into a building. Another TSA spokesman told the Washington Post that the marshal's program "is not exempt from budget realities facing the TSA." Really? Can we make it exempt? Here's some helpful information from that article in Wednesday's Post ... Just one day before the [terrorism warning] memo was distributed, an official with the undercover Federal Air Marshal Service canceled what are considered some of the most vulnerable flight missions because they required marshals to spend nights in hotels, as well as cut training for Washington-area agents next month. The official cited "monetary considerations," according to an e-mail obtained by The Washington Post. I'm sitting here at my keyboard just before two in the morning and I'm literally at a loss. I seldom like it when people make what are often facile comparisons between what we're spending in Iraq and this or that priority at home. But, in this case, how can you not? We're spending $4 billion a month in Iraq in what we're now being told is the "central battle in the war on terror." Can't we pop for these hotel rooms? I know budgets are always complicated matters in every government agency, no matter how sensitive or vital their mission. But you back up and look at the big picture here and it really defies comprehension. I recently had a talk with an editor of mine when I had to make a tough call about whether or not to include a particular piece of information in an article. Journalism has all sorts of established rules for when you really have a story nailed and when you don't -- this or that number of sources, statements on the record or off the record, and so forth. But a lot of the toughest calls just come down to judgment, your gut feeling. During that conversation I told him how I usually make these decisions. When I find myself in these situations the reasoning I use with myself goes something like this: 'Let's say I run with this story. And let's say it goes bad. And then I have to explain my reasoning to my editor. How is that conversation going to go? Am I going to have a good story to tell? Or am I going to have a why-was-I-such-a-friggin-idiot story to tell?' It's a very clarifying mental exercise. If something terrible happens with a plane, aren't a lot of people going to have a lot of why-was-I-such-a-friggin-idiot stories to tell? -- Josh Marshall (July 30th, 2003 -- 12:22 AM EDT // link)