God is now writing for The Economist. He has just declared Bush is Toast!

[TruthIsAll]

Hallelulah! I am not worthy. This conservative icon has just admitted that Bush is an incompetent, incredible, dishonest liar.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2553350



George Bush's credibility
A matter of trust

Apr 1st 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

Evidence is growing that the Bush administration has misled the public. But most voters, so far, are inclined to forgive

snip

Yet the administration's reaction to accusations by Richard Clarke, its former counter-terrorism co-ordinator, raises doubts not only over its judgments but, still more, over whether and how the administration accounts for its decisions. When set in the context of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the ballooning budget deficit, this reaction raises profound questions about the administration's credibility, honesty and competence.


Mr Clarke argued, in testimony to the special commission investigating the terrorist attacks of 2001, that terrorism was not a top priority before September 11th. The administration, he claimed, had failed to do as much as it could and should have done to disrupt the threat of global Islamic terrorism in its first eight months. In his book, he argued that the reason for the neglect was that the administration was distracted by its obsession with Iraq—symbolised by the president's repeated insistence, in the days after the attacks, that Mr Clarke should look into possible connections with Saddam.

These are serious charges politically for Mr Bush, who is running on his handling of national security. They are also serious charges substantively, because they challenge the performance of America's intelligence services and raise questions about whether war in Iraq was justified. And, on the substance, the administration's case in its own defence should and could have been better than it appeared.

It could, for example, have stressed that it was seeking a more ambitious strategy against terrorists than the one inherited from the Clinton administration, which Mr Bush called “swatting flies”. In fact, a new, slightly more aggressive strategy emerged a week before the attacks, but too late. It could have pointed out, as Mr Clarke conceded, that even had it done everything Mr Clarke wanted, it probably could not have stopped the September attacks. Mr Bush could have acknowledged (as he had done earlier) that he had underestimated the threat from al-Qaeda before September 11th, but that afterwards he pursued the war on terror to the utmost extent. And he could have reminded everyone that, in 2001, Iraqi terrorism was a legitimate concern, if not a large one.

But to have done all this would have required acknowledging at least part of Mr Clarke's complaints. And that the administration was unwilling to do. It was still insisting that it had done everything it could have done before the attacks. So instead of treating the criticisms seriously, and replying to them seriously, the administration, with one or two honourable exceptions, began a campaign to discredit Mr Clarke.

snip

Admittedly, the margin on the latter question was even greater two months ago, and more people now think the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of another terrorist attack than think it has reduced it. Still, worries about Mr Bush do not yet seem to be translating into potential votes for Mr Kerry. It is as if voters, faced with the president's lack of straight dealing, are concluding that truth may indeed be the first casualty of the war they want to win.

[boobooday]

1. The longest four years of my life

Rivaled only by the four years we had the first Bush.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[peacetalksforall]

5. Tonight, I'm angry with the Bushbelievers.

How can these people swallow the 'War President' garbage and not acknowledge the inaction and vindicative attitude against anything Clinton.

If these people were patriots they would acknowledge that the People of the United States who are more patriotic than they EXPECT and DEMAND that there is CONTINUITY of the RUNNING OF OUR (O U R) Government.

How can anyone think the running of our country, for which we pay plenty, should be political. What is wrong with an assumption that the government should keep running for the good of its citizens?

Mr Richard Clarke was a good employee. He tried to do his job across administrations as a good citizen would. Now he is getting smeared.

So what is with the Bushbelievers? I find it disgusting?

What exactly did Clinton reverse that Bush, Sr executed and introduced?

[BabsSong]

2. And the last remarks of your post say it all

"Still, worries about Mr Bush do not yet seem to be translating into potential votes for Mr Kerry. It is as if voters, faced with the president's lack of straight dealing, are concluding that truth may indeed be the first casualty of the war they want to win.".....................that just about sums it up. They can attack him, fuck him, rip him apart on their cover and in their 'piece' and sit back and chuckle at those lines because they are so true. And now that we have a candidate, we have sat back and done fucking squat to change the perceptions.

[maggrwaggr]

6. sorry, but Kerry fell for Bush's bullshit too

so he's not a strong candidate on this issue.

which is one of the reasons why I didn't want him to get the nomination.

Oh well. Here we go.

By the way, where the hell IS Kerry? Getting his arm sewed back together, or having the pod people replace him with an alien?

(tiredly): Go Kerry .....!

[Maine-i-acs]

3. I really want to believe it ...

But after being April Fooled so many times here yesterday, I am a little cautious in my optimism. Hope they keep it up at The Economist!

[GOPisEvil]

4. I have GOT to purchase this edition!

I might end up framing that cover. :7

[TruthIsAll]

7. A Kick for honest Journalism

TIA

[Karenina]

9. Back to one!

:kick:

[sweetheart]

8. He has violated their religion of free trade

with steel tarriffs and protectionist measures. They can't have it!

The Economist religion is in direct opposition to Chalmer's Johnson's sorrows of empire (which is surely why they won't review
it). They believe that free trade increases the wealth of all people
on the earth... via ricardo's comparative advantage. The neoliberal
schools of economics swear on this alter.

Now it turns out that non of the rich economies became rich by
following a free-trade regimen, and that emerging market protectionism is intelligent and a wise way to help your country
develop in to a rich nation.

They can't explain this hole in their god... and the sky is falling!

Oh my... and they can't accept kerry's protectionist measures either...

oh dear... what are the ignorant liar economist editors to do, when
faced by the facts that free trade has only brought poverty and
misery to most of the world, and that by following their religious
meaasures of fiscal prudence and cutting public spending, a country
is plunged in to argentina-sytle economic disaster.

Dear economist editor:

"Get a clue. Your religion is crap and fucks people over." Perhaps
its time to reflect that you are not wise and educated, but rather
apologists for neo-liberal economic imperialism and the slavery that
it brings to the non-rich world."

They supported bush in the last election... it shows how fucking
uneducated they really are... morons.