Wow. This is a shocker. 96 Republican scholors, lawyers and former government officials believe that impeachment is a constitutional duty when the president uses narrow sophistries and linguistic maneuverings to escape the constitutional rules applicable to him. They argue that popularity should be no impediment to impeachment — indeed the constitution was written in order that popular presidents might be impeached. Has the worm finally turned?
The fundamental tenet by which a free society lives is the rule of law. When the President defies the constitutional rules applicable to him, there must be no escape by narrow sophistries and linguistic maneuvering. The framers devised a mechanism for removing from office any person who violates both his oath of office and his constitutional duties. That mechanism must be respected and used if we are to remain a free and law-abiding nation. The impeachment inquiry must not be defeated by partisan politics and public opinion polls. The Constitution was made in order to remove some subjects from decision by momentary popular sentiment. Impeachment is as much a part of the Constitution as the First Amendment. In fulfilling their constitutional duties, neither the courts nor Congress should be deflected by public opinion polls. If we would not allow polls to silence unpopular speech, neither must we allow polls to excuse and ratify impeachable offenses. Should the House and the Senate shirk their responsibilities, they will establish a precedent for lawless government. That would be both unconscionable and dangerous.
Oh sorry. This was written in 1998 and concerned lying about personal sexual matters. Certainly, using linguistic maneuvering and narrow sophistries to excuse misleading the country into believing they were under serious threat from a foreign nation and using that bogus threat as a rationale for invading and occupying that nation is completely acceptable.
You must read the farmer’s romantic fairy tale about the “grinning albino Monacle snake” — the Ann of Coulter, over on Eschaton. It will bring a tear to the eye and a song to the heart.
It’s very interesting to see the administration quoting at length from the vaunted NIE as if it were a sacred rune. On September 12, 2002, the president went to the UN and proclaimed:
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons
[…]
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We’ve tried sanctions. We’ve tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a — nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply concerned that the intelligence community has not completed the most basic document which is asked of them before the United States makes such a critical life-or-death decision.
It is within the power of the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, to order a national intelligence estimate, known as an NIE. National intelligence estimates bring together all the agencies of the Federal Government involved in intelligence, sits them down, and collects and coordinate all of their information to reach the best possible conclusion he can come up with.
I was stunned to learn last week that we have not produced a national intelligence estimate showing the current state of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is incredible, with all of the statements made by members of this administration about those weapons, is the fact that the intelligence community has not been brought together…
Time and again since then as we looked back on last year, we have said we have to be better prepared, with better communications and better coordination of information from outside the country and inside, and bring it all together so we can make the best decision.When we are talking about a possible invasion of Iraq and a war against Iraq, why haven’t we really created the most basic document that we have the power to create in this Government–the national intelligence estimate–so we know exactly what we may be up against in Iraq? It has not been done.
So one was prepared. Apparently, only because Dick Durbin explicitly asked for it:
This morning, I handed a letter to the deputy to Director Tenet asking that he give it to the Director personally, asking that they move as quickly as possible to establish and create this national intelligence estimate. Once it is established, Ithink we should meet on Capitol Hill–the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees. We should have classified hearing on things that can’t be discussed publicly about this NIE, and then a public hearing as well to share with the American people, without compromising in any way the safety and security of the United States, as much information as we possibly can about the current state of affairs in Iraq.
Two days later, Bush was proclaiming to the UN, quite without reservation, that (amongst other things) Saddam would be able to make a bomb within a year if he could obtain fissile material.
So, the NIE is not exactly the best evidence for why the administration believed that Iraq was a serious threat because the NIE didn’t exist until a Democrat specifically requested it. The administration was quite “convinced” of Iraq’s WMD threat long before it was produced. So convinced, apparently, that they didn’t feel the need to produce one themselves before they launched their Iraq invasion marketing plan last September.
Durbin said they needed to show their evidence before the congress voted. It would appear that this NIE was designed specifically for the purpose of convincing wavering Senators and may explain why they included such absurdities as the Niger yellowcake nonsense as well as why Condi didn’t bother to read it. Clearly, it was not a document the administration believed was important for their own purposes.
Correction: In the post below, I state that you cannot vote for a replacement if you do not vote for the recall. This is incorrect. You can vote against the recall and also vote for Issa or whomever.
Also, think about one other thing. Davis cannot be on this ballot. But, in order for him to retain his legally obtained office, more than 50% of the voters in this election must vote against the recall. The replacement, however, can win with a plurality. So, in effect, 49% of the voters could vote for Davis by voting against the recall, yet Darrell Issa could actually become the governor with only 33% of the vote.
This is the democracy we want to export all around the world?
Recall Madness
I’m actually a bit surprised that Kevin is even considering voting for the recall, because while the scheduled recall election is a done deal, the result is far from certain. The vote is whether to recall Davis. Only if you vote for the recall are you allowed to vote for Davis’ replacement. If Kevin decides that this is a good opportunity to replace Davis with someone more to his liking then his vote will count as a support of the recall process as much as a vote for Dick Riordan. That seems to me to be a huge mistake and one that overlooks the much bigger issues at stake.
This unprecedented recall election is not actually about Davis vs. Issa/Schwartzenegger/Simon or somebody better. It’s about whether it is acceptable that some rich guy finances a petition drive (with paid signature gatherers) in order to overturn an undisputed legal election so that he might get himself (or somebody else) elected with far fewer votes instead. It’s of a piece with some other nasty political shenannigans we’ve seen recently — like impeachment over a blowjob, refusing to count legal votes in Florida and redistricting whenever you get enough votes to do it. These things are chipping away at our system in ways that can potentially cause disaster in the not too distant future. When you start screwing with the actual levers of democracy — the predictablity of elections, the integrity of the electoral system and a universal acceptance of the results, you have a big problem on your hands.
This is not the theoretical “oh what’s the use” kind of common griping about how politics are making people apathetic. This is the actual, literal manipulation of the electoral system. The principle that “the guy who gets the most votes wins the office for a set term” is really becoming subject to debate.
And as for Davis, it behooves everybody to remember that (regular) elections are about choosing between the candidates who are offered. If you remember that, you should also remember who the Republicans offered the people of California in the last two elections — Dan Lundgren and Bill Simon. Given those choices again today, can any Democrat say that we shouldn’t have voted for Davis? Should the GOP be allowed to rectify their mistake (and not incidentally bypass their own hardline right wing) by basically just calling for a new election for no other reason than that they can?
Now, many Democrats argue that the Democratic Party shouldn’t have nominated Davis either, but that is very easy to say in retrospect. I’m sure all parties regret nominating a politician who becomes unpopular. But at this point in history, it’s almost suicidal to sanction throwing out the certified results of any undisputed and orderly election process in favor of street corner petition appeals to emotion. Because if anyone thinks that this will be an isolated incident, not to be repeated, they are not paying attention to recent history. After all, the GOP had no problem impeaching a popular President and if the rules of the Senate had only required that a plurality vote could have replaced him with a Republican, you can be sure they would have convicted and removed him as fast as you can say Trent Lott.
This recall in California is just the most recent example of GOP power politics in action and it is only logical to assume that they will be emboldened to continue in this vein (and that the Democrats will have no choice but to join in) if the people reward this type of manipulation merely because, in this instance, the guy who won the last election has a low approval rating.
(And, by the way, Governors all over the country are showing low approval ratings, particularly second termers who are being blamed for the economic woes of their states. It can’t all be because Gray Davis is creepy. Clearly, something bigger is happening. Throwing away the principle of scheduled elections on the dubious notion that somebody could do better in this environment doesn’t seem to me to be a very good trade-off.)
If this recall succeeds, it will be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. It is always possible to gather 12% of those who voted in the last election to sign such a petition because there was always a losing candidate in the previous election whose supporters could be persuaded to sign up for a mulligan.
If it succeeds, therefore, I’ve decided that I will sign up on the very first day to work for the Committee to Recall Darryl Issa/Arnold Schwartzenegger/Bill Simon or whoever because it will be obvious that this is a situation that requires both parties to suffer from the loophole for it to be closed (as with the independent counsel law which stood until both parties paid the price for its unconstitutional, undemocratic lack of accountability.) We will have no choice but to literally illustrate for the people of California why this concept is costly and absurd and why it is necessary to have regularly scheduled elections and honor the results of the returns short of criminal behavior.
(And, don’t ever think that Gray Davis will walk quietly into the sunset. Whether you like him or hate him, it is indisputable that he is one of the toughest, streetfighting politicians in the country. He will hit back with everything he has.)
It seems to me that democracy, like most everything else in life, depends more upon the good will and honorable intentions of the people than explicit laws and official prohibitions. If we truly begin to believe that politics are nothing more than a partisan zero sum game, in which no overarching philosophical view of the democratic process rules our decisions — and if winning at all cost, whether through loopholes in the law or parsing of the legal meaning of election statutes becomes standard operating procedure, then we are basically giving up the idea of citizenship and a non-partisan electoral process. This is not what we need in this era of post modern media manipulation and big money influence.
All we citizens really have is the franchise. If we continue to let them do end runs around election results, we will wake up one morning and find that it no longer means anything.
*(Here is a nice rundown of the California Recall Law. One thing that really fries me is that you don’t have to already be registered to vote in order to vote for the recall — you can register up to 15 days before the election. This means that even though I voted in the last election like a good citizen, somebody who didn’t even bother to register, much less vote, can come in and overturn the results less than a year later. This is the kind of thing that makes even a political junkie like me wonder if it really makes any difference if I vote at all.)
Updating my post from yesterday, can I just say what a useless exercise the disseminiation of these pictures was, except to the extent that it gave the cable news shows some tabloid blood ‘n gore to fixate upon on the day the 9/11 report was released? In fact, it may have just made everything appear more suspicious. The Washington Post reports:
U.S. military official said “facial reconstruction” was used to repair wounds, particularly to the face of the elder son Uday, which had disfigured the bodies shown originally to the public in photographs taken by soldiers after the battle.
An uncharacteristic beard on the body of Qusay, seen in those U.S. pictures, had been shaved off, leaving a mustache.
Inside the tent, U.S. officials said it was standard practice to use morticians putty to prepare bodies for viewing and was not intended to fool the Iraqi people.
But while it may be common in the United States, the move is unheard of in the Arab world. That could affect Washington’s efforts to quash Iraqi conspiracy theories that the bodies are not in fact those of the once powerful and hated sons of Saddam, who is believed to be still in hiding in Iraq.
U.S. officials have already played down the importance of visually identifying the men, saying their dental and medical records positively identified the brothers. Four top Saddam aides have also made positive identification, they say.
“You can make anyone look like anyone else,” one U.S. official said, insisting the medical evidence was compelling.
I am pretty much convinced that the bodies were them. And, even it they weren’t, I don’t suppose it makes a whole lot of difference in the long run.
But, there is an ongoing problem with the way the Bush administration handles things like this. They do not seem to realize that by making such a huge deal out of these individuals they are creating folk heroes amongst the very young men who would do us harm. You do not have to have a doctorate in psychology to recognize that by personalizing all of these dangers, whether it is bin Laden as “the evil one”, Saddam’s sons, the psychopathic playboys, or Saddam himself as an omnipotent tyrant who is a threat to the entire world, they are actually recruiting for their cause and building a mythic image for the enemy. (You may have noticed that they are doing this again. Just as with bin Laden and Saddam, Junior’s statements about Liberia have focused almost entirely on Charles Taylor.)
Far better to be dry, straightforward and impersonal rather than succumb to the rather puerile temptation to characterize threats and potential dangers as being embodied by particular persons. The danger for us in doing that should be obvious by now.
If we kill them and start crowing to the rooftops about it, we provoke suspicion that our “special effects” experts have phonied up the proof because we appear to be so desperate to prove what we say. And, once the idea sets in that we didn’t actually kill them, their legend becomes even bigger. And, whether the legend consists of terrible cruelty and ruthlessness or one of idealistic revolutionary leadership, it’s a huge mistake to think that just because we say these guys are dead that they lose their power.
And, that is a yellowcakewalk compared to dealing with the heroic status of a man the president of the United States personally declared to be “Wanted: Dead or Alive,” and who remains at large almost 2 years and 2 wars later. Added to his legend as the man who singlehandedly led the Mujahadeen to defeat the Soviet Empire, amongst disaffected Muslim youth, this man is now a superhero.
There is probably nothing we can do about the rumors and flights of fancy that surround the disappearance of powerful enemies. But, surely it isn’t very smart to build up their legend ourselves unless we can be very, very sure that we will be able to capture them alive, thereby proving irrefutably to their followers and the world that they are nothing more than simple human beings who have no special power and who cannot run from justice. Since we cannot guarantee such a thing, it would be far more prudent to focus on the movement/government/ideology than on the particular leader. Then, if we were able to capture them alive, we could use the forum of a world court to prove not only the evil of the perpetrator, but their essential weakness and impotence as well.
If they wind up dead and we shrug it off as just another enemy eliminated, at least we aren’t adding to the rumor mill by wildly pumping our fists like it’s a huge victory, thereby giving our enemies a reason to fuel the conspiracy theories.
I have the feeling that if grownups truly were in charge, we wouldn’t be seeing spectacles like that which we witnessed yesterday. The constant rhetorical high fiving by the administration, especially the President, is as shallow and meaningless as a street corner pick-up game of basketball. Lotsa bravado, not much talent.
These people do not know the meaning of “playing it cool.”
Is it just me, or could these pictures be anybody? Certainly, the reporters on CNN, even on the defense dept. beat, didn’t have a clue which son the pictures were supposed to represent when they came over the wire. They dutifully reported the identity when told, however, as if it had been obvious all along. Wolf Blitzer made the identification himself based upon Uday’s “trademark short haircut.” There’s an unimpeachable identification for you.
Clearly, the reason the administration declined to release the photos at first was not because of their great sensitivity to our delicate feelings. It was because they were likely to raise more questions than they answered.
And again, a bigger problem for us generally is that the new US reputation for hyping, spinning and lying on important matters of national security, intelligence and military matters makes it a little bit difficult to persuade people that they should just take our word for it.
Via Eschaton I see that the decision to kill the sons outright (rather than make a serious effort to capture them) is beginning to see some criticism. This operation seems to me to be the very thing that Rummy’s vaunted fast moving Special Forces are designed to do. Apparently, some of the Special Forces guys agree:
“The whole operation was a cockup,” said a British intelligence officer. “There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.”
[…]
“Bollocks,” said one former Special Forces soldier. “A SWAT team could have taken them. It didn’t need a company.” …
The secretary [Colin Powell] acknowledged that American involvement would be primarily on a humanitarian basis, but he said action was necessary to avoid another catastrophe comparable to the carnage in Rwanda.
“In Liberia, if you ask the question, `What is our strategic, vital interest?’ it would be hard to define in that way,” he told the newspaper. “But we do have an interest in making sure that West Africa doesn’t simply come apart. We do have an interest in showing the people of Africa that we can support efforts to stabilize a tragic situation as we work with others to bring relief to people — people who are desperately in need.”
The secretary expressed regret that the administration had failed to agree quickly on a strategy with Liberia’s neighbors to stabilize the country.
Looks like our Harvard MBA-CEO-failed-at-every-business-he-ever-tried Prez is having a little bit of trouble reining in his unruly adminstration. For some unknown reason competing factions seem to be under the impression that their boss doesn’t have a clear vision of his own and is, therefore, subject to manipulation.
I’d like to propose a toast to Mr. Joshua Green whose article in the Washington Monthly called “The Bookie of Virtue” led to a record 2 months of William Bennett-free media.
Josh Marshall has a great post up today that shoots straight to the heart of the Iraq situation and finally asks the right question.
If it wasn’t the WMD and it wasn’t the al Qaeda connection (and we can be absolutely sure in light of the situation in Liberia — a country founded by Americans — that it really wasn’t about “liberating the Iraqi people”) then why in the hell did we do it?
The Grand Strategy
Marshall says that it was about putting American troops on the ground in large numbers in the mideast in order to “bring to a head the country’s simmering conflict with its enemies in the region, and kick off a democratic transformation of the region which would over time dissipate the root causes of anti-American terrorism and violence: autocracy, poverty and fanaticism.”
This tracks with the basic PNAC doctrine and, more explicitly, with the Thomas Friedman “drain the swamp and a thousand flowers will bloom” theory. And, to a large extent, I agree. But, it ignores a couple of things that I think are awfully relevant and change the picture to some degree.
Rumsfeld convened the Defense Policy Board for a series of meetings shortly after 9/11. That board, headed by Richard Perle, reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Douglas Feith (of the infamous 2nd guessers intelligence team) and it wasn’t long after that James Woolsey was dispatched to find evidence of connections between al Qaeda and Iraq.
This is important to bring into the picture because of the history of Perle and Feith (among others) and the document they wrote for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995. This, according to Ambassador Joseph Wilson (as nicely reported by Uggabugga in this post) is the basis upon which the strategy was formed. It is hard to believe that it did not have some influence considering the fact that the people involved in writing it were intimately involved in the Bush administration planning — and that so much of it has been done or publicly contemplated by hardline neocons in the administration like John Bolton. *see note
The desire to provide for Israel’s security is certainly not a bad thing in and of itself. And, according to the “Clean Break” document, the long term goal is for Israel to eventually find itself in a position of such strength that it will no longer need the US to be so intimately involved in its security . (It must be noted, however, that the document does call into question whether Perle and Feith et al have the best interests of the US at heart by suggesting that Israel is being unfairly manipulated by US policy. One is tempted to call these fellows “blame America firsters” and call their patriotism into question, particularly since they hold such high positions in the US government and wield such influence over the intellectuals in the neocon movement. But, I’ll resist this temptation for the time being.)
But, what is most interesting about this document is the clear concept, which Marshall does not discuss but is quite obviously part of the Grand Mideast Strategy, is the idea that the Israeli Palestinian problem will be solved by the removal of unfriendly arab regimes, beginning with Iraq, rather than any “peace process” or “road map.” Acknowledging that the region will continue to simmer until this problem is resolved (and that instability and continued violence against Israelis is likely to continue) the Neocon claque has actually been quite open in their belief that the road to mid-east peace goes through Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Tripoli and possibly others. And this belief, although separate, converges with those whom Marshall discusses as believing that radical Islamic terrorism will also continue until the region is stabilized by ridding it of “rogue” states and “failed” states.
I’m not sure how important this Israeli security question is, other than to say that it’s likely to cause a lot of misunderstanding of the type that compells me to set forth the disclaimer that I am a supporter of Israel, in the main, and have no anti-semitic ax to gind in bringing this up. The real question, it seems to me, is whether this strategy is realistic and whether it is likely to succeed.
I have serious doubts about the efficacy of American occupation in Iraq as a tool to bring stability to the region. I think the outcome of our current policy will make terrorism more, rather than less, likely considering the nature of asymetric warfare. (Jonathan Swift has some lessons about Giants and foreign entanglements, I believe.)
As for the fantasy of a reverse domino effect and democracy blooming throughout the desert once the arabs see the wonders of Iraqi democracy well…it simply doesn’t merit serious consideration. No responsible leader should ever be allowed to get away with such a pollyanna view of the future and put lives of his countrymen on the line in service of it.
And, as much as I think that the think-tank ivory tower elite of the GOP are completely out of touch with reality, I find it hard to believe that even the most starry-eyed of them actually believe it. Thomas Friedman is the only one who seems to have truly bought into the Romantic Crusade version of mid-east strategy. It is obvious to me that the Neocon intellectuals believe that force and violence are the only way to bring about a stable middle east and if it takes US troops marching into every single capital in the region, so be it.
They also believed, by the way, that the only way to end the cold war was through force and violence. Before this country buys into their simplitically satisfying worldview of bloodlust and power, it would do for people to research these guys’ track records. Their predictions and assessments of the past will not exactly inspire confidence in their prescience or their analytical abilities. And it simply cannot be stated too often, apparently, that the plans that are currently being put into action were formulated long before global terrorism was seen as a threat and until 9/11 there was virtually no connection between the PNAC/AEI cabal’s insistence on remaking the middle east and any kind of threat from terrorists. It is fundamentally dishonest to attach the arguments outlined in the Bush Doctrine (Defense Policy review) with terrorism, since it was cribbed almost verbatic from the PNAC statement of 1997 and Wolfowitz’s draft DPR from 1992.
When Rumsfeld said that everything was viewed differently through the prism of 9/11, he fails to explain how anything changed except to accelerate plans to invade Iraq. If what we are told is correct, it seems certain that the Bush administration did not even take one day to look through that prism and consider whether the old plans might actually exacerbate the problem of terrorism.
This is a serious criticism of the Grand Strategy that was addressed by the CIA in the recently released NIE and completely ignored by the administration. It is fundamental to understanding why these people felt the need to lie about the urgency to overthrow Saddam.
If the argument centered upon whether “remaking the middle east” through military action and bellicose threats would work, there is a cogent case to be made that it would not. And, that case begins with our own intelligence analysis of the probably effects of invasion and tests the theoretical pie-in-the-sky naivete of the “I think I can” intellectuals at the Pentagon.
Oil
In addition, Marshall dismisses the idea that this is about oil, and he is right in the picayune sense that it’s only about providing Dick Cheney’s owners with more money or about boosting Chevron and BP’s profits. It is a much larger strategic issue than that.
The US uses at least 25% of the world’s oil. Even if we substantially reduced our consumption with an intelligent approach to automobile milegage standards and alternative fuels, it is likely that we will continue to be the world’s largest consumer for some time and, more importantly, our economy requires that we have access to cheap oil far into the future. There are, of course, other ways of dealing with this problem than putting American troops in the region from whence it comes, but it appears that this administration has opted for control of one of the largest oil reserves in the world as a way of balancing OPEC (and Russia’s potential) hold on the world oil supply. This is the new Great Game and explains the desire for Empire better than anything else. It’s about resources, just as it’s always been.
I read that this may be the main reason for Bush’s photo-op trip to Africa — aside from the obvious political ones. There is a desire to put American bases on the continent, ostensibly to combat terrorism, but more likely to protect certain abundant oil fields. This may explain why he was, strangely, accompanied by a large group of oil executives on this trip. I would expect to see action in Latin America and Indonesia in the near term, although it is likely that it will be dealt with with “private contractor” military.
The War On Terrorism is now inextricably connected to America’s gluttonous thirst for oil. When historians in the next century review the era, I have little doubt that the global strategy of a Pax Americana will be seen as largely a desire to protect and defend the United States’ access to cheap oil.
The question is whether or not the world has changed to the extent that such old fashioned concepts as Empire or even a post modern concept of “virtual” colonialism are workable.
I have very serious doubts.
* It is interesting that Netanyahu has been apppointed to an economic post in the cabinet and apparently is rapidly bringing to fruition many of the “economic reforms” urged in the Clean Break document. As John Kerry said about Iraq before the war, “If you want regime change in Iraq, send in the Bush economic team. They’ll bring the country to its knees.” Gawd help the Israelis.
Via TAPPED, I find that Newsday has confirmed that White House officials blew the CIA cover of Joe Wilson’s wife, and not only did they do it, they also lied about their supposed reason for doing so. She did not, evidently, suggest that her husband be the one to make the fact finding trip (and even if she had it is a meaningless charge anyway.) It is clear that they did this to punish Wilson and “send a message” to CIA people who are tempted to speak to the press.
It would be very wrong of me to speculate wildly that the infamous smear operation of the South Carolina primary that is now working right in the White House “communications shop” could possibly be behind this (or more trivially but just as telling, behind the Drudge Report expose of the “Gay Canadian” reporter.)
But, just for the sake of conversation, it is interesting to remember what has happened in the past when the Bushies found themselves on the defensive. In this Salon article Jake Tapper notes the slimeball activities of certain Bush staffers and quotes a senior McCain advisor as saying about the Florida strategy, “When the going gets tough for Governor Bush, he turns to the darker side of our party. We saw that in South Carolina, and we see that today.”
I’m certain that these same people who now work extremely closely with George W. Bush and his advisors would never resort to such dishonorable and undignified behavior in the sacred office of the President of the United States. It’s merely a coincidence that the tactics are so very similar.