Random Thoughts from Yesterday's Testimony

Correction: C-Span 3 is running the hearings. I hope C-Span will replay them in the evening--otherwise I guess I'll have to try to run the streaming video from the website.

C-SPAN is running the hearings, but I can't really sneak a peek here at work. Still, yesterday I jotted some notes down, which I've edited slightly and strung together--

Bush wasn't testifying--imagine that--but I saw his statement to the press. It hit me: it seems like he forms all his words at the front of his mouth. Try it: see how close to a Bush faux Texas accent you can get to, then use your diaphragm to project your voice--you can't. Or maybe I should say, you cain't.

A lot of Powell and Rummy's testimony emphasised the fact that Bush was in office for only eight months prior to the 9/11 attack. They seem to think that's too short of a time to acclimate. My response: you've gotta be kidding me. I've NEVER held a job where I WASN'T evaluated earlier--usually after three or six months, although once the first eval came one month in. Bush should have known that the job of President of the United States is a little harder than president of the Texas Rangers Baseball Club.

Powell kept talking about the Taliban when asked about Al Qaeda. Sure, the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, but a big problem with the Bush policy--and the reason behind a lot of questions--is that the policy DOESN'T take into consideration the actions of non-government entities like Al Qaeda. Powell made positive references to Uzbekistan at least twice. I don't know if I'd want to crow about an official relationship with Karimov, unless you're hoping no one realizes he's the new Saddam. Powell also noted that war prior to 9/11 would not have been politically feasible. Sounds Clintonesqe there, if you ask me.

Powell also said something about the terrorist database being "not real good." I believe this was in regards to questions about how known operatives of Al Qaeda managed to get into the US. I'd like to know if Katherine Harris and Diebold generated the data.

One tack the Bush team is desperately using, trying to get some wind into their sails, is the eliminate vs. roll back stratagems regarding bin Laden. Don't you have to roll back something BEFORE you eliminate it? You can launch a big-strike, although Powell noted the lack of political feasibility. Also, in retrospect, the big-strike didn't work either--Madrid is proof of that. Another problem is that during the time between the so-called policy change, the de facto policy became "do nothing."

I'll have a few more random thoughts later, but one other thing I've noticed about the hearings is that it looks for all the world like the logical follow up to Watergate and Iran-Contra. The conservatives are moving to the beat established by their forebears: lying isn't a problem if it's politically expedient, political opponents must be beaten into the ground, the public must simply be kept in the dark, and they know what's best for us. The heroes of the neo-cons ran roughshod over the Constitution to get their way, and their political descendents are determined to do likewise, if only because that's how they were taught.