Bush's speechwriter does not understand terrorism

Sigh...

According to this guy, Chief Speechwriter for George W. Bush, the decision of who will be the next President is in the hands of terrorists.

It is true, there has been no terrorist attack in the US since Sept. 11 (let's conveniently ignore the Anthrax attacks for the time being). The article assumes, with no proof, that the only explanation for this is the Bush Administration's policies.

However, do we have any idea how much of this is due to (a) sheer luck? or (b) Al-Qaeda deciding they don't need to have one yet? Or, (c), the terrorists' planning and execution time being longer than 7 years?

This, to mention just a few possible reasons that have nothing to do with anything that the Bush Administration has done, or could possibly do. He just assumes that illegal wiretapping and torture are guaranteed to foil all terrorist plots, from now on in perpetuity.

Update: for more on the matter, see this post at the Washington Monthly.

Here comes the rabid irrational opposition

A hilarious article by Dick Morris, detailing Obama's socialism.

Tax rebate checks from Obama are now called "welfare". Did he use the same term to describe Bush's rebates?

Primadonnas

So yesterday I'm watching CNN with Anderson Cooper, not normally the worst offenders in the insanity (or inanity) that is media in the US, when they start talking about Barack Obama's do-over oath.

Cooper and the correspondent complained that there were no cameras at the event, and make it look like it was some mysterious thing that they uncovered by overhearing a conversation at the White House.

They remarked that the lack of video cameras was "ironic" given the promises of transparency from the new Administration.

Some remarks:

• There is no clash with the transparency promises! There was a press pool at the event, everyone knows what happened at the event, and there was nothing to hide at the event. Just because CNN did not get 1 minute of video to play over and over does not make it some secret conspiracy of some sort.
• Did CNN complain this loudly when the Bush White House denied to release *information* of actual importance? (Examples too numerous to mention here, but let's just start with the atendees to Cheney's Energy Policy meetings.)

Double take

From the New York Times' article on Fox News and the new administration:

The media world will watch carefully to see whether Fox receives the same treatment from an Obama White House that it received from Mr. Bush’s.

Uh? Would they expect to get the same treatment? Why?

It would make more sense the other way around: We should watch carefully and see if the Obama White House receives the same treatment from Fox that the Bush White House received.

Somehow I doubt this will be the case.