csua.org/u/frw -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
How he responds to the first questions put to him should be a pretty good indicator of whether President Bush is committed to greater transparency in the remaining years of his presidency -- or whether Snow is just a new face for the same old stone wall.
So the questions on Monday would ideally be tough, important ones that on the one hand put Snow to the test, but on the other hand give him a fair chance to show that he's serious about explaining White House actions more forthrightly than his predecessor. What questions would you like to see the press corps ask Snow on Monday?
E-mail me with your suggestions -- and please include your full, real name and hometown . I'm not so much interested in smart-aleck, gotcha questions. What I'm looking for is questions to which the average American would say: "Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to that." Those sorts of questions makes it particularly hard for anyone to argue that the press corps has any agenda other than the public's right to know. And if Snow doesn't answer them, he looks like an obstructionist, pure and simple. The questions can have some edge -- after all, most Americans now disapproves of the job Bush is doing -- but the goal here is not to get Snow to take part in a debate (he's a fine debater, we know that already). Here are two sample questions: * Why did Porter Goss resign as CIA director? Is the public entitled to know the real story, on the record? For instance, more than half of Americans say they don't find the president honest or trustworthy. How does the president think that happened, and what can he do about it?
ere's our challenge to -- and advice for -- the incoming press secretary, Tony Snow: Rather than a steady drip, drip, drip of Abramoff news, get it all out, quickly and with enough details to make clear what, exactly, transpired between the corrupt lobbyist and the president's aides."
Jay Rosen wrote on Sunday: "Let's see if reason-giving can make a comeback. "Reason-giving is basic to government by consent of the governed. An Administration that doesn't have to give reasons for what it is doing is unaccountable to the American people and their common sense, to world opinion -- even to itself."
Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Ignoring opposition from Congress, President Bush nominated Gen. Michael V Hayden on Monday to be the next CIA director, setting the stage for a confirmation struggle that is certain to focus on Hayden's military background and his role in a controversial domestic eavesdropping operation. "Hayden, who for six years was director of the National Security Agency, is also associated with almost every intelligence issue that has become a problem for the administration -- including the failure to prevent the Sept. "Hastert 'believes a military figure should not be the head of a civilian agency,' said Ron Bonjean, Hastert's spokesman. Bonjean also said that Hastert had been 'informed but not consulted' about Hayden's selection.
Peter Baker and Charles Babington write in The Washington Post: "The White House moved quickly yesterday to defuse concern over the nomination of Gen. Michael V Hayden for CIA director, promising to balance the leadership of the nation's premier civilian spy agency with a well-known and popular veteran of the organization in the No. "In a highly unorthodox move, the White House disclosed the plan shortly after President Bush's formal announcement of Hayden's nomination in the Oval Office, in hopes of reassuring those worried about too much military influence over the intelligence community."
Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse write in the New York Times: "White House officials said they wanted to have confirmation hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee completed and General Hayden confirmed before Mr Goss leaves his post on May 26. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, said only that he hoped to have the hearings begin before May 26, the last scheduled day of the Congressional session before a weeklong recess after Memorial Day."
Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "Once again, President Bush may have misjudged the extent of GOP resistance to one of his decisions. His nomination of a four-star general to serve as CIA director has drawn complaints from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike."
Peter Wallsten and Janet Hook write in the Los Angeles Times: "The political calculations over Hayden's nomination reflected the uneasy terrain facing Republicans just six months before voters decide whether to keep the GOP in control of Congress. White House strategists are angling to exploit the party's traditional strength on national security, but some Republicans are wary of being tied too closely to a president whose approval ratings seem to drop by the day." Is the White House suddenly trying to play down Hayden's military background?
January speech , when he asserted that the standard for searches was "reasonableness," not "probable cause." Several readers wrote in to say that Hayden was technically correct -- and that reasonableness is the standard for searches, while probable cause is the standard for warrants for such searches. But my understanding is that the traditional reading of the amendment is that it is the obtaining of a warrant (which requires probable cause) that determines whether a search is reasonable or not. There are some specified exceptions to the warrant requirement -- but historically they've been identified by the courts. Having unilaterally decided they didn't need warrants, I'm assuming Hayden and his lawyers felt they could then take it upon themselves to decide what was reasonable or not. So I guess it's conceivable that Hayden's view is not an out-and-out misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. But at the very least, it's certainly an activist way of looking at things.
Susan Page writes in USA Today: "President Bush's approval rating has slumped to 31% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections. "Only four presidents have scored lower approval ratings since the Gallup Poll began regularly measuring it in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and the first George Bush. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%."
USA Today sidebar explains: "Since he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush's approval rating has been tied to attitudes toward the war. At the beginning, when an overwhelming 75% said the war was 'not a mistake,' his approval rating was a robust 69%. Now, just 42% say the war 'wasn't a mistake,' and Bush's standing has sagged to a record-low 31% in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. "Iraq has become 'just a constant fog that's settled over the political landscape,' says Amy Walter of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. It obscures other issues and intensifies feelings that the country is headed in the wrong direction."
Asked of those who disapproved of Bush whether it was mostly because of rising gas prices or mostly because of Iraq, 13 percent said gas and 56 percent said Iraq. Only 33 percent said they think the war with Iraq has made the US safer, compared to 53 percent who said less safe.
Heidi Przybyla writes for Bloomberg: "Three years into major combat in Vietnam, 28,500 US service members had perished, millions of families were anxious about the military draft and antiwar protests had spread to dozens of college campuses. "Today, at the same juncture in the Iraq war, about 2,400 American soldiers have died, the US military consists entirely of volunteers and public dissent is sporadic. "There's one other difference: The war in Iraq is more unpopular than was the Vietnam conflict at this stage, polls show. "More Americans -- 57 percent -- say sending troops to Iraq was a mistake than the 48 percent who called Vietnam an error in April 1968, polls by the Princeton, New Jersey-based Gallup Organization show. That's because more people believed that Vietnam was crucial to US security, scholars say. "The poll numbers sugg...
|
http://csua.com/feed/