I Can’t Find Anything About This
…on MSNBC or CNN, but it could be just me. RadioBlogger’s transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday.
HH: Now John Eastman, this is fortuitous. About an hour ago, a release was made in Washington, D.C., announcing the formation of something called the Iraq Study Group, which will consist of James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton, former CIA director Robert Gates, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Clinton advisor Vernon Jordan, Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry, Democratic Senator Chuck Robb, retired, Alan Simpson, a Republican, and allegedly, Sandra Day O’Connor is rumored to be about to join this as well. It has been put together under the auspices of the Congressional Institute of Peace, it will be funded by federal dollars. John Eastman, as a Constitutional scholar, what do you think of this, which smacks, I think, of the Committee of Reconstruction from the Civil War, and the Church Committee, and the 9/11 Commission?
UPDATE: Major Dad says he noticed something yesterday, so I came to it a smidge late, ‘twould seem. If the administration once again plays the “Storm? What storm?” “Stuttering economy? What economy?” “Ports? What Ports?” defensive game with this, letting the ‘study group’ dictate policy by virtue of superior airtime, they have no one but themselves to blame. Someone needs to shake the supergenius tree and see if anyone’s on a branch who has a clue. 
UPDATE Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt, courtesy of the RadioBlogger.
HH:…What’s your reaction to the formation of this group?
MS: Well, the 9/11 Commission is the…I mean, you know me. I’m a foreigner, but I’m pro-American. And yet I must say, the 9/11 Commission is everything I loathe about the United States, in that its legalistic, retrospective, showboating blowhards, pompous people going on TV round the clock. And in effect, it becomes something in and of itself. It’s not just commenting on something like a play by play guy is, but it actually changes the course of the something its commenting on. And that’s what’s bad about this. You know, Iraq isn’t a Broadway play in previews. The show has opened, and it’s on now. So it’s too late to have arguments about this little weak spot in the first act, and we should get it re-written. The show has opened, and the responsibility of these people involved in this, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Rudy Giuliani, all these people, is that they should now be saying let’s win it, and then have the arguments.
Public Service Announcement | tree hugging sister | 
March 16, 2006 3:18 pm
Subscribe
I think it’s pretty clear that Bush intentionally refuses to react quickly to anything. He intends to have a slow moving administration, especially in regards to scandals and other stuff.
Usually this works in his favor. His political opponents work themselves into a froth and he remains silent, while others dig into the story and he is eventually exonerated.
Case in point: The rathergate episode. Clearly he knew that he served properly in the ANG. They made no response to the forgery whatsoever for almost a week while the internet dug into it and proved the story was an out and out lie. It was a brilliant strategy.
He couldn’t have known that the letters would be proven a forgery when the charges were first made, all he could have done initially was just deny the charges. The denial would have been played over and over in the news. Instead he ignored it and let the truth come out in a way that couldn’t have been expected.
He has used this strategy over and over again. With the ports deal it almost worked again, perhaps if he waited even longer to make a response he could have gotten his way. Note that many commentators are now saying in hind sight that cutting off UAE is a bad thing (I don’t agree, but I’m just putting out that perspective for argument’s sake). If he had remained mum while it was debated, all sorts of people would have given the topic due diligence and a sensible result obtained.
Yes, Mike but that was about him and he wasn’t the guy in charge yet. Now he is. The ports deal would have had a better chance of making it if there hadn’t been “uh, well no one told the President”. That’s bad. Feeds the frenzy ~ gives them quotes for weeks after the fact that aren’t true but get played over and over again. He’s NOT a candidate, he’s the BOSS. And has managed to do quite a few good things in spite of the rotten hand he was given, between the recession and 9/11. But most of the administration’s pain is self induced ~ the majority of Americans don’t get that he’s done a competent job by osmosis ~ they get their news from the media. The Bush bunch hasn’t gotten the word out effectively, has troubling framing the picture and they seem to be falling on their swords with alarming regularity.
He rarely can get anyone in front of the press that sounds/looks like the know what they are saying.
Right, THS. If he had not made that stupid statement that he didn’t know what was going on, he would have gotten his way again. Being quiet and letting his opponents work themselves into a frazzle has worked time and time again.
Except when he was really wrong. Like Harriet Myers. And fortunately for us, the port deal.
Giuliani will propose that it should be legal for soldiers to shoot Iraqis reaching for their own wallets, and to legalize sodomy with plungers in prison.
By “legalize” I suppose you mean “send to prison for 30 years“?