The following Associated Press story appears on the AP wires today:


Library plans to mock Clinton


Houston businessman Richard Erickson and a former GOP congressman from New York plan to build a museum in Little Rock, Ark., that will mock Bill Clinton and his $160 million presidential library. Erickson and John LeBoutillier hope to open the so-called Counter-Clinton Library the same day the presidential library opens in November 2004, according to The Associated Press. They say they will need $5 million, but LeBoutillier will not say how much has been raised so far. They say the museum in Little Rock and one planned for Washington will look at such topics as Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the last-minute pardons, even damaged White House furniture. Dick Morris, the Clinton strategist who resigned in a sex scandal, has pledged stacks of his insider documents, as has Gary Aldrich, the former FBI agent who wrote a best seller about Clinton's scandals. "We think people will want to come out of the Clinton Library and head immediately down the street to us to get the rest of the story," LeBoutillier says.

To learn more about the Counter Clinton Library, please visit us at www.Counterclintonlibrary.com.

BUSH SEQUEL?



This column is pure political analysis:


The G.W. Bush White House was rocked Friday afternoon with the release of the latest Zogby Poll showing that more voters want “someone new” in the White House next year (47%) than pledge to reelect President Bush (46%).

Up until Friday the general consensus had been that Bush was going to win in a cakewalk next year. True, White House spokesmen always said the ‘correct thing’: “We expect next year’s race to be extremely close.” But they didn’t believe it – not for a second. Team Bush – led by Karl Rove – has gotten so cocky that Rove even journeyed up to New Hampshire and put the word out that Howard Dean is the Democrat candidate best suited to be trounced by G.W. Bush.

But now all of that cockiness has to be thrown out the window. The political crisis enveloping this administration has seen the President’s approval rating drop from a high of 82% right after the 9/11 attacks to 53% last week. His disapproval numbers have rocketed skyward, too. From a low of 17% after 9/11, they have grown to a shocking 46%.

The Bush Descent is shockingly reminiscent of his father’s similar fate 12 years ago.

The first Bush Administration can be summed up quite succinctly:

George H.W. Bush won a war in the Gulf and had extraordinarily high poll ratings (91%). But he also had a rotten economy and credibility issues after he broke his ‘read-my-lips no new taxes’ pledge. Plus, his role in Iran Contra came back to haunt him the last week of the campaign. His 91% melted down to a paltry 37% of the vote a mere year and one half after the triumphant Gulf War victory.

Now his son, G.W. Bush, seems to falling into a similar pattern:

A seemingly successful victory in Iraq – and in Afghanistan, too – but a slow, jobless recovery from our recent recession. And, like his father, this President Bush’s credibility has been greatly damaged by the unfolding intelligence flap from the Iraq conflict.

It is shocking to see this Bush’s approval rating drop like a stone since April. Behind this plummet is the stagnant economy which – for any president – is a drag on his popularity. His Iraq intelligence problem would be less worrisome if he was presiding over a robust economy. But we all have learned that a sour economy undermines any president.

G.W. Bush well remembers 1992. He has often told friends and associates that year “was the most painful year in our family’s history.” He desperately wants to expunge that memory by running a winning reelection campaign – and thus validating the Bush family name as a winner.

But it seems the harder he tries – more tax cuts and more claims about Saddam – the more it is turning into 1992 all over again.

True, there is still some time to reverse the current downward trend. For instance, the economy could rebound. Or we could find a stash of WMD inside Iraq or capture Saddam or Osama Bin Laden.

But, in the meantime, the bloom is off the Bush rose. The media is – for the first time since before the 9/11 attacks – in shark feeding frenzy mode. They are digging for more examples of administration lies and exaggerations. And the Democrats smell blood, too.

G.W. Bush wants to avert another 1992 debacle. But, at the moment, no matter what he does his presidency appears to be on track to become a sequel of his father’s.

W’S ACHILLES HEEL


G.W. Bush has potential trouble brewing right under his nose. No, it’s not the economy. And no, it’s not this band of seemingly pygmy-like Democratic opponents.

President’s Bush’s problem – and one that could very well cost him a second term – is an uncontrollable intelligence apparatus that ‘runs’ him more than is run by him.

Headed by Clinton holdover George Tenet, the Bush intelligence team has damaged the President’s credibility, failed countless times to carry out our national objectives, and given Bush’s political opponents ammunition for next year’s campaign.

Here is a list of the recent embarrassments and failures:

1) Failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks despite specific intelligence that Al Qaeda planned something ‘spectacular’ involving hijacked aircraft.

2) Allowing Bin Laden family members to leave the United States right after the 9/11 attacks before the FBI could interrogate them.

3) Failure to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and his right-hand man, Dr. B. Alzwahiri, - three times under Clinton and since the 9/11 attacks.

4) Failure to produce solid evidence of WMD in Iraq sufficient to convince doubtful allies of the necessity to remove Saddam Hussein’s government.

5) Failure during the war to kill or capture Saddam and his sons – despite two specifically publicized (by the CIA with Tenet’s direct involvement) targeted attacks – at the beginning and near the end of the combat operations.

6) Failure to find any WMD in the 2 ½ months since the war ended.

7) Failure to find Saddam and his two murderous sons since the war ended.

8) Embarrassing the President by allowing the now-infamous 16 words into the State of the Union address.

9) Stonewalling the 9/11 commission by refusing to turn over documents or allow government officials to be interviewed outside the presence of ‘minders’ – a tactic more common to communist or totalitarian governments.


There are other similarly disgraceful actions – or non-actions – by the Tenet-led intelligence community. And yet Tenet is firmly in charge; in fact, last weeks’ Niger-uranium fiasco actually has strengthened Tenet’s position. Bush really owes Tenet for taking the fall for the Bush White House staff who screwed up royally all across the board. The Africa trip’s potential domestic political benefits were diluted by the media focus on the 16 words.

When Tenet took the blame he ‘lanced the wound’ and perhaps allows Team Bush to get the focus onto something else.

Sadly, however, the Bush re-election effort will be bedeviled by the unfolding scandals and ineptitude of the CIA and its associated intelligence agencies.

G.W. Bush inherited – and refused to purge – a rotten bunch of arrogant intelligence agents who are virtually untouchable. Going back three decades to his father’s CIA tenure, these agents are running amok underneath G.W. Bush – and he is oblivious to it.

This – more than anything else – threatens his re-election next year.

THE TUMOR PART II



Previously – in the column entitled THE TUMOR – a ‘government within our government’ was described. Specifically this ‘independent,’ unelected entity has infiltrated our intelligence-defense establishment and taken over foreign policy, perverting our constitutional system of government. It was also revealed that this cancerous entity inside our government actually spies on other parts of the government.

Two present-day examples have suddenly surfaced to reinforce this controversial observation:

1) Yesterday the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission – former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and former US Congressman Lee Hamilton – held a press conference in which they charged the Executive Branch – specifically the Pentagon and Justice Departments – of stalling on the turnover of crucial documents about the 9/11 attacks.

I happen to know both men quite well. I worked for Tom Kean in New Jersey in 1976 in the Ford Re-election Campaign and I served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee with Lee Hamilton. There are few more honest and honorable people in public life today. They are also polite and gentlemanly. Their rebuke of the Administration is a serious charge.

Perhaps the more disturbing aspect of their criticism was of the new policy of the Bush Administration to require that ‘minders’ be present for all interviews with the 9/11 commission. This is smack dab right out of the Soviet Communist handbook! In communist and authoritarian countries – where the government trusts no one – they assign a ‘minder’ to sit in on all interviews. This ‘minder’ is a spy for the government!

So Kean and Hamilton in effect have confirmed a basic tenet of the first TUMOR article: this secret ‘government within a government’ spies on other parts of our government.

Please tell me how our Founding Fathers would have liked that.


2) The White House – backed into a corner over the weekend by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson – finally admitted the President was wrong when he claimed in this year’s State of the Union address that Iraq was buying enriched uranium from Niger.

Quick background summary: Wilson was sent a last year by the CIA to Niger to investigate reports that Niger had sold uranium to Saddam. He concluded that it was a totally false report. Upon returning to DC he informed the CIA and the State Department of his findings.

Nine months later President Bush claimed in his January State of the Union address that Niger was selling uranium to Iraq.

This past Sunday Wilson wrote a comprehensive New York Times Op-Ed column detailing his findings. This prompted a chagrined White House to admit late Monday night that indeed the President was wrong to have made that State of the Union accusation.

Now, the key question: how could a proven false claim make its way into the single most important speech a president delivers?

Such a speech is written by dozens of experts from each relevant department who vet each and every word.

Nine months after Wilson’s report someone took it upon himself or herself to insert this explosive sentence – even though it had been debunked. There must have been dissenters who knew the claim was false.
You can bet there are some inside the administration who were intimidated by The Tumor to shut up as this false claim was kept in the speech.

This does not pass the smell test.

Rather, it smacks of The Tumor.

It appears that this ‘government within a government’ had its own agenda – war against Iraq – and it was dead-set to include patently false information into a major presidential speech in order to incite public opinion in favor of the war.

This cannot be allowed.

We cannot have a president fed lies by underlings because it ruins the credibility of the presidency.

And for those who shrug their shoulders and say the Niger uranium incident is “relatively insignificant” let me ask a simple question: if Bill Clinton had delivered a patently false claim in order to enact a controversial government decision would conservatives shrug it off as “insignificant”?


The Tumor is a cancer on our society. When the United States of America allows itself to have a ‘government within a government’ answerable to no one, elected by no one then we are quickly descending into dangerous territory.

The Bush Administration’s biggest vulnerability may not be a weakened economy and high unemployment; instead it may be a disastrous intelligence scandal waiting to blow open.

BAD NUMBER



Last Thursday’s 6.4% unemployment number is the single worst news event for the Bush re-election campaign since before the 9/11 attacks.

Such a huge and shocking rise in unemployment – especially when all experts inside and outside the government thought it would decline – may mean nothing or it may portend bad things for our economy.

Make no mistake about it: if the economy is in a sour state next year, G.W. Bush will most likely not be re-elected. Period. Conversely if the economy is ‘perceived’ to be improving, he will probably win no matter what else happens.

This disturbing 6.4% unemployment figure gives Bush’s opponents much ammunition to use in the campaign. Job losses are always unsettling – and in the two and one half years of this Bush presidency the nation has lost over 2 million jobs.

The democrats are certain to link up the overall job losses in the two Bush presidencies. Combined many millions of jobs have been lost – and this will become ready fodder for the democratic candidates from now on.

G. W. Bush, to his credit, has not followed his father’s prescription on how to deal with economic difficulties. Back in late 1991 and early 1992, as the nation entered a recession, George H.W. Bush refused to acknowledge that we were even in a recession. Painted as ‘out of touch,’ that President Bush was actually trying to use public psychology to boost the economy. His feeling was nothing works better than the Power of Positive Thinking.

Of course he was ridiculed for this seeming ignorance of the bad economy and attacked for a ‘head in the sand’ attitude.

His son – always doing the exact opposite of his father – does not shrink from these economic woes. Instead he acknowledges them and says all the right things about his ‘concern’ over job losses.

What this Bush White House must be praying for is an improving economy – with declining unemployment numbers – by this time next summer. Bush will be in good shape if the perception of the economy is that it is improving. If so, he will – correctly – take credit for the recovery, citing his two rounds of tax cuts.

But if this worrisome 6.4% number is an indicator that the economy is again stalling, then Bush and the Republicans have big trouble.

Oh, by the way, in politics there is a simple rule: what is good economics is bad politics and vice versa. Thus, a political candidate can not make this correct economic argument: one of the reasons for the increase in unemployment is the increased productivity of present American workers. In other words, fewer workers are doing more work – thus the need for fewer jobs.

But no one in the political world can dare to state that because it sounds heartless. Can’t you just see the headlines: WE DON’T NEED YOU!

The stalled job market makes it virtually impossible for the Bush White House to avoid the inevitable charge that millions of jobs have been lost on their watch. Recently it was published that 120,000 new jobs would have to be created each and every month between now and the election for us just to be back where we were when G.W. Bush took office. And no one now believes such a positive growth can happen.

Instead, the White House needs to paint a picture of an ‘improving’ economy.

You can bet that Karl Rove and his minions are deeply worried over the future perception of the economy.

DOWN AND DIRTY


Here is the ‘down and dirty’ analysis of last week’s monumental Supreme Court decisions upholding Positive Discrimination (what American liberals try to sugar-coat as Affirmative Action) and Sodomy:

The Supreme Court – despite the lofty rhetoric, robes and impressive digs – is, in fact, a political institution. The Court is just as political as the White House or the Congress and, as such, it is very sensitive to public opinion.

The nine Justices are wary of shaking up the public too much just as elected officials usually only propose gradual change.

Positive Discrimination is a tricky and controversial issue. To ban it altogether – although probably the best course of events – would have been a wrenching decision that would have enflamed millions of people. Instead, the Court punted. They basically muddled it up enough to maintain the status quo.

If the public had been overwhelmingly anti-Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination then this so-called conservative court probably would have followed public opinion and outlawed it. But, like the true politicians they are, they stuck their wet fingers into the air and tested the breeze. What did they feel? A mixed bag of public thoughts and prejudices that made them basically leave this subject to die its own death (hopefully) a generation down the road.

The Texas sodomy case is yet another perfect example of the Supreme Court bending to the prevailing majority public opinion. And that – as awful as it sounds – is that sodomy and promiscuous sex and all sorts of behaviors are “not the government’s business.”

Since the Clintons were elected in 1992 and began their sex-crazed presidency with condoms on the Christmas trees and gays in the military, this country has basically adopted a libertarian point of view. The prevailing line is: “What someone does in their private life is their own business.” You hear this type of thinking everywhere.

The pro-morality Christian movement is in the distinct minority politically in this country. And the Bush White House has deliberately stayed away from this type of issue because all the Bushes care about is getting re-elected.

The 9 Justices have morphed over time into a mirror of the public at large: afraid to take a controversial stand on moral issue – with the exception of Scalia and Thomas.

What is the future of Roe vs. Wade? Will a future Supreme Court ever ban abortion?

No, it will never happen because to make all abortions illegal would be so disruptive as to tear this nation apart.

So politicians running for office can promise to do this and that, but in reality the Supreme Court is afraid to make wrenching decisions. Yes, they made shave around the edges a bit on issues like parental notification and late-term procedures. But the basic ‘right’ of a woman to choose an abortion is not going to be taken away by any politically-appointed Supreme Court.

Over time, through education, adoption and abstinence programs, our nation may reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. But rights are never taken away. Once the Court or Congress gives a new ‘right’ or benefit (i.e. prescription drugs), it is virtually impossible to take that right away.

That is just plain political reality – and so are all decisions by the Supreme Court.

BUSH RE-ELECT NUMBER



According to the Cook Report – one of the most reliable inside-the-beltway political reports – President George W. Bush’s re-elect number is a paltry 42%.

A re-elect number is the number in a poll of respondents who say they would definitely vote to re-elect an incumbent – regardless of the opponent.

The accepted rule in politics is any incumbent with a re-elect number under 50% is in trouble.

G.W. Bush’s 42% re-elect is exactly the same as his father’s in June 1991. And, of course, his father went on to suffer a humiliating defeat with only 37% of the vote in a three-way race against Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot.

The Bush White House feels – despite the worrisome 42% number – which things are lining up nicely for re-election in November 2004. Here is their view:

1) Saddam has been vanquished. Bush won the war.

2) The War on Terror will be the backdrop on the 2004 election and Bush is strong in the national security area.

3) The economy is rallying, albeit slowly.

4) The GOP has moved positively on a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare.


The White House feels that they have co-opted the Democrats’ best issues and control the agenda for 2004.

If that is so, others ask, then why the 42%? Why not 52%?

Good questions!

Here are some potential trouble spots ahead for the Bush White House:

1) The economy does not rebound. Instead, the so-called ‘jobless recession’ becomes the dominant campaign issue. (Recently NBC News showed the states Bush narrowly won in 2000 that have suffered job losses since then. This could be a major campaign issue in 2004.) Remember that it is the ‘perception’ of the economy that counts.

2) Another major terrorist attack here inside the United States. Such an attack – and it is awful to think of such events as political fodder – could be used to undercut the main Bush issue: his handling of national security.

3) Iraq spirals out of control and a fundamentalist Shiite Islamic revolution seizes control over the southern half of Iraq – precisely where most of the oil is. Under this scenario, Bush’s war against Saddam – without major allies in the Arab world – will be seen as a tragic error.

4) Some unexpected event – always a possibility – that totally shakes up the 2004 race. 9/11 helped Bush; another event may enhance his stature – or undo it.

5) The weak Democratic field. The White House salivates at the thought of running against many of the present field of Democratic presidential candidates.

6) The nation is split 50-50 these days. Thus any one of the above could tip things either way.


President Reagan also had a weak re-elect number 18 months before his huge 1984 landslide. Then, as now, we were coming out of a recession. BY the summer of 1984 it was Morning in America – the economy was humming along and Mondale wanted to raise taxes. Reagan won a huge election victory.

G.W. Bush is poised to repeat that outcome, despite lingering fears that, instead, he might repeat his father’s.