CIA Director George Tenet Resigns

[MJ4H]

Thought some of you would be interested in this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&e=1&u=/ap/20040603/ap_on_go_ot/tenet_resigns

[Barkeep49]

Wow... I wonder what finally did him in. Timing really surprises me here.

[Grid Iron]

Bush is an idiot because he should have fired Tenet right after 9/11 (along with Condoleeza).

The "resignation", however, may be too little too late for the election, given all of the screw ups the CIA has made on Tenet's watch. GW is like the baseball manager who leaves his starter in the game for one pitcher too many.

When Bush was running for President, many of my Pro-Bush friends would say something to the effect of, "He's not smart, but he'll be a great President because he will surround himself with smart people that will do great work."

Since the election, he has done nothing but surrounded himself with people who continually screw up, (Tenet and Condoleeza), don't get along with each other (Powell and Cheney; Cheney and Rumsfeld), and appear to have conflicts of interest (Cheney). Bush's refusal or inability to clean house may very well cost him the election this year.

[CamEdwards]

Bush is an idiot because he should have fired Tenet right after 9/11 (along with Condoleeza).

The "resignation", however, may be too little too late for the election, given all of the screw ups the CIA has made on Tenet's watch. GW is like the baseball manager who leaves his starter in the game for one pitcher too many.

When Bush was running for President, many of my Pro-Bush friends would say something to the effect of, "He's not smart, but he'll be a great President because he will surround himself with smart people that will do great work."

Since the election, he has done nothing but surrounded himself with people who continually screw up, (Tenet and Condoleeza), don't get along with each other (Powell and Cheney; Cheney and Rumsfeld), and appear to have conflicts of interest (Cheney). Bush's refusal or inability to clean house may very well cost him the election this year.

*bangs head against wall*

My first thought was "I wonder when the book will come out".

[sachmo71]

Well this solves everything. America loves a scapegoat.

[Grid Iron]

America loves a scapegoat.

Presidents running for re-election really love them. . . ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's a link to the standard long version story
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040603/D82VKG001.html

I'm linking it because I want to quote a small blurb from the middle of it (the bold emphasis is mine)

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Tenet "restored morale and provided stability and continuity at a crucial time."

"I have been critical of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD and ties to terror, as well as failures leading up to the attacks of 9-11," she noted. "With Tenet's departure, the president has the opportunity to fix these problems by transforming the job that Tenet held."


I believe Rep. Harman raises a good point here, one that we might get some indication about the likelihood of by whether a full-time successor to Tenet is
named (or at least proposed) before the election.


If that isn't done before November, I suspect (and tenatively hope) that we'll see
a serious overhaul of the entire U.S. Intelligence & Security organization in the early days of Bush's second term. Something more along the lines of the British Intelligence model is what I'm thinking of here.

[digamma]

*bangs head against wall*

My first thought was "I wonder when the book will come out".
Was your second thought: "How soon after that does the character assassination by Rove and company begin?":D

[JPhillips]

While I'm all for an intelligence head that leads all of the various intelligence departments, I don't see it happening at least if Rumsfeld is still on board. A major change of the intelligence apparatus would require DOD giving up control of some pieces. Rumsfeld isn't exactly the first in line to give up control of intelligence. I agree that we need to radically reform the intelligence gathering and analysis departments, but this admin isn't going to do it.

[SirFozzie]

I don't think there WILL be a 2nd term, Jon. Bush keeps falling in the polls. The things going for him is that the Republicans go 2nd in the convention order.. Kerry may have to stretch his money further (five weeks?), AND Bush can tailor his message against Kerry's, and his bump from the convention will occur closer to the November election.

However, the last few months have been Bush's finest operation ever. Operation Footbullet is in full swing, and I have yet to see if there will be enough of his feet left to carry Bush to the finish line, especially considering how many times he's shot himself in the foot (or had the misadventures of others close to him, cause trouble)

[rkmsuf]

Wait till the country gets a load of Uncle Ted drooling at the Dem Convention. The video of him doing the limbo is worth at least 5 points to Bush.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think there WILL be a 2nd term, Jon. ...
In spite of any of that, as long as voters remain motivated enough to show up at the polls, a second term is assured. And all it should take to keep that motivation high enough is to utilize the stretch drive to highlight what a truly scary vision a Kerry presidency presents.

Make no mistake, I'm aware of the critical difference between being confident and over-confident, but as long as Bush & Co. remember that you always run like you're 10 points behind no matter what the polls say, I'm really not worried. I simply don't believe this country has slipped deep enough into Hell's handbasket to elect Kerry.

[BishopMVP]

I like that Tenet is gone. I thought he should have resigned/been fired after 9/11. I'm also curious about the timing, but I'm sure if it's detrimental to Bush the media will dig it out.I don't think there WILL be a 2nd term, Jon. Bush keeps falling in the polls.While he is dropping in job approval polls, the polls versus Kerry are staying static. As much as the media will bitch about Iraq and try to drag down the President, as long as the economy keeps improving Bush will win.

[sachmo71]

Wow. Lots of confidence in the Bush camp.

[Arles]

I think the reason most Bush supporters are confident is that in order for Kerry to win, he has to convince the majority of the 30% or so undecideds:

A) to like him
B) to feel safe with him running the war on terror

The 35% of both sides that stick to the party lines are not an issue. But, in this day of advanced media, non-partisans have to pretty much like the guy they are voting for in order to change - especially in a time of war. The democrats hit the jackpot with Clinton as many Americans felt a connection with him, the same goes for Reagan. Bush ended up beating Al Gore and forcing a "change" in the white house because more liked the down-to-earth and "regular guy" image of Bush more than the "I am smarter than all of you" Al Gore.

Again, in this day and age of television and 24-hour news, people are going to be innundated with John Kerry for the next 4-5 months. If they don't like him, they won't vote for him regardless of how Bush does. And, I think most republicans feel that Kerry's haughty dimeanor will turn off a lot of independents in the debates. You're seeing it now where Bush loses to an "unnamed democrat" by 10 to 15 points in some polls, but he is tied (or within the margin of error) with Kerry.

[Kodos]

"Operation Footbullet". That's some good stuff. :p

[rkmsuf]

Shouldn't the CIA Director be secret anyway? For all we know it's really Ray Romano

[sachmo71]

Isn't it possible for the Dems to nominate someone else at the National Convention? Didn't this happen with Carter or something?

[SackAttack]

I don't think there WILL be a 2nd term, Jon. Bush keeps falling in the polls. The things going for him is that the Republicans go 2nd in the convention order.. Kerry may have to stretch his money further (five weeks?), AND Bush can tailor his message against Kerry's, and his bump from the convention will occur closer to the November election.

The Democrats have apparently decided to hold the Convention as planned, but to hold off on an official nomination until some time after the Convention, so as to be able to avoid the disadvantage of having spending limits earlier than the Bush campaign.

[rkmsuf]

Isn't it possible for the Dems to nominate someone else at the National Convention? Didn't this happen with Carter or something?

Of course it's possible but the only reason it's in MA is for a hometown coronation of sorts for Kerry. It's a Dem jiggy wit it party.

[rkmsuf]

The Democrats have apparently decided to hold the Convention as planned, but to hold off on an official nomination until some time after the Convention, so as to be able to avoid the disadvantage of having spending limits earlier than the Bush campaign.

That was floated but will never happen. The purpose of the idea was to get the thinking out there that Bush had some kind of unfair advantage. There's no way they won't nominate. Boston would burn the Fleet Center down.

[SirFozzie]

The Democrats have apparently decided to hold the Convention as planned, but to hold off on an official nomination until some time after the Convention, so as to be able to avoid the disadvantage of having spending limits earlier than the Bush campaign.

That's incorrect.

Kerry squashed that rumor after the city of Boston raised their hands and said "um.. if you're not going to ACCEPT the nomination, what's the point of making us lose $50 million in buisness to host this shindig?"

Latest news is he's petitioning the FEC to make the limits go into effect at the same time (probably after the Repub Convention)

[SirFozzie]

"Operation Footbullet". That's some good stuff. :p


<grins>

I actually stole that from the fight against Scientology (I deleted and rewrote Sacamantology 3 times there).

The Scientologists's battles online with their detractors are legendary..

Legendary losses for Scientology ;)

[Arles]

The Democrats have apparently decided to hold the Convention as planned, but to hold off on an official nomination until some time after the Convention, so as to be able to avoid the disadvantage of having spending limits earlier than the Bush campaign.
That was rejected by the Kerry camp when they were notified that if Kerry was not nominated in their convention, it would be no different than a "political rally". And that would mean that the republicans would be afforded 50% of the coverage that day for their own rallies during that timeframe, drastically downplaying the national news and potential bump Kerry could get from the convention. Essentially, the democrats would end up with half a convention and Bush with 1.5 conventions.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that JoninMiddleGA is right. November is a long way off, and Bush has shown that he knows how to campaign. I still have yet to see Kerry doing anything that will get people off their duffs and say "I want this man to be my leader."

John Edwards strikes me as much more personally likable and electable, but for the fact that his past as a plaintiff's attorney would/will hurt him.

[SackAttack]

Ahh. Thanks for correcting me then, guys. Especially Arles' post, that's good stuff.

[SirFozzie]

The problem is.. to me.. and my limited experience with campaigns (don't turn 30 until August). This is the period where Bush's job approval ratings has to RISE, not fall, fall fall.

Right now, this is turning into more on a referendum on Bush for four more years, and unless they catch Bin Laden or bring "peace in our time" to Iraq.. I just don't think it can happen.

[digamma]

I think the reason most Bush supporters are confident is that in order for Kerry to win, he has to convince the majority of the 30% or so undecideds:

A) to like him
B) to feel safe with him running the war on terror

The 35% of both sides that stick to the party lines are not an issue. But, in this day of advanced media, non-partisans have to pretty much like the guy they are voting for in order to change - especially in a time of war. The democrats hit the jackpot with Clinton as many Americans felt a connection with him, the same goes for Reagan. Bush ended up beating Al Gore and forcing a "change" in the white house because more liked the down-to-earth and "regular guy" image of Bush more than the "I am smarter than all of you" Al Gore.

Again, in this day and age of television and 24-hour news, people are going to be innundated with John Kerry for the next 4-5 months. If they don't like him, they won't vote for him regardless of how Bush does. And, I think most republicans feel that Kerry's haughty dimeanor will turn off a lot of independents in the debates. You're seeing it now where Bush loses to an "unnamed democrat" by 10 to 15 points in some polls, but he is tied (or within the margin of error) with Kerry.
I would point out that Kerry really only has to convince a majority of the undecideds in enough states that are "in play" to vote for him. I'm not sure that he even has to convince them to like him. He just has to convince them to vote and to dislike him less than they dislike Bush.

Right now Kerry is polling very well in the "in play" states.

[SirFozzie]

Bush will do well in the conservative states.. but the amount of pandering he's had to do to the Moral Majority types to keep their support has alienated a LOT of people. I've seen stories that suggest that rather then running on the issues, the best plan for Kerry is to wave the red flag of the frothing attck-dog conservatism getting four more years in the White House. That doesn't seem to be happening yet

I was surprised by a report that stated that 75% or so of Bush's ads so far have been negative/attack ads, while 25% of Kerry's have been negative/attack ads. The #'s have apparently been confirmed by both campaigns (take that for what it's worth), but I think this will be less run on the issues then the main issue. "I can't stand (Liberals/Conservatives) so I'm voting for the other guy."

[Arles]

A gallup poll on July 20, 1984 had Walter Mondale leading Ronald Reagan by a 50-48 margin. Dukakis also led Bush senior by as many as 17 points leading up to the 1988 election. Even Bob Dole had an early lead on Clinton in some polls back in 1995 and early 96.

The best test for a presidential candidate is (from a non-partisan's perspective): Are they likeable and are they able to make tough decisions as president?

Reagan was, Mondale wasn't. Bush was, Dukakis wasn't. Clinton was, Dole wasn't. At this point, I don't think Kerry is likeable or that people will feel comfortable with him leading the war on terror. To unseat an incumbent, you have to convince people to vote for you. Reagan and Clinton did that with their charisma and I can't see Kerry doing the same unless he ditches his haughty dimeanor and relates more with everyday people (which is a tough chore for him).

[Noop]

Well if I had a vote I would vote John Kerry because Bush is sending us down the highway to hell. While Kerry will do that same....he won't get us there as fast as Bush will.

[SackAttack]

Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If Bush will get us to hell faster than Kerry will, does that mean that Kerry's intentions are somehow more evil, more insidious? :D

[Arles]

Another thing to remember, the left hated Reagan and the right hated Clinton. Yet neither were beaten in midyear elections because their candidates (Mondale and Dole) failed to convince people to vote for them. I can't remember the last president that won because the public was indifferent to them but hated the incumbent. And, if it did happen, it was well before this day and age of mass media where likeablity of a presidential candidate is now a key prerequisite for the job.

[BishopMVP]

Right now Kerry is polling very well in the "in play" states.Actually, it's about the same as last election. hxxp://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys2.html Plus now according to newer polls New Jersey, Maryland and possibly even Cali, all easy Blue states last time are in play.

[Franklinnoble]

Actually, it's about the same as last election. hxxp://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys2.html Plus now according to newer polls New Jersey, Maryland and possibly even Cali, all easy Blue states last time are in play.
It will be interesting to see how California does, assuming that Schwarzenegger eventually does some campaigning for W. there. So far, Arnold has actually done a VERY good job as Governor (much better than expected), and has quietly led the state back from the brink of total financial ruin. He's earned a solid reputation around the state, and if he starts stumping for Bush, it could make a considerable difference.

[SackAttack]

Dammit, if California is in play, that means I don't dare vote for a 3rd party this time. I don't want Kerry winning the damn state.

[digamma]

Actually, it's about the same as last election. hxxp://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys2.html Plus now according to newer polls New Jersey, Maryland and possibly even Cali, all easy Blue states last time are in play.
I am actually inclined to believe that Bush will win fairly easily in November.

I haven't seen the NJ, MD or CA polls, but I'll stand by my statement above that Kerry is polling very well in "in play" states. To clarify somewhat, he has seen an upward tick in most places over the last 6 weeks. More pointedly, he has seen an upward tick in places where he has concentrated his advertising.

That said, as others pointed out, it is only June and we have five long months to go.

[clintl]

It will be interesting to see how California does, assuming that Schwarzenegger eventually does some campaigning for W. there. So far, Arnold has actually done a VERY good job as Governor (much better than expected), and has quietly led the state back from the brink of total financial ruin. He's earned a solid reputation around the state, and if he starts stumping for Bush, it could make a considerable difference.

Arnold has yet to demonstrate that he's going to do anything for Bush. Don't forget, he has stronger personal ties to Kerry and the Kennedys than he does to Bush, even though he is a Republican. He has been saying he supports Bush when asked, but he has not actively been doing anything resembling campaigning, and he has not been successful at getting Bush to do anything for California. My guess is that he does the minimum necessary to not get in trouble with fellow Republicans. And for sure, his wife is going to be supporting Kerry, although she said she won't campaign for him.

[Franklinnoble]

Arnold has yet to demonstrate that he's going to do anything for Bush. Don't forget, he has stronger personal ties to Kerry and the Kennedys than he does to Bush, even though he is a Republican. He has been saying he supports Bush when asked, but he has not actively been doing anything resembling campaigning, and he has not been successful at getting Bush to do anything for California. My guess is that he does the minimum necessary to not get in trouble with fellow Republicans. And for sure, his wife is going to be supporting Kerry, although she said she won't campaign for him.
All true statements, but as it has been said before, it's only June...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The day a Democrat loses California in the near future is the day hell freezes over. There's always a poll or two saying a race is close in a state where it shouldn't be. A matter of fact, I remember a poll a few days before the 2000 election saying Bush was within two in Cali when he was more than ten points behind in every other poll. We all know how that turned out.

Here's a few _extensive_ polls and note that in just about every question, Bush is trending down. Here's a few links...

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/trend_052304.html
hxxp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
hxxp://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_Iraq-Prisoners-update_%2005-24_pr.pdf

...and a basic summary from another site.

Note that the survey dates for all three polls are virtually identical. Comparing apples to apples--that is, my favorite apples of RV, Kerry-Bush matchups--all three polls agree Kerry is ahead: Gallup by 48-46; ABC News by 49-47 and CBS News by 49-41.

On the CBS News result, their internals show Kerry leading by 16 points (!) among independents (51-35). My my. Considering that Kerry only needs to win independents by a few points to pretty much guarantee himself an election victory, that's quite a result.

For what it's worth, Gallup finally has its RVs and LVs agreeing: Kerry is ahead in both samples by two. In their last poll, Bush was ahead by 1 among LVs, while behind by 6 among RVs.

Gallup also provides a breakdown of the RV, Kerry-Bush matchup by red, blue and purple states (thanks, Gallup!). That breakdown shows Kerry leading by 5 points in the purple states (50-45). In 2000, Gore and Bush were dead-even (48-48) in the purple states.

Not a bad set of horse race results for Mr. Kerry, not bad at all.
Posted at 05:15 PM | link | Comments (26)


May 24, 2004

Bush's Approval Rating Now Net Negative on War on Terrorism!

Wow! Not only has Bush's approval rating on handling the war on terrorism been dropping like a stone, the Annenberg Election Survey has now measured it in net negative territory: 46 percent approval/50 percent disapproval (May 17-23). That's a first and a very significant first. It means Bush's area of greatest strength is rapidly turning into political liability.

And check out the internals on this question: 41/53 among independents; 41/56 among 18-29 year olds; 41/56 among Hispanics and 40/54 among moderates.

The poll also finds the public now saying that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib followed orders (48 percent), rather than acted on their own (30 percent). That's a switch from two weeks ago when it was 47-31 the other way.

The poll has Bush's approval rating on Iraq at 39/57, including just 33/61 among independents and 30/66 among Hispanics. And, on whether "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not", the poll finds just 40 percent saying it was worth it, compared to 54 percent who say it wasn't. Among independents, the split is slightly more negative at 39/55, much more negative among moderates (30/64) and stunningly more negative among Hispanics (22/75).

These numbers are bad enough, but the numbers in the new CBS News poll (May 20-23) are, if anything, even worse. Consider this one: only 30 percent now say the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 65 percent who say it is off on the wrong track. The latter is the highest number ever recorded by the CBS News poll since it started asking this question in the mid-1980s. As the CBS News polling analysis puts it:

The last time the percentage that said the country was on the wrong track was as high as it is now was back in November 1994. Then, Republicans swept into control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.

The poll also finds Bush's overall approval rating down at 41 percent, with 52 percent disapproval. I believe that's the lowest of any public poll during Bush's presidency. In addition, Bush's job rating on foreign policy is 37/56 and his rating on the economy is 36/57.

Speaking of the economy, only 20 percent believe Bush administration policies have increased the number of jobs in the US and more people now believe the economy is getting worse (32 percent) than getting better (23 percent). Last month, the figures were roughly reversed at 30 percent better/26 percent worse.

Guess that better be a hell of a speech tonight! The public does not seem, shall we say, to be in a particularly receptive mood for the president.

Just FYI for you guys who don't know much about polling numbers aside from the horse race stuff. These numbers are not good for Bush.

[WussGawd]

Here's a link to the standard long version story
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040603/D82VKG001.html

I'm linking it because I want to quote a small blurb from the middle of it (the bold emphasis is mine)

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Tenet "restored morale and provided stability and continuity at a crucial time."

"I have been critical of the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD and ties to terror, as well as failures leading up to the attacks of 9-11," she noted. "With Tenet's departure, the president has the opportunity to fix these problems by transforming the job that Tenet held."


I believe Rep. Harman raises a good point here, one that we might get some indication about the likelihood of by whether a full-time successor to Tenet is
named (or at least proposed) before the election.


If that isn't done before November, I suspect (and tenatively hope) that we'll see
a serious overhaul of the entire U.S. Intelligence & Security organization in the early days of Bush's second term. Something more along the lines of the British Intelligence model is what I'm thinking of here.

Kerry's been proposing something very similiar to this over the last few days, including a "Director of National Intelligence."

FWIW, I agree with you here.

[WussGawd]

I think the reason most Bush supporters are confident is that in order for Kerry to win, he has to convince the majority of the 30% or so undecideds:

A) to like him
B) to feel safe with him running the war on terror

The 35% of both sides that stick to the party lines are not an issue. But, in this day of advanced media, non-partisans have to pretty much like the guy they are voting for in order to change - especially in a time of war. The democrats hit the jackpot with Clinton as many Americans felt a connection with him, the same goes for Reagan. Bush ended up beating Al Gore and forcing a "change" in the white house because more liked the down-to-earth and "regular guy" image of Bush more than the "I am smarter than all of you" Al Gore.

Again, in this day and age of television and 24-hour news, people are going to be innundated with John Kerry for the next 4-5 months. If they don't like him, they won't vote for him regardless of how Bush does. And, I think most republicans feel that Kerry's haughty dimeanor will turn off a lot of independents in the debates. You're seeing it now where Bush loses to an "unnamed democrat" by 10 to 15 points in some polls, but he is tied (or within the margin of error) with Kerry.

I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, most people are of the belief that the total swing vote this year doesn't amount to more than 10%. This is the opinion of both Republicans and Democrats that I've seen quoted.

Second point...historically, election campaigns with an incumbent President become a lot less about the challenger than they are a referendum on the job performance of the incumbent. The general belief is that most swing voters, particularly as we get later in the season, will generally go with the challenger in such a situation.

We'll see how Kerry plays out, but historically, approval ratings for an incumbent are a fairly good projection of what the incumbent's final vote tally may be.

My belief is that Bush is in serious, serious trouble. He's trending negative on *every* issue in the polls, including terrorism, and is behind Kerry on every issue except terrorism (where, in most of the recent polls I've seen, his edge is narrow).

Now there's a long time in the election, but I'm not sure how this event can be viewed as a positive for Republicans.

[Buccaneer]

Bush is an idiot because he should have fired Tenet right after 9/11 (along with Condoleeza).

The "resignation", however, may be too little too late for the election, given all of the screw ups the CIA has made on Tenet's watch. GW is like the baseball manager who leaves his starter in the game for one pitcher too many.

Why? Because they did not act on vague intelligence? Also, don't forget the screwups by the intelligence community under Clinton (and the devastating cutbacks in funds and morale). I do blame Clinton a little on this - and for appointing a status-quo guy to head the CIA = Tennet. I blame Bush a little for keeping him since fixing and improving the intelligence community and information gathering should have been the top priority. Now since this Clinton holdover is gone, we should expect improvements.

[JPhillips]

Buc: Is there any problem that isn't Clinton's fault?

[Grid Iron]

Why? Because they did not act on vague intelligence?

Vague intelligence or not, when someone crashes three jet airplanes into two huge skyscrapers and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people in the process, someone has to get fired.

[MrBug708]

Buc: Is there any problem that isn't Clinton's fault?

I don't blame him for California's Power Outage. That would be the California State Legistature.

[Glengoyne]

I don't blame him for California's Power Outage. That would be the California State Legistature.
I was gonna give you a Game Show buzzer sound effect and a "thanks for playing", but I guess you are ultimately correct. The legislature passed the deregulation that allowed the power producers to game the system, and bilk the state of billions. If Bush was really interested in winning CA, something I just don't think is possible, his justice department and FERC(?I think that is what it is called?) would have stepped in and invalidated the contracts Old Gray was extorted into signing.

[Buccaneer]

Buc: Is there any problem that isn't Clinton's fault?
I'm only focusing on the military and intelligence where it's well known how those communities suffered greatly, as well as the gross incompetence of Albright in the State Dept where Colin Powell is still trying to undo the damage (organizationally, leadership structure and morale). In these critical areas (as they are know), Clinton did a lot of damage (including allowing the FBI and CIA to act independently). As far as blaming Clinton for other things, probably not except for the usual political bs.

[clintl]

I don't blame him for California's Power Outage. That would be the California State Legistature.

No, Pete Wilson, the California private sector utilities that wanted the plan that got enacted, and the Texas energy companies that exploited it. The legislature did pass the plan, but they were duped by the arguments of Wilson and the utilities.

[mordhiem]

The will be no whitewash at the Pentagon....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3775423.stm