One of my favorite NYTimes columnists, Thomas Friedman, gets another big shout-out for destroying the BushCo exploitation of 9/11. He correctly points out that Bush had NO mandate to go into Iraq, and Bush displays his own simplicity by calling Kerry 'weak' on terrorism (taking Kerry's 'nuisance' comment out of context). A short excerpt:
That's why Mr. Kerry was actually touching something many Americans are worried about - that this war on terrorism is transforming us and our society, when it was supposed to be about uprooting the terrorists and transforming their societies.
I kinda have a feeling that all this anti-Bush sentiment that Friedman is drawing upon right now will really boost sales of his new book, whenever it comes out.
Points #2 - Bush, Kerry, and Nader all answer a set of questions posed by the New Voters Presidential Project Debate thingie. I haven't actually looked at that site, since slashdot has also posted the questions and answers in their entirety. My favorite question and response (as always):
When is it appropriate for a leader to change their opinion? Both sides have been accused of flip-flopping on important issues - President Bush on establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security and steel tariffs, Senator Kerry on the Iraq war. But changing opinion due to thoughtful reconsideration ought not to be derided as flip-flopping. Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance.
- Jeremy, 30, of WA
President George Bush Responds:Thank you for your candor, Mr. President! Because this project is oriented towards younger folks, the candidates weren't too long-winded. One thing I like is the comments at the end of the slashdot forum. As usual, if you want to read them, turn up the comments filter up to at least 4 to get the best reader responses.
President Bush declined to answer this question. - Editor
Oh, and I'm with Atrios on this one...why haven't we ALREADY frozen al-Zarqawi's assets?