Thin Line

The Reagan-Bush Affair. Salon.com just keeps on opening a daily can of editorial whoop-ass on Dubya like no other news source in America. Recently, the e-zine was the first to seize upon Ronald Reagan Jr.'s scorn for the current Bush administration. At his father's burial service, Ron Jr., said: “Dad was … a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.” The statement clearly rebuked the current Bush administration's faith-based governmental policies, and days later Salon scored an exclusive interview with the famous dog show host that has since made it difficult for Bush to wrap himself in the Reagan legacy.

“My father was a man—that’s the difference between him and Bush,” Reagan told Salon. “To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush.”

“The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he’s in now,” Reagan continued. “Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the ’80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father’s—these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive and just plain corrupt. I don’t trust these people.”

It wasn't the first time Ron Jr. skewered Dubya in the press. During the 2000 GOP convention he told the Washington Post: “The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job. What’s his accomplishment? That he’s no longer an obnoxious drunk?”

Watered down. The latest edition of Newsweek reports that Vice President Dick Cheney gave the order to shoot down hijacked jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001 after telling others that President Bush “signed off on the concept.” Cheney apparently told the 9-11 Commission he had a brief phone conversation with Bush while the planes were airborne; however, the White House, according to the commission report, cannot provide proof that the phone call ever took place.

Here's an excerpt: “Newsweek has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president’s account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers ‘flat out didn’t believe the call ever took place.’ When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report ‘was watered down,’ groused one staffer.”