Cincinnati Reaction to Bush's WMD Manipulation
The New York Times has an article today giving a sense of the views of several local Cincinnati area residents. The article gets a wide sample of quotes from various local people from all sides of the political spectrum. Cincinnati is a bellwether for Bush's reelection. If Bush does not win big locally, he will loose Ohio and the overall election.

Steve Gilliard at DailyKos had this link and has comments discussing Bush's overall current predicament. I myself am disgusted with Bush. His performance in this exhcange from today's press conference with Blair illustrates the fault line of Bush's credibilty:

Q Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.

I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.

I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.

We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror. We're after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we're dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror. A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.

Bold added.

I am sure partisan conservatives loved the confrontational response to the question. They like the brashness and defiance of the Press. Their "fearless leader" can do no wrong. They are overjoyed that Bush is "fighting back" against the "partisans."

Everyone else, I think, is either disgusted like me, or greatly disappointed that Bush failed to take responsibility for his actions. Instead of stopping the Buck, Bush refused to acknowledge it exists. His answer to a question of responsibility for his actions is a recitation of "ends justify the means." Swagger and defiance are great for John Wayne War movies, but Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart showed how real people lived with dignity, honor, and respect that had value, not just comic book drama.

What further makes me cringe is the continuing trail of Clintonesque semantics. Bush said, “I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons.” He further revised his history with this exchange:

Q Mr. President, in his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister opened the door to the possibility that you may be proved wrong about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q Do you agree, and does it matter whether or not you find these weapons?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you might ask the Prime Minister that. We won't be proven wrong --
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.
Now, you say, why didn't it happen all of a sudden? Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we're getting -- we're just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration or that regime.
But we will bring the weapons and, of course -- we will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end up -- end all this speculation. I understand there has been a lot of speculation over in Great Britain, we've got a little bit of it here, about whether or not the -- whether or not the actions were based upon valid information. We can debate that all day long, until the truth shows up. And that's what's going to happen.
And we based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And the -- our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.

Note the “truth” we will find is that he (Saddam Hussein) was developing a program for WMD. What about the threat of existing WMD Hussein was alleged to possess? Will we find those? Is this some kind of game? Pin the tail on the Dubya? Who is actually buying this crap? I can’t imagine the level of rationalizing it would take to believe this administration’s statements on WMD. Ok, well, I can imagine it, but it gives me the creeps.

FOX News on Trial
The FOX News libel trial has begun according the Cincinnati Enquirer. NKU professor Clinton Hewan is suing FOX News for libel. He is alleged to have made controversial comments in the aftermath of the Tim Thomas shooting back in April of 2001. The alleged comment in question was "I do not advocate any violence as an initiate. But in the case of willful murder, the family (of Thomas) should go out and get that policeman." This section from the article seems to damping Hewan's case:

Within a day, NKU President James Votruba confirmed that Hewan said those words by speaking with several administrators who attended the forum. In an e-mail to the campus, Votruba condemned the remarks as "indefensible."

I think FOX has little to fear in this case, which is most likely why it is going to trial and was not settled out of court.

More Irony
It appears on the surface funny, on the inside sad that the Boycott B group, the CJC, is championing a mention they received in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. The subheadline of the article is "Experts say clear goals are key for decades-old tactic." Here is the section involving the CJC:

Not all tourism and business boycotts are led by large groups such as the NAACP.

The Coalition for a Just Cincinnati -- which helped organize a boycott of city businesses after police shot a 19-year-old unarmed black man on April 7, 2001 -- and two other local groups pulled together the boycott without leadership from national organizations such as the NAACP. The sanctions have turned away Bill Cosby, Wynton Marsalis and the annual Coors Light Jazz Festival from the city, said coalition co-chairwoman Amanda Mayes.

"After the unrest in the streets, we decided we should have our issues addressed in a more structured and peaceful means," Mayes said. "People who had strong feelings about what was going on saw the need for an organized movement."

Now, the problem with this article is that they really fail to even scratch the surface. One can argue what is written is factually true, but the whole theme of the article is shot with the subheader. "Clear goals" are not an elements of the boycott(s) here in Cincinnati. The goals change, they twist in the wind, and they are cherry picked.

Seeing the boycott B plug their own shortcomings is most ironic, but in my opinion a form of justice.

Convergys Vote Cancelled
WLWT has reported that the meeting this afternoon has been cancelled, which cancels the vote on the Convergys deal. The Enquirer story linked below has been updated to reflect the cancellation of the vote.

UPDATE: Comments from Ethan Hahn.

UPDATE#2: The above Enquirer story has been updated again. Its first line is "The deal is off." Do we have our first major political issue of the campaign? This is a story that every candidate should have a position on.

GOP to Blame for the Possible Convergys Deal Collapse?
The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that Republican Chris Monzel has changed positions on the deal:

"Looking at the whole deal, there was always something nagging me about this," Monzel said today. "It was the job retention tax credits that didn't sit right. It's bad public policy."

It is odd that Pat DeWine is against the deal and Monzel is also reportedly against the deal. That puts both GOP council members against a deal to help a major corporation. This is an strange position. The Democrats are divided on the issue, but the GOP stands with the more liberal side of Council.

There appears to be a majority on Council that wants some kind of a deal to keep Convergys in town, but not enough for this deal. WLW's Noon report reported that Alicia Reece had big doubts about the deal. Monzel has given her the cover to vote against the deal if the vote takes place. Luken may delay or cancel today's vote.

Media Opinions on Convergys Deal

Cincinnati Post: Vote is rushed, wait and study it more, currently deal is not good enough.

Cincinnati Enquirer: Supports the deal as is.

Mike McConnell of WLW: Mike supports the deal as is, and similar deals like it.

Queen City Soapbox - Ethan Hahn: "I'm not knee-jerk against this deal just because it's big - but I definitely have more questions right now than answers, and more suspicion than confidence."

Council to Vote on Convergys
Today is the special vote on the Convergys Deal and as of this morning the vote is tied with 1 undecided. This chart (pdf), kind of a "most wanted" list, in the Enquirer reports who is where on the vote.

For:
Cooper
Cranly
Monzel
Tarbell

Against:
Cole
Crowley
DeWine
Pepper

Undecided:
Reece

I will be shocked if Reece goes against the deal. If she wants to stay Vice Mayor, she just might support the Mayor. She is nearly no danger of not being re-elected so I would say the deal will pass.

UPDATE: Alicia Reece on 1230 the Buzz with Lincoln Ware stated she is out doing "research" talking to people and reviewing Convergys' financial profile. Lincoln Ware believes she will say no.