>From the WashPost:
washingtonpost.com For Bush, High Drama and Mixed Reviews
By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, March 21, 2005; 12:50 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54002-2005Mar21?language=printer
<...> (Elisabeth) Bumiller reports that when Bush boarded Air Force One in Texas yesterday, "His manner was crisp and businesslike, and he did not smile as he usually does at onlookers and the small group of reporters who accompany him."
Well, I don't think I've ever seen Bush look as sour as he does here or here. Those are Associated Press photos taken as Bush stepped off Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base yesterday afternoon.
My proposed caption: "Karl, did I really have to go back to Washington for this?"
Bush's Past on Life and Death So how will Bush's past actions hold up as the press inevitably looks back to see how he's reacted in previous life-or-death matters?
Bush has been a fervent supporter of the death penalty. And as Alan Berlow wrote in the Atlantic in 2003, an examination of clemency memos written by then-Gov. Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzales "suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute."
McClellan was asked about the death penalty parallel during yesterday's gaggle on Air Force One.
"Q Can you talk to me -- again, this comes up. Can you explain the difference between this case and the President's support of the death penalty? I mean, I know this comes up in other culture of life issues, but can you explain the difference here?
"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can tell you why the President supports the death penalty, he's made that clear before. That the President believes it's a deterrent that helps save lives, and that's why he supports the death penalty.
"Q But isn't that inconsistent with what he's doing today?
"MR. McCLELLAN: The reason he supports the death penalty is because it helps -- he believes that it helps save lives, and he's stated that view clearly and consistently over a number of years."
Bush's Texas Life-Support Law And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.
As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.
Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.
"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.
"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . . "Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree." <...>