BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:32 AM

BB:

I think you need a different thread! At least Id on't see why the last post, which I found interesting, was related to views of the Bush Administration. I am glad you posted it, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:21 AM

The New Fellow Travelers

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; Page A19

Ninety years ago this week, a Bolshevik mob stormed the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, arrested the provisional government and installed a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Though the Russian Revolution is no longer widely celebrated (not even by Russians, who instead commemorate the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow in 1612), I felt it important to mark the occasion. In honor of the anniversary, I reread " Ten Days That Shook the World," the famed account of the revolution by John Reed, the American journalist and fellow traveler. Then I reread last week's press reports of the recent encounter between Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, and Naomi Campbell, the British supermodel.

Just as I'd remembered, Reed's book superbly transmits the breathless energy of the autumn of 1917 -- "Adventure it was, and one of the most marvellous mankind ever embarked upon, sweeping into history at the head of the toiling masses" -- as well as his fascination with, and approval of, the violence he saw around him. After attending a mass funeral, he understood, he writes, why the Russians no longer need religion: "On earth they were building a kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer, and for which it was a glory to die." By contrast, he is abashed when he has to explain that in America, people try to change things by law -- a state of affairs that his new Russian comrades find "incredible."

Fast-forward 90 years, and surprisingly little has changed. True, the Russian Revolution itself is no longer much admired, not even by Reed's heirs on the far left. But the impulse that drew Reed to St. Petersburg remains. The Western weakness for other people's revolutionary violence, the belief in the glamour and benevolence of foreign dictators, and the insistence on seeing both through the prism of Western political debates, are still very much with us.

Exhibit A is Campbell. Though better known for her taste in shoes than for her opinions about Latin American economics, she nevertheless turned up in Caracas last week gushing about the "love and encouragement" Chávez pours into his welfare programs. Wearing what a Venezuelan newspaper called "a revolutionary and exquisite white dress from the prestigious Fendi fashion house," she praised the country for its "big waterfalls." Not surprisingly, Campbell did not mention the anti-Chávez demonstrations held in Caracas the week before her visit; proposed constitutional changes designed to let Chávez remain in power indefinitely; or Chávez's record of harassing opposition leaders and the media.

But then, that wasn't the point of her visit, just as it wasn't the point when actor Sean Penn, a self-conscious "radical" and avowed enemy of the American president, spent a whole day with Chávez. Together, the actor and the president toured the countryside. "I came here looking for a great country. I found a great country," Penn declared. Of course he found a great country! Penn wanted a country where he would win adulation for his views about American politics, and the Venezuelan president happily provided it.


In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration Reed once felt -- the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all of his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all of his wealth, fame, media access and Hollywood power, Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions.

As for Venezuelan politics, or the Venezuelan people, they don't matter at all. The country is simply playing a role filled in the past by Russia, Cuba and Nicaragua -- a role to which it is, at the moment, uniquely suited. Clearly, Venezuela is easier to idealize than Iran and North Korea, the former's attitude toward women not being conducive to fashion models, the latter being downright hostile toward Hollywood. Venezuela is also warm, relatively close and a country of beautiful waterfalls.

Most important, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president -- after all, many other heads of state do, too -- but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman" and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian Revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow travelers. As long as the oil lasts.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:32 PM

Poll: Vermont Wants Bush, Cheney Impeached
Nearly Two-Thirds Of State's Likely Voters Want President, VP Removed Before Term Ends

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 1, 2007

President Bush and Vice President Cheney still have almost 15 months left in their term, but that's too long for some: A poll of likely voters in Vermont shows almost two-thirds want impeachment proceedings initiated to remove them from office now.

(CBS) Earlier this year, town meetings across Vermont asked citizens if impeachment proceedings should be initiated against the president and vice president. Thirty-seven towns voted yes, and the Senate approved a resolution calling for impeachment.

Now a statewide poll conducted by CBS affiliate WCAX in Burlington, Vt. posed the question to 400 likely voters. Sixty-one percent said they would be in favor of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Thirty-three percent opposed it, and 6% were not sure.

The numbers for Vice President Cheney differed only slightly: Sixty-four percent favored impeachment, while 31% opposed it.

Seventy-five percent of respondents said they categorized the president's performance as "fair" or "poor."

"I'm really overjoyed by this," said Jimmy Leas, a South Burlington lawyer who has been a vocal advocate of impeachment. He told WCAX correspondent Kate Duffy that the poll shows "here in Vermont, nearly two-thirds of the public understand we have a serious problem, and the way to address this is to remove the officials who are usurping power."

"The impeachment results are somewhat surprising, frankly, to me," Middlebury College professor and columnist Eric Davis said.

He said the numbers are a sign that Vermonters are extremely dissatisfied with the administration.

"Even though their terms are ending in a little bit more than a year, a majority of Vermonters don't want to even see them remaining in office until January 20, 2009."

Vermont's legislature took up the impeachment issue last spring. The Senate passed a resolution calling for the president's impeachment, but a similar effort failed in the House.

Constitutionally, only Congress can impeach an executive, yet it could be spurred to do so by a state legislature, or by the motion of a single representative. According to the Jefferson Manual, if a House member introduces impeachment as a question of privilege, it would supersede all other business before the Congress and must be addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM

I see no reason to be happy with either George Bush OR the Democratic Congress, BB, so what is your point? To be opposed to George Bush's administration hardly indicates unquestioning support of the Democrats...at least not in my mind, anyway. I regard them both as serving the same essential backing interests...mind you, not in exactly the same out front manner. They have to maintain the appearance of being different in order to preserve the illusion that the 2-party system in the USA provides its voters with a genuine choice that can lead to significant change.

There are some specific indiduals among the Democrats, such as Mr Kucinich, for example, who are offering a genuinely new choice that could lead to significant change...but they are not the people who are going to be chosen to lead the Democratic Party into the next election.

The $ySStem will make quite sure of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 01:37 PM

Well, I dunno. There was no question about whether or not they got voted in, despite all the dirty tricks Gonzalez, Bush and Rove could field.

But I haven't seen any recent polls, and I am disappointed in them myself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:33 AM

My ake is that she's not putting up with those that want to compromise their duties when faced with a fight. She's made some blunders but her move on the Armenian issue was not one of them, it's not her fault that more of the Dems in Congress aren't willing to fight by her side instead of just caving in when the going gets tough. If she were to go along with the present Administration she would be doing a disservice to the people of this nation & to her post. The disgrace falls on those that continue to allow Bush & Co. to get their way, they've already driven US over the cliff do we need to let them drown US too? The recent Health Bill for children veto is just one more example of how little this Administration cares for it's people. They've no idea of what is best for this nation & they're so out of touch with the life of their everyday citizen that dying on their doorstep would only mean one more giant step to work their way over US!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:25 AM

Amazing as it may be, according to all the polls I have seen the last year or so, the Democratic Congress has about HALF the approval rating of the Bush Administration.

Go look at the NYTimes, and see what it says...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 10:49 AM

I doubt that's possible.

"Consider how President Bush has degraded the office of attorney general.

Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
His first choice, John Ashcroft, helped railroad undue restrictions of civil liberties through Congress after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Ashcroft apparently had some red lines and later rebuffed the White House when it pushed him to endorse illegal wiretapping. Then came Alberto Gonzales who, while he was White House counsel, helped to redefine torture, repudiate the Geneva Conventions and create illegal detention camps. As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales helped cover up the administration's lawless behavior in anti-terrorist operations, helped revoke fundamental human rights for foreigners and turned the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committee.

Mr. Gonzales resigned after his extraordinary incompetence became too much for even loyal Republicans. Now Mr. Bush wants the Senate to confirm Michael Mukasey, a well-respected trial judge in New York who has stunned us during the confirmation process by saying he believes the president has the power to negate laws and by not committing himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas. He also has suggested that he will not uphold standards of decency during wartime recognized by the civilized world for generations.

After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Mr. Mukasey refused to detail his views on torture, he submitted written answers to senators' questions that were worse than his testimony. They suggest that he, like Mr. Gonzales, would enable Mr. Bush's lawless behavior and his imperial attitude toward Congress and the courts.

In a letter to the 10 Democrats on the committee, Mr. Mukasey refused to say whether he considered waterboarding (a method of extracting information by making a prisoner believe he is about to be drowned) to be torture. He said he found it "repugnant," but could not say whether it is illegal until he has been briefed on the interrogation programs that Mr. Bush authorized at Central Intelligence Agency prisons.

This is a crass dodge. Waterboarding is torture and was prosecuted as such as far back as 1902 by the United States military when used in a slightly different form on insurgents in the Philippines. It meets the definition of torture that existed in American law and international treaties until Mr. Bush changed those rules. Even the awful laws on the treatment of detainees that were passed in 2006 prohibited the use of waterboarding by the American military.

And yet the nominee for attorney general has no view on whether it would be legal for an employee of the United States government to subject a prisoner to that treatment? The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the C.I.A. to use waterboarding — a judgment that the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability...."

NY Times editorial 11-1-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 10:30 AM

They have had a consistantly lower rating than the Bush Administration, haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:58 AM

BB:

PErhaps you should start a thread on the topic of popular views of the Democratic Congress.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 07:09 AM

From the Washington Post:

Committee of One

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, November 1, 2007; Page A21

A story told in cloakrooms of the House of Representatives shows how ironic life on Capitol Hill can be. Jim McCrery, the low-key, hardworking ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, has spent all year trying to establish good relations with the tax-writing committee's first Democratic chairman in 12 years, Charles Rangel. He succeeded, only to discover that Rangel does not really run Ways and Means. Nancy Pelosi does.

Rangel, a crafty New York politician, so far looks like the weakest Ways and Means chairman during my 50 years in Washington. That's only because Pelosi so far is the most powerful speaker of the House during that same period, a reality obscured by her historic role as the first woman to hold that office. She does not confer with or defer to standing committee chairmen, whose predecessors made previous speakers dance to their tune.

On both sides of the aisle, the 67-year-old grandmother from San Francisco is referred to as the "Committee of One" who rules the House. Many speakers over the years relied on their majority leader, as Republican Dennis Hastert let Tom DeLay handle day-to-day operations. But not Pelosi, who actually opposed Steny Hoyer's election as majority leader.

Ruling absolutely does not mean all Democrats think she rules well. Her misguided effort to pass a resolution condemning the 1915 Armenian genocide constitutes a rare public blunder, but beyond that she has not crafted a coherent Democratic message. This month's Harris Poll puts her nationwide job disapproval ("fair" or "poor") at 57 percent. But she is an icon at the Democratic grass roots, and none of the committee chairmen who have been downgraded by her -- certainly not Rangel -- utters a word of public criticism.

Rangel's massive tax reform proposal, released last week, gets less respect than is normally accorded to a Ways and Means chairman's plan, because Pelosi is not on board. Rangel's desire to compromise with the Bush administration on international trade agreements has been frustrated because the speaker defers to Rangel's trade subcommittee chairman, Sander Levin, who follows organized labor's protectionist line.

Much the same treatment has been experienced by John Dingell, the senior member of Congress, as Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. In bygone days, Dingell deferred to neither Democratic presidents nor speakers. But Pelosi is determined to pass an energy bill this year even though it means crossing Dingell, who as a Detroiter opposes Californian Pelosi on vehicle mileage and emission standards. A sage old professional, Dingell knows there is no political profit in publicly clashing with Madam Speaker.

No committee chairman wants to take the risk of going public against Pelosi, including one who sought her advice -- and, hopefully, support -- on a controversial matter of House business. This anonymous chairman was rebuffed by the speaker, who declined to talk to him, in person or over the telephone.

Being the "Committee of One" does not mean Pelosi is without lieutenants. She is close to two fellow Californians, both fiercely partisan, who head committees: George Miller (Education and Labor) and Henry Waxman (Oversight and Government Reform). Miller is regarded as her consigliere, always at her side. She is also considered close to moderate chairmen Ike Skelton (Armed Services) and John Spratt (Budget), plus liberal chairman Barney Frank (Financial Services).

That does not mean, however, that she always takes their advice. Witness her big blunder as speaker. Skelton, a seasoned student of international relations, told her the Armenian resolution would antagonize Turkey and thus constituted a foreign policy debacle in the making. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also opposed it (as he had when serving as President Bill Clinton's political aide). Pelosi insisted until some 45 House Democrats -- including Skelton -- opposed her.

The Armenian episode suggests a Pelosi decision has to approach the brink of disaster before Democrats speak out. Her popularity in the party beyond Capitol Hill is too great. When I asked one esteemed Democratic operative whether Pelosi's authority is without restraint, he called that a sexist question because I never would have asked that about Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill. Indeed, I would not have. They were not that powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

Mission Accomplished, II
By The Editorial Board
Karen Hughes, a close confidante of President Bush, announced today that she is leaving her job as undersecretary of state, where she was responsible for improving America's reputation and standing overseas.

Ms. Hughes used a variety of techniques, including dispatching the figure skater Michelle Kwan as a good-will ambassador.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, America's popularity in the world has slid during the Bush Administration, especially in the Muslim world. Favorable opinion of the United States in Indonesia fell from 75 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2006, and in Turkey, it fell from 52 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2006.

While Ms. Hughes was hardly a success in her job, we think the precipitous drop in America's standing has more to do with President Bush's unnecessary and incompetently managed invasion of Iraq and the way he has mistreated prisoners in American detention camps than Ms. Hughes's lack of good ideas about how to spin that reality.

(NY Times Editorial Board)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 10:32 AM

Wal, Homey, I hope that article is true; although they don't seem real strong on sources.

And they don't say whether they are referring to Al Queda, as seems to be the case, or Al Queda in Iraq.

Do you think it is true?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 11:33 PM

This cannot possibly true because everybody knows that the US war on terrorism is a miserable failure:

Al-Qaida shows signs of being in slow decline.
Midland Reporter-Telegram 10/30/2007

It is evident the terrorist organization known as al-Qaida still is working hard to disrupt the Western culture across the world, including in Iraq, but there are emerging signs the influence of the network is somewhat waning.

Oh sure, al-Qaida still is capable of carrying out devastating attacks in Iraq and other world venues, but the organization's structure pretty much has been disrupted. Al-Qaida continues to recruit Europeans for explosives training in Pakistan because Europeans can enter the United States more easily without a visa.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, "All across the Arab world, where al-Qaida had sought to build influence and bases of operation on the back of widespread anger against the U.S. over its war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism, the movement is now showing signs that it is stalled, if not in retreat."

In Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and other parts of Anbar Province, al-Qaida simply is gone. The al-Qaida network is having a hard time finding safe harbor anywhere in the world. And when they do it is in some remote area like Pakistan where they have local support among sympathtic tribal leaders.

Al-Qaida keeps limping along, popping up with these little groups here and there, causing trouble, producing a showdown, and then losing. Muslims in general are beginning to reject al-Qaida. Fewer and fewer Muslims are seeing al-Qaida as the organization seeking to defend the purity of the Muslim world.

This is not to say al-Qaida's recruiting efforts have stopped, but their efforts have been hindered. Suicide bombings in Iraq, for instance, still take place almost daily, but those attacks are down from 60 a month to 30 a month and less deadly overall. Also, the foreign flow of suicide bombers has dwindled as al-Qaida is finding fewer and fewer Muslims willing to give their lives for the cause.

The U.S. is doing something right in this war on terror, but that is the part of the story that is not being told. Al-Qaida increasingly is being sent underground and on the run. We understand successes in this area are hard to see and feel when there are still evidences of treacherous acts at every turn.

But this is a war that will be won by eliminating one piece of the puzzle at a time. It is tedious, costly and tests our resolve. We just hope we don't lose that resolve before the job is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:07 AM

Rhinholt Neebor

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

This Times Op-Ed is interesting enough to warrant inclusion here, particularly with its insights into the roots of "terrorism".

---

Montreal

MUCH as George W. Bush's presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush's presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.

Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.

The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.

The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.

By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.

Brissot understood the war as preventive — "une guerre offensive," he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war "between liberty and tyranny."

Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot's words, "a crusade for universal liberty."

Brissot's opponents were skeptical. "No one likes armed missionaries," declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.

The United States, France's "sister republic," refused to enter the war on France's side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.

Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.

Among the Jacobins' greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot's newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.

Even the Jacobins' dress distinguished "true patriots": those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.

Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.

To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government's police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — "domicilary visits," they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, "when the homeland is in danger."

Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the "treacherous insinuations" cast by those who questioned "the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest." He warned his political opponents, "This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty." Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.

If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: "No liberty for the enemies of liberty." Saint-Just's pithy phrase (like President Bush's variant, "We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself") could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.

On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.

Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term "terrorist" has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to "Islamofascism."

A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:25 AM

Four years after his pointless invasion of Iraq, President Bush still confuses bullying with grand strategy. He refuses to do the hard work of diplomacy — or even acknowledge the disastrous costs of his actions. The Republican presidential candidates have apparently decided that the real commander in chief test is to see who can out-trash talk the White House on Iran.

The world should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there is no easy fix here, no daring surgical strike. Consider Natanz, the underground site where Iran is defying the Security Council by spinning a few thousand centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel. American bombers could take it out, but what about the even more sophisticated centrifuges the administration accuses Iran of hiding? Beyond the disastrous diplomatic and economic costs, a bombing campaign is unlikely to set back Iran's efforts for more than a few years. ...

(NY Times Monday Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 09:23 PM

Amazing what local initiative can do.

BTW, Homie, while the stories you have posted have a certain bias to them (such as failing to distinguish between Al Queda in Iraq and Al Queda itself) I see no reason to call them lies. I find them hopeful, actually. I suppose you are just being heavily sardonic and sarcastic. Not unusual for folks of the rightward stripe. But thanks, anyway for finding some positive tidbits.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM

More lies:
Ramadi war zone now rare bright spot KIM CURTIS, Associated Press Sun Oct 28

RAMADI, Iraq - For veterans of Ramadi, it seems like a different place and a different war. Just last year, soldiers were breaking down doors, hunting insurgents and struggling to secure the city block by block. U.S. troops now are invited into the homes of sheiks for lunch.

Life is not all good in this former Sunni extremist fiefdom about 70 miles west of Baghdad, but it's better. Today's worries aren't car bombs or shelling in the streets. There's peace enough to complain about the crippled electricity grid, dirty water, broken sewers. Marines and soldiers also have adopted different roles: urban planners, community relations managers and political operatives.

"We're knee-deep in counterinsurgency here," said Marine Capt. Brian Cillessen, who's in charge of a group of about 150 Marines living and working in a house they rent in southern Ramadi. "We came here with a very conventional mind-set. We weren't expecting this. ... I joined the Marine Corps to be a point man on a patrol," chuckled the San Juan, N.M., native.

Instead, Cillessen and his troops are conducting a census and registering weapons, repairing sewer systems, ensuring fuel for cooking and heat is sold for fair prices, approving contracts to build new schools, parks and playgrounds, and perhaps most important, cultivating relationships with Iraqi police and citizens. The violence in Anbar province is by no means over. So far this year 135 troops have died here — 16 percent of all military deaths in Iraq, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

But from 2004 through 2006, an average of 345 members of coalition forces died each year in Anbar province or about 41 percent of all military deaths. The decline of violence rests on a widening basis of trust. It's cultivated in handshakes, platters heaped with rice, chicken and lamb, cup after cup of sweet tea and clouds of cigarette smoke.

Anbar is a sprawling western province that includes Ramadi and stretches through mainly desert from near Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Last year, U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officials declared Anbar lost. "The social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" where U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency," according to a five-page report written in August 2006 by Col. Peter Devlin, a military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force.

The Sunni insurgency had sunk roots so deep in Anbar that the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front group, declared Ramadi its capital. "These guys were ruthless," said Col. John W. Charlton of Spokane, Wash., the American commander responsible for Ramadi. "They would come in and cut young men's heads off and drag their bodies through the streets."

An important turning point was the founding late last year of the Anbar Awakening Council by the charismatic Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. He united dozens of Sunni tribes against al-Qaida. Fed up with the violence and eager for revenge against al-Qaida members who killed 10 family members, including his father, Abu Risha persuaded citizens to join the police force. They did — in droves — despite past attacks against recruits.

"Sheiks see themselves as prominent leaders of the community. They recognize you have to have good, intelligent people running things," Charlton said. "(Abu Risha) wasn't saying, 'Do this for me.' He was saying, 'Do this for your family, for your country.'" There are now 8,000 police officers and 14 police stations in Ramadi, according to the U.S. military. That's compares with fewer than 200 officers in spring 2006.

"Al-Qaida was just reeling," Charlton said. "They lost their capital. They lost all their good areas around there. ... We essentially made a gated community out of a city of 300,000 people."

But al-Qaida struck its own shocking blow — killing Abu Risha last month. U.S. military leaders called the fatal bombing an inside job, organized by one of Abu Risha's bodyguards. All the alleged perpetrators were rounded up.

The sheik's death could easily have shattered the fragile peace.Instead, Charlton said, the people declared Abu Risha a martyr. His image now appears on posters in the streets, on walls in offices and on placards in car windshields. A parade was held in his honor on Oct. 23. Schoolgirls, bunches of silk flowers in one hand, waved the yellow flag of the Anbar Awakening, now renamed the Iraqi Awakening.

"People do feel the weight's off," said Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "Al-Qaida simply is gone." What remains of al-Qaida in the province is a contingent near Lake Tharthar, just north of Ramadi, according to Charlton, who initiated an attack there last week.

In Ramadi, fresh paint spruces up concrete barriers put up by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Shops selling meat, fruit, clothing, candy and cigarettes are open for business alongside crumbling buildings battered by gunfire. Children play alongside heaps of rubble from demolished buildings. Dozens of workmen wearing coveralls sweep streets, collect garbage and repair power lines. Uniformed police officers direct traffic. The city bustles with life from dawn to well-past sunset.

As U.S. troops walk patrols, they're swarmed by children asking for candy, chocolate or pencils. Basic phrases in Arabic — hello, how are you, what is your name — fly back and forth to the delight of both the children and adults. Attacks, including those by small-arms fire, explosive devices, have decreased from about 30 a day in January to fewer than one a day now, according to the U.S. military. Last year, during the holy month of Ramadan, there were 442 incidents in the area; this year, there were four, the military said.

Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha has taken over the movement from his slain younger brother. They were always close, talking daily while the elder brother ran family businesses in Dubai and the younger took care of things at home. Despite his loss, Ahmed Abu Risha seems to accept — though not relish — his new leadership role. His brother embraced the spotlight, but Ahmed seems to shy from it. He's soft-spoken, friendly, but not extroverted. He said he meets about 300 people a day who come looking for jobs, offering advice, asking for help. He is now on his first visit to the U.S., and plans to meet with President Bush.

"We are the only movement that is supported by all the people," he told The Associated Press. "We are the only people who fought al-Qaida and won. We are good fighters and we are good builders and now we want to rebuild this country."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:32 AM

Homey--

"...the leaders have failed to agree on key laws..."

And just what was the purpose of the "surge"? Would you mind refreshing our memories?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:01 PM

Now here is more propaganda and lies we have to deal with:

Sharp drop in violence seen in Iraq
Mon Oct 22, 2007 By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala, southwest of the capital.

Washington began sending reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.

While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling the violence.

Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighbourhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.

Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters there had been a 70 percent reduction in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September from the previous quarter.

In Baghdad, considered the epicentre of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had been a 28 percent drop in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.

"These figures show a gradual improvement in controlling the security situation," Khalaf said.

Data from the health, interior and defence ministries in September showed a 50 percent drop in civilian deaths across the country from August, when 1,773 fatalities were recorded.

The figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:53 PM

Interesting from a historical perspective.

But "sense of identification" and "trust in him"--at this point, with Bush, that don't compute. Not even the people running the Republican party identify with Bush--the search is on for a Republican anti-Bush.   Somebody competent, capable of thought--his own thought, not "a higher father". Somebody of integrity. Obvious choice: McCain--but he has sunk his own ship by, ironically enough, by loading it down with Bush's Iraq war.

So the Republicans continue to flounder--and founder.

And the country at large does not identify with the Bush "administration"--to say the least---so the danger of said group taking over on a permanent basis is not high, to put it mildly.

And I suspect many groups--not just Mudcatters-- are monitoring to make damn sure it doesn't happen. Which is perfectly understandable after all the abuses of the past 7 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

This is a small excerpt from a very interesting essay on the gradual subornment of people allayed in their suspicions.



A

---

They Thought They Were Free

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:16 PM

The OBVIOUS needs to be said from time to time...


What the establishment hopes to achieve is an amnesty for the corporation entities that obeyed the call to break the law.

After that, a scape goat to hang will be sought to deflect criminal charges away from the unelected policy makers and their political stooges like W.

Does anyone here really believe charges will stick to a Bush family member or if a multinational corporation will suffer fines or prison time over "privacy" issues ?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

>Priests Jailed for Protesting Fort Huachuca Torture Training
>    By Bill Quigley
>    t r u t h o u t | Report
>
>    Wednesday 24 October 2007
>
>    Louis Vitale, 75, a Franciscan priest, and Steve Kelly, 58, a Jesuit
>priest, were sentenced to five months each in federal prison for attempting
>to deliver a letter opposing the teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca in
>Arizona. Both priests were taken directly into jail from the courtroom after
>sentencing.
>
>    Fort Huachuca is the headquarters of military intelligence in the US and
>the place where military and civilian interrogators are taught how to
>extract information from prisoners. The priests attempted to deliver their
>letter to Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, commander of Fort Huachuca. Fast was
>previously the head of all military intelligence in Iraq during the
>atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
>
>    The priests were arrested while kneeling in prayer halfway up the
>driveway to Fort Huachuca in November 2006. Both priests were charged with
>trespassing on a military base and resisting orders of an officer to stop.
>
>    In a pre-trial hearing, the priests attempted to introduce evidence of
>torture, murder and gross violations of human rights in Afghanistan, at Abu
>Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo. The priests offered investigative reports
>from the FBI, the US Army, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and
>Physicians for Social Responsibility documenting hundreds of incidents of
>human rights violations. Despite increasing evidence of the use of torture
>by US forces sanctioned by President Bush and others, the federal court in
>Tucson refused to allow any evidence of torture, the legality of the
>invasion of Iraq, or international law to be a part of the trial.
>
>    Outside the courthouse, before the judge ordered them to prison, the
>priests explained their actions: "The real crime here has always been the
>teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca and the practice of torture around the
>world. We tried to deliver a letter asking that the teaching of torture be
>stopped and were arrested. We tried to put the evidence of torture on full
>and honest display in the courthouse and were denied. We were prepared to
>put on evidence about the widespread use of torture and human rights abuses
>committed during interrogations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in Iraq and
>Afghanistan. This evidence was gathered by the military itself and by
>governmental and human rights investigations."
>
>    Fr. Vitale, a longtime justice and peace activist in San Francisco and
>Nevada, said, "Because the court will not allow the truth of torture to be a
>part of our trial, we plead no contest. We are uninterested in a court
>hearing limited to who was walking where and how many steps it was to the
>gate. History will judge whether silencing the facts of torture is just or
>not. Far too many people have died because of our national silence about
>torture. Far too many of our young people in the military have been
>permanently damaged after following orders to torture and violate the human
>rights of other humans."
>
>    Fr. Kelly, who walked to the gates of Guantanamo with the Catholic
>Worker group in December of 2005, concluded, "We will keep trying to stop
>the teaching and practice of torture whether we are sent to jail or out. We
>have done our part for now. Now it is up to every woman and man of
>conscience to do their part to stop the injustice of torture."
>
>    The priests were prompted to protest by continuing revelations about the
>practice of torture by US military and intelligence officers. The priests
>were also deeply concerned after learning of the suicide in Iraq of a young,
>devout, female military interrogator, Alyssa Peterson of Arizona, shortly
>after arriving in Iraq. Peterson was reported to be horrified by the
>mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
>
>    Investigation also revealed Fort Huachuca was the source of infamous
>"torture manuals" distributed to hundreds of Latin American graduates of the
>US Army School of Americas at Fort Benning, GA. Demonstrations against the
>teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca have been occurring for the past
>several years each November and are scheduled again for November 16 and 17
>this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

President Bush is pressing the Senate to help him cover up his illegal wiretapping, and the Senate may well go along with his plan if they don't hear from you right away. 1

Here's what's going on: For years the Bush administration has been illegally spying on Americans' phone calls and emails with the willing assistance of big telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T. Lawsuits moving forward against these companies may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.2

So the White House is putting enormous pressure on Congress to give the phone companies retroactive immunity for all the laws they broke spying on innocent Americans. And some key Democrats are ready to go along!

Can you help us reach 250,000 signatures on this petition demanding that Congress reject the president's cover-up? The petition text is in the blue box on the right. Clicking the link below will add your name.

http://pol.moveon.org/noimmunity/o.pl?id=11473-7901518-_dxKVH&t=3

It seems hard to believe, but it's true. Just months after Congress capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear, they seem ready to do it again.

This happens again and again because politicians are afraid of being seen as weak on security—and because they buy the conventional wisdom that voters don't really care about constitutional freedoms.

But the truth is that voters understand something that Washington doesn't: There is no trade-off between fundamental liberties and security. In fact, a recent poll by our friends at the ACLU found that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress to exercise its oversight authority by forcing the Bush administration to get warrants before wiretapping Americans. Further, Americans strongly oppose giving lawbreaking phone companies amnesty for their actions.3

The New York Times put it perfectly this Saturday:

"The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism... This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It's about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they've broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable." 4

News reports indicate that Democratic senators agreed to give phone companies retroactive immunity after the Bush administration presented a one-sided case that these companies "acted in good faith."5

That's ridiculous. A judge appointed by President Bush Sr. wrote an opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."6

The bottom line is that President Bush is trying to cover up his own lawbreaking with this immunity.

We need Congress to stop him. Senator Chris Dodd has courageously vowed to block this bill if the immunity provision is not taken out.7 We need to make sure other members of Congress come out and support his strong stand.

If enough of us sign, we can make it plain just how broad the support for preserving the Constitution is.

http://pol.moveon.org/noimmunity/o.pl?id=11473-7901518-_dxKVH&t=4

Thanks for all you do,

–Nita, Tanya, Karin, Jennifer, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:46 PM

From the Washington Post:

Portents of A Nuclear Al-Qaeda

By David Ignatius
Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A25

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is paid to think about the unthinkable. As the Energy Department's director of intelligence, he's responsible for gathering information about the threat that a terrorist group will attack America with a nuclear weapon.

With his shock of white hair and piercing eyes, Mowatt-Larssen looks like a man who has seen a ghost. And when you listen to a version of the briefing he has been giving recently to President Bush and other top officials, you begin to understand why. He is convinced that al-Qaeda is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb that will leave the ultimate terrorist signature -- a mushroom cloud.

We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy. And truly, I wish I could dismiss Mowatt-Larssen's analysis as the work of an overwrought former CIA officer with too many years in the trenches.

But it's worth listening to his warnings -- not because they induce more numbing paralysis but because they might stir sensible people to take actions that could detect and stop an attack. That's why his boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is encouraging him to speak out. Mowatt-Larssen doesn't want to anguish later that he didn't sound the alarm in time.

Mowatt-Larssen has been gathering this evidence since a few weeks after Sept. 11, when then-CIA Director George Tenet asked him to create a new branch on weapons of mass destruction in the agency's counterterrorism center. He helped Tenet prepare the chapter on al-Qaeda's nuclear efforts that appears in Tenet's memoir, " At the Center of the Storm." Now that the uproar over Tenet's mistaken "slam dunk" assessment of the Iraqi threat has died down, it's worth rereading this account. It provides a chilling, public record of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions.

Mowatt-Larssen argues that for nearly a decade before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear device, according to testimony presented in federal court in February 2001. When the al-Qaeda leader was asked in 1998 if he had nuclear or chemical weapons, he responded: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so."

Even as al-Qaeda was preparing to fly its airplane bombs into buildings, the group was also trying to acquire nuclear and biological capabilities. In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. Al-Qaeda also had an aggressive anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001 after bin Laden was driven from his haven in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda proclaimed a religious rationale to justify the WMD attacks it was planning. In June 2002, a Kuwaiti-born cleric named Suleiman Abu Ghaith posted a statement on the Internet saying that "al-Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans" in retaliation for U.S. attacks against Muslims. And in May 2003, at the same time Saudi operatives of al-Qaeda were trying to buy three Russian nuclear bombs, a cleric named Nasir al-Fahd issued a fatwa titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." Interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives confirmed that the planning was serious. Al-Qaeda didn't yet have the materials for a WMD attack, but it wanted them.

Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know.

After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know.

So what to do about this spectral danger? The first requirement, says Mowatt-Larssen, is to try to visualize it. What would it take for al-Qaeda to build a bomb? How would it assemble the pieces? How would the United States and its allies deploy their intelligence assets so that they could detect a plot before it was carried out? How would we reinvent intelligence itself to avert this ultimate catastrophe?

A terrorist nuclear attack, as Tenet wrote in his book, would change history. If we can see how this story might end, perhaps we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:38 PM

If any of you are interested in avoiding World War III...
you could support bush's WW 2 1/2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 12:30 PM

Phone Companies Refuse to Turn Over Spying Info To Congress
Jason Mick (Blog) - October 18, 2007 9:00 AM



Your friendly phone company may have been listening to your calls.


Three top American telephone carriers -- Verizon, AT&T and Qwest -- have set what some believe may be an alarming precedent in refusing to turn over information on their wiretapping and snooping programs to the U.S. Congress.

A Congressional panel is investigating whether citizens' rights to privacy and personal freedoms were violated by executive branch mandated snooping programs, which allegedly monitor users' email and phone calls.

The phone companies claim they want to release the information, but can't. They say that other branches of the government are preventing them from releasing the information about the Bush administration's spy programs to Congress.

AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts wrote a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee stating, "Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities."

Congress had request three specific pieces of information. The first was what information the carriers had turned over to government organizations without warrant. The second question was whether they were compensated for any such occurrences. The third question was whether they had installed any equipment for the express purpose of intercepting user emails or calls.

The three major carriers all claimed they were not at liberty to discuss any of these details. All three carriers did submit limited reports to Congress, which did not contain any of the requested information.

Representative Ed Markey, D. Massachusetts, leads the telecommunications subcommittee and is among the congressional lawmakers frustrated by the carriers' refusal and the executive branch's secrecy. He voiced his frustration in a public statement. "The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past time for the administration to come clean."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 12:24 PM

Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Oct 17, 2007
(ABC News)
   
   (Reuters) - Deepening unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush's approval rating to another record low this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 -- the second consecutive month it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.

Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low.

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.

---

Hey -- 24 per cent of American voters can't be wrong, can they? I mean, that's such a big number of people!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 11:13 AM

"Indeed, Mr. Bush, rather than taking all that unity and using it to rebuild America for the 21st century, took all that unity and used it to push the narrow agenda of his "base." He used all that unity to take a far-right agenda on taxes and social issues that was going nowhere on 9/10 and drive it into a 9/12 world.

Never has so much national unity — which could have been used to develop a real energy policy, reverse our coming Social Security deficit, assemble a lasting coalition to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe even get a national health care program — been used to build so little. That is what historians will note most about Mr. Bush's tenure — the sheer wasted opportunity of it all.

Yes, Iraq was always going to be hugely difficult, but the potential payoff of erecting a decent, democratizing government in the heart of the Arab world was also enormous. Yet Mr. Bush, in his signature issue, never mobilized the country, never punished incompetence, never made the bad guys "fight all of us," as Bill Maher put it, by at least pushing through a real energy policy to reduce the resources of the very people we were fighting. He thought he could change the world with 50.1 percent of the country, and he couldn't."...
From here.


Worth the reading.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

In an editorial today, the NY Times looks over the "truthiness" of Bush's claims on reasons for electronic eavesdropping:

"As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on electronic eavesdropping, the White House is pumping out the same fog of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress this summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any change would deny the government critical information, make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it harder "to save American lives."

There is no truth to any of those claims. No matter how often Mr. Bush says otherwise, there is also no disagreement from the Democrats about the need to provide adequate tools to fight terrorists. The debate is over whether this should be done constitutionally, or at the whim of the president.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, requires a warrant to intercept international communications involving anyone in the United States. A secret court has granted these warrants quickly nearly every time it has been asked. After 9/11, the Patriot Act made it even easier to conduct surveillance, especially in hot pursuit of terrorists.

But that was not good enough for the Bush team, which was determined to use the nation's tragedy to grab ever more power for its vision of an imperial presidency. Mr. Bush ignored the FISA law and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and e-mail between people abroad and people in the United States without a warrant, as long as "the target" was not in this country.

The president did not announce his decision. He allowed a few lawmakers to be briefed but withheld key documents. The special intelligence court was in the dark until The Times disclosed the spying in December 2005.

Mr. Bush still refused to stop. He claimed that FISA was too limiting for the Internet-speed war against terror. But he never explained those limits and rebuffed lawmakers' offers to legally accommodate his concerns.

This year, the administration found an actual problem with FISA: It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on communications between foreigners that go through computers in the United States. It was a problem that did not exist in 1978, and it had an easy fix. But Mr. Bush's lawyers tacked dangerous additions onto a bill being rushed through Congress before the recess. When the smoke cleared, Congress had fixed the real loophole, but also endorsed the idea of spying without court approval. It gave legal cover to more than five years of illegal spying.

Fortunately, the law is to expire in February, and some Democratic legislators are trying to fix it. House members have drafted a bill, which is a big improvement but still needs work. The Senate is working on its bill, and we hope it will show the courage this time to restore the rule of law to American surveillance programs.

There are some red lines, starting with the absolute need for court supervision of any surveillance that can involve American citizens or others in the United States. The bill passed in August allowed the administration to inform the FISA court about its methods and then issue blanket demands for data to communications companies without any further court approval or review.

The House bill would permit the government to conduct surveillance for 45 days before submitting it to court review and approval. (Mr. Bush is wrong when he says the bill would slow down intelligence gathering.) After that, ideally, the law would require a real warrant. If Congress will not do that, at a minimum it must require spying programs to undergo periodic audits by the court and Congress. The administration wants no reviews.

Mr. Bush and his team say they have safeguards to protect civil liberties, meaning surveillance will be reviewed by the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the inspectors general of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. There are two enormous flaws in that. The Constitution is based on the rule of law, not individuals; giving such power to any president would be un-American. And this one long ago showed he cannot be trusted."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:20 AM

When the Democrats selected Graeme Frost, a 12 year old, to represent the protest against Bushian wrongheadedness on the SChip veto, the Republicans went into high gear to slime the boy, his family, and those they represent.

In Sliming Graeme Frost, Paul Krugman lays these tactics plainly out on the table. He concludes,

"All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're "phony soldiers"; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.

I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children. "

---

While distortive rhetoric is not the sole province of the Republicans, it is evident that they are the major hatemongers in their preferred style, the inventors of "swift boating" which relies on chest beating and hollering false pushbutton assertions designed to make stimulus-response mechanos out of thinking citizens. Generating groundless nasty rumors seems to be a Rovian sphere of expertise.

There was a time in the nation's past when an underlying respect for truth was used as a basis for debate. Or at least, I believed there was such a time. If not, now would be a good time to start.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:58 AM

I think this little excerpt from a longer editorial in the NYT is important.

"Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis of the effect of a tax cut on economic growth and tax revenues. It found that even under the rosiest of assumptions, cutting taxes led, inevitably, to lower revenues and a bigger deficit. But perhaps those assumptions were not rosy enough for the Republican presidential candidates."

The rest of the editorial is about the rose-colored unreality in which Giuliani and similar Repub hopefuls seem to be indulging. It can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 12:50 PM

An interesting column on the NY Times revelation about torture, and a link to a mighty fine explanation of the media's reaction to it by Steven Colbert, no less, can be found on this page of a Blog called Brad. Recommended.

Bush's so-called Justice Department has done more to corrode and ruin the American ideal of justice than the Mississippi legal system in the 1930s.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:21 AM

Defibulators do not keep people from fibbing, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

On Torture and American Values

Published: October 7, 2007
Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper's front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined "torture" to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush's loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the "reality-based community" — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the "opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality" of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 01:34 PM

New Heart Device Allows Cheney To Experience Love October 3, 2007 | Issue 43•40

(NOTE: The following is a humorous, fictional article. Mister Cheney has had no such experience.)
   
WASHINGTON, DC—Recovering from minor heart surgery Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney stunned both the medical and political establishments when he mysteriously began to experience love for the first time in his life, sources reported Tuesday.


A replaced defibrillator is having unexpected effects on the vice president, as this photo taken Monday reveals.
It is believed to have been the first recorded incident of Cheney exhibiting compassion for his fellow man.

Calling the vice president's sudden ability to love "mystifying" but a possible medical breakthrough that could aid other Americans who suffer from acute mulishness and generalized misanthropy, Dr. Jonathan Samuel Reiner, Cheney's cardiologist, said in a press conference at George Washington University Hospital that the vice president exhibited a series of unexpected side effects almost immediately after regaining consciousness following his surgery. ...
(From the Onion)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 09:53 AM

Paul Krugman discusses the notion that the shocking deficits in responsibility and competence demonstrated by the Bush administration are actually perfectly consistent with the conservative legacy and tradition.

Go figger...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 11:21 AM

The Washington Post contemplates whether or not the Bush administration does torture people in fact, despite lip-service to the contrary:

"The Bush administration's secret legal decisions defy Congress and the courts.
Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page B06


PRESIDENT BUSH said Friday, as he has many times before, that "this government does not torture people." But presidential declarations can't change the facts. The record shows that Mr. Bush and a compliant Justice Department have repeatedly authorized the CIA to use interrogation methods that the rest of the world -- and every U.S. administration before this one -- have regarded as torture: techniques such as simulated drowning, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and prolonged standing.

The New York Times reported last week that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued two classified memos in 2005 to justify techniques that the Central Intelligence Agency had used when interrogating terrorism suspects abroad -- and to undercut a law passed by Congress that outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." Those opinions form part of a continuing pattern, beginning in 2002 and extending until this past summer, of secret -- and highly questionable -- legal judgments by Bush-appointed lawyers intended to circumvent U.S. law, treaty commitments, legislation passed by Congress and Supreme Court decisions -- all of which should have prevented the abuse of prisoners.

The administration has essentially been operating its own clandestine legal system, unaccountable to Congress or the courts. The resulting violations of basic human rights have cost the country incalculable prestige abroad and put its own citizens in danger of being subjected to similarly harsh treatment. That is particularly true since July, when Mr. Bush signed an executive order that allowed the CIA to resume using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on prisoners after a hiatus of more than 18 months.

For nearly six years, Congress has failed to take effective action against these abuses. Predictably, lawmakers are now calling for the administration to release the two Justice Department memos from 2005. Fair enough, but the relevance of those documents has been diminished by last year's passage of the Military Commissions Act, which contained new, if inadequate, strictures on prisoner treatment. Mr. Bush's executive order of July was tailored to that law; while some techniques, such as simulated drowning, have been dropped, others are again in use...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 11:12 AM

"With many Iraqis still seething after Blackwater guards killed as many as 17 people two weeks ago, it is evident that Blackwater and other security contractors are undermining the military's efforts to win over Iraqis.

Now an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has underscored the lavish extent of Blackwater's payments and its relationship to the Bush administration. The committee, which held hearings on the use of security contractors in Iraq yesterday, should investigate these links further.

Former Bush administration officials are peppered throughout Blackwater's highest executive positions. Erik Prince, the former Navy Seal who founded the company, was a White House intern under President George H. W. Bush and has been a Republican financier since, with more than $225,000 in political contributions.

Mr. Prince's sister, Betsy DeVos, is a former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party and a "pioneer" who raised $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004. Her husband, the former Amway chief executive Richard DeVos Jr., was the Republican nominee for governor of Michigan in 2006.

Mr. Prince denied yesterday that his connections had anything to do with it, but he certainly has done well under the Bush administration. Federal contracts account for about 90 percent of the revenue of Prince Group holdings, of which Blackwater is a subsidiary. Since 2001, when it made less than $1 million in federal contracts, Blackwater has received more than $1 billion in such contracts — including at least one with the State Department for hundreds of millions of dollars that was awarded without open, competitive bidding."

Hmmmm...lack of moral fiber at the top levels of American leadership? Political prostitution in high places?

Shocking...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 11:04 AM

More on the blandishments of Bush on the SCHIP veto:

"Misleading Spin on Children's Health
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: October 5, 2007
Trying to justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush and his staff have fired a barrage of misinformation about this valuable program. Before the House votes on whether to override the veto, all members — especially those from Mr. Bush's party who say they are concerned about millions of uninsured children — must look behind the rhetoric.

Mr. Bush stretched the truth considerably when he told an audience in Lancaster, Pa., that he has long been a strong supporter of the S-chip program. "I supported it as governor, and I support it as president of the United States," he said. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush fought — unsuccessfully — to restrict the state's program to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, well below the 200 percent allowed by federal law. As president, he is again trying to shrink the program for the entire country. His proposed five-year budget does not provide enough to continue enrollments at current levels, let alone cover millions of the uninsured."...


It looks like his propensity for feeding the American public horse--manure is unchecked; he has not reflected on his need for penance or sought to change his lying ways. He is a reprobate, and he is incorrigible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 10:58 AM

I have often argued that one of the major blind spots in estimating the effort of the invasion of Iraq by Bush and Co. was the shattering of American lives in those exposed to brutality and violence, after they returned -- if they did.

The NY Times has an interesting editorial today, with some preliminary sizing up of this problem.

An excerpt:

"Slogging on the Home Front
Published: October 6, 2007

It's more painfully clear that wounded soldiers who seek disability care and benefits face bureaucratic chaos worthy of an infernal ring from Dante. Seven months after news accounts detailed the appalling neglect of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressional investigators have found promised repairs already lagging at the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs.

It still takes almost half a year for the average veteran's claim for disability benefits to be decided in a tortuous process that can involve four separate hearings. The promised pilot program to make a single efficient system out of dueling military and veterans bureaucracies — the knotty heart of a mammoth backlog running into hundreds of thousand of cases — should have begun last month. Now the promise is slipping into next year. At the same time, the Army's plan for creating special "warrior transition units" to deliver more personalized care at 32 national centers is bedeviled by staff shortages that mean close to half of the eligible troops are unable to get the service...."

In another strong op-ed piece, Mario Cumo urges Congress to reestablish the Consitutional authority that requires Congress be the sole voice in declaring a war. I think it is terribly important that we not allow the executive branch to abrogate that critical judgement. Cuomo's ideas on the matter are found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,pops
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:04 AM

Bush is a mother fucking asshole. He should have sent his goons down to NO and forcibly evacuated everybody instead of thinking the local authorities would do it. How stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 11:52 PM

Conservatives Are Such Jokers

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2007
NY Times

"...And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending — which fails to reach many children — he declared that "when they say, well, poor children aren't being covered in America, if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that."

It's not just the poor who find their travails belittled and mocked. The sick receive the same treatment.

Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox's affliction was obvious.

And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers" and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. "In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." Heh-heh-heh.

Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon," once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family," and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that's when he's speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared "zero tolerance of people breaking the law," even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren't getting from his administration.

What's happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don't belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples' woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn "socialism," which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if you're poor or you're sick or you don't have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny."

Krugman, columnist, NY Times, 10-5-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 02:15 PM

I have not heard any comment on the fact that it was not Moveon.org that first used the phrase 'General Betray Us'.

Frank Rich, columnist on The New York Times, used it in July.

It might have been the caption- done by the caption writer - rather than in the body of the column. I don't remember. But it was most definitely there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

The Politics of Confidence
            

By ROGER COHEN
Published: October 1, 2007

The unpopularity of George W. Bush has led many to believe global America-hating will ebb once he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. That's a dangerous assumption.

It's dangerous because the extent of American power will continue to invite resentment whoever is in the White House, and because America's perception of the terrorist threat will still differ from that of its Asian and European allies. Asians are focused on growth, Europeans on integration: different priorities cause friction.

The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credibility is too severe to be quickly undone. The net loss of Western influence over the world means the ability of Bush's successor to shape events is diminished.

Still, the next U.S. leader will enjoy a honeymoon. To prolong it, several steps are essential. The most critical is a switch from the politics of anxiety to the politics of confidence.

Bush and Cheney never emerged from the 9/11 bunker. Their attack-dog snarl alienated a globe asked to step in line or step aside. The expectation of fealty must give way to the entertainment of dissent.

The next leader has to be curious. Presidential body language needs to say "I'm one of you." Facebook engagement must supplant fearful estrangement.

---

I wondered today what it would be like if we bit the bullet, in December 2008, pulled the armed forces out of Iraq, reconfigured our counter-terrorism operations to high-speed small operations backed with excellent intel, and diverted the billions that Bush has cost us by making a global war out of it since 9-11 into an all-out assault on our own environmental footprint, energy independence of the nation being a first priority.

If we refused to be drawn into wasting out national substance by what are essentially criminal acts (even big dramatic ones like 9-11), and instead focused on making what is great even better, what is shoody into what is good about our infrastructure, how much better off would we be after five years, or ten? And by 2020, when the fruits of our efforts had begun to roll out into widespread application?

Using hatefulness, greed, cronyism and fear-mongering as a substitute for vision, positive planning, actions drawn from principle, and a will to make things better is a great confession on the part of Bush-types the country wide -- a confession of moral rot, a failure to imagine, and a squirming adhesion to self-importance over all things.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:18 AM

Today's NY Times reports:

"BAGHDAD (AP) -- Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilian deaths fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.

The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.

A total of 64 American forces died in September -- the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.

The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq's ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.

In August, AP figures showed 1,809 civilians and 155 police and Iraqi soldiers were killed in sectarian violence.

The civilian death toll has not been so low since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

''There is no silver bullet or one thing that equates as a reason to the drop in Iraqi and Coalition casualties and deaths,'' said Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus.

But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that has allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq."

---

It's really nice that the death toll among Iraqi civilians is down to less than 2000 per month.At the cost of only 65 American lives per month! Surely, in the grim economics of warfighting, this is a major bargain! These are figures American can live with, don't you think? Pardon my sarcasm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 09:54 AM

"Reform feels good, take it from me. To correct course and avoid the reef and find clear sailing is the great tonic of life. A man grows a beard for the pleasure of cutting it off. And now I have the pleasure of boycotting bottled water for tap.

There is much we do not understand - power cords in the briefcase, for example: you set them in neatly and a few hours later they are completely entangled with each other, and who knows why? - but the stupidity of buying bottled water in America is easily grasped by even the dullest.

And now, if liberals can cut consumption of foreign water, then maybe conservatives can start to face up to the disaster they visited on this country with the election of the Current Occupant. None of the current Republican hopefuls can quite bring himself to do this.

Face it. When you push an incompetent frat boy on the country, what you get is what has happened.

Republicans prize loyalty above all things, so the Republican Congress carried the White House water for years, not bothering with any sort of oversight, but loyalty to the Occupant now is like marriage to a drunk, a very iffy proposition. If they can't get a grasp on this, the Republicans can't win in 2008."

Garrison Keillor, host of the public radio program "A Prairie Home Companion." This article was distributed by Tribune Media Services

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 09:00 PM

Three Cheers!


PORTLAND, Ore. Sep 26, 2007 (AP)

Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.



U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."