BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:09 PM

The Progress Report analyzes the failing state and the problematic war that are the popular image of Iraq.

Beginning with the invasion and the Mission Accomplished gaffe, the Bush administration has badly bungled one after another aspects of the nation's strategies vis-a-vis Iraq. Where Iraq is capable of going and under what conditions is a thorny problem.

I would hate to be the Democratic president to inherit this quagmire. One heck of a job, Georgie.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:36 PM

A compelling summary of the Bush administration's Mesopotamian failures and current lack of action.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM

"...Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That's how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

"It's a disaster," says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. "Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take 'Congressional risk.' They say if you don't get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects."

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point "where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics" that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — "but that's exactly what is happening." If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won't be made.

...

New York TImes editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:55 PM

An excellent discussion of Pentagon Psy-Ops in America by Chuck Spinney. He examines the long term PR and black PR operations used by the Pentagon to meddle with the Fourth Estate and the US citizen's world-view to gain popular support for war -- a most insidious and evil program, but well established practice.

"Add 9-11 to the the hi-tech art of spin control, together with unscrupulous political leaders like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and a self-organizing neo-Hitlerian brew of fear reinforced by hi-tech propaganda was probably inevitable. That this short sighted mixture of policies shaping the domestic dimensions of our grand strategy is now clearly a central theme in the so-called long war on terror is now beyond doubt. It virtually guarantees an eventual breakdown in cohesion at home... the beginnings of which are already becoming evident.

A grand strategy that pumps up internal cohesion through lies and deception is always a loser over the long term, because as Lincoln reportedly said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." On the other hand, in a culture dumbed down by the sound byte mentality of the mainstream media, it may take a long time and a huge waste of blood and treasure to reach Lincoln's end state, particularly when the propaganda machine hosing the American people is run by a voluntary, not to mention enthusiastic, cooperation by the majority of the fourth estate establishment, with only a few exceptions, like the McClatchey newspapers...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM

From The New Yorker:

"A young friend recently served fifteen months as a combat infantryman at an isolated patrol base in the nasty farmlands south of Baghdad. One day, he was enjoying a hot meal in the chow hall at a nearby forwarding operating base, when Condoleezza Rice appeared on the TV screen saying that the violence in Iraq hadn't reached the point at which random bodies were turning up in the streets. The noise of dozens of hungry soldiers eating came to a stop. Some of them exchanged glances, but no one said a word. Since my friend, while out on patrol, regularly came across the corpses of tortured and murdered Iraqi civilians, he wondered if the Secretary of State was dissembling or deluded. It was, he let me know, a bad moment for him and his buddies.

I thought of this story when I read the transcript of an interview last Friday with President Bush by Martha Raddatz, of ABC. Bush, under the kind of questioning he rarely gets, admitted that in 2006, with violence soaring, he worried that the mission in Iraq might be headed for failure. But, in order to keep up morale among the troops, he kept insisting at the time that we were "winning." Phillip Carter (whose excellent blog Intel Dump has just been picked up by the Washington Post) was serving as an Army adviser to the Iraqi courts during those grim months; I spent a few days at his compound in downtown Baquba in early 2006. He writes that he isn't cheered to learn of the President's solicitousness for his state of mind:

All through this period, I remember the President, his senior aides and senior military commanders toeing the party line that things were going swimmingly. The dissonance between the rhetoric from Washington and our experience in Iraq was stark. We knew the ground truth. Being deceived by our senior political leaders certainly didn't change that, nor did it help morale at all. If anything, it hurt morale by undermining confidence in the chain of command. Put bluntly, if you can't trust your generals and political leaders to tell you and your families the truth, how can you trust them at all?

I would argue that the morale-boosting the President now credits himself with did even more harm than that. It wasn't as though the White House was feverishly correcting in private the problems that it refused to acknowledge publicly for fear of crushing the spirit of Captain Phillip Carter. Instead, while Iraq descended into a death spiral, Bush continued for months, even years, to pursue the bankrupt strategy of handing over responsibility from an undermanned American military to an Iraqi army that was incapable of holding ground. I've been told by a former White House official that the President had misgivings but remained confident in the strategy's author, Donald Rumsfeld. When I interviewed Rice in early 2006 and asked her whether the strategy might be headed for failure, she dismissed the possibility: "Even though there is violence, there is a process that is moving, I think rather inexorably, actually, toward an outcome that will one day bring a stable Iraq."

This wasn't morale-boosting. It was what the Administration calls strategic communications, otherwise known as political propaganda. And, in the end, it became self-delusion. You can't keep lying to the troops and the public without eventually believing your own words. This, in turn, makes it impossible to analyze and correct mistakes. It ensures failure, and failure kills morale...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:52 AM

"White House aides had billed President BushÕs Rose Garden speech last week as a major turning point at which the president would unveil an ambitious set of proposals to address the problem of global warming Ñ a late-breaking act of atonement, as it were, for seven years of doing nothing.

Sadly, Mr. BushÕs ideas amounted to the same old stuff, gussied up to look new. Instead of trying to make up for years of denial and neglect, his speech seemed cynically designed to prevent others from showing the leadership he refuses to provide Ñ to derail Congress from imposing a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and the states from regulating emissions on their own." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:44 PM

Pelosi Plans $178 Billion Blank Check for Iraq

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."

That's not from the peace movement - it's from the NationalÊDefense University, written by a senior Pentagon official who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

Yet despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people, Speaker Pelosi plans to rush a vote through Congress for anotherÊ$178 billion blank check.

We must stop this madness. Tell Congress: No More Funds for Iraq
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/124?ad=d1

Activists around the country are organizing Iraq Town Halls so we can speak directly

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 12:46 PM

Oh, and speaking of trusating military representativves:

"Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008, at 5:33 AM ET

The New York Times leads with a 7,500-word expose of the Pentagon "message machine," a concerted effort by the Department of Defense to spread the Bush administration's Iraq talking points by briefing supposedly independent retired commanders for network and cable television appearances.

The NYT successfully sued the Department of Defense to gain access to thousands of emails and internal documents relating to its posse of military T.V. commentators. The 8,000 pages of information "reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated." These "military experts" often communicated with the Pentagon to receive the latest agenda before going on camera, and some used the inside information to assist private companies in obtaining military contracts. More unfortunately, "members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access." Several of the purported military experts express regret over their actions, while the Pentagon defends the operation as a genuine effort to inform the American people. The networks, with the sole exception of CNN, refused to comment."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:31 AM

I remember as little as eight years back, a certain sense of respect I held for the need to keep things secret in Gummint work; especially intel, and perhaps more important, the means of acquiring intel, especially in hostile dealings.

Remember the boy who cried "Wolf!!"? That feelilng is long gone, as a result of a string of egregious abuses, to the point where I am not sure there is any rationale of weight for keeping critical information from the public. If there is, though, and maybe certain key processes, sources, agents, and data might qualify, is there any legitimate reason to keep the same information from a qualified and proven judge? If we can't trust a cArefully chosen representative of the judiciary, why should we be able to trust a military officer?
God knows, we can't trust the current President, Vice-President, SecState, the past SecDef. the SecInt, or the Motherland Fatherland Homeland Security buffoons.

From today's NY Times:

"...Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the administration undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks and balances. It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the State Secrets Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder for this or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid exposure of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes important safeguards. But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would require them to first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is invoked — rather than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed.

To allow cases to go forward, judges would also be given authority to order the government to produce unclassified or redacted versions of the evidence.

Not surprisingly, the administration is trying to defeat this essential reform. In a recent letter to the Senate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised the prospect of a veto and insisted that the president — and not the courts — must have the final say over when and whether the privilege applies. Incredibly, and with no legal basis, he also expressed doubt that Congress has the power to mandate closer review of state secrets claims. "

Oh, maybe we should add the present AG and past AG to those listed.

Ya gotta wonder what the hell is the matter with these people.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

"In the name of fighting terrorism — and with a clear goal of avoiding accountability — the Bush administration has imposed a level of secrecy on its operations that has no place in a democracy.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (54) »
One of its most disturbing tactics has been seeking early dismissal of lawsuits alleging serious government misconduct, claiming they would reveal national security secrets. The Senate is now considering a good bill that would rein in this misuse of the state secrets privilege and give victims fair access to the courts and the public a fuller understanding of their government's actions.

In recent years, a number of important lawsuits have raised credible allegations of government abuses including torture, kidnapping, rendition and domestic eavesdropping. All too often, judges have blocked these suits without examining how and why going forward would compromise the nation's security.

Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the administration undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks and balances. It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the State Secrets Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder for this or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid exposure of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes important safeguards. But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would require them to first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is invoked — rather than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed. ...

" NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:30 AM

MEanwhile, up Sonoma way, there's humor in the vineyard yet:

"Congressional candidate asks for papal exorcism of Bush, Cheney
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/17/2008 01:15:20 AM PDT




Just hours after Pope Benedict XVI arrived at the White House on Wednesday, North Coast congressional hopeful Mitch Clogg pleaded for his help.

"Your Holiness," Clogg wrote on his blog, "please exorcise the president."

Clogg, who also called for a papal exorcism on Vice President Dick Cheney, is challenging Congressman Mike Thompson for his seat representing the North Coast in the Capitol.

On Wednesday, Clogg elaborated on his papal plea from his Mendocino office, talked about why at 69 he's throwing his cap into the congressional ring and why he feels Thompson is unfit to represent his district.

Identified on the June primary ballot as a public interest journalist, Clogg said he's had too many jobs to name: White collar jobs, blue collar jobs and government jobs, but he's always enjoyed researching and writing. The recent note on his blog, he said, wasn't meant too seriously and was aimed in part to highlight a piece of his district integrally involved in the papal White House visit.

"That was a wise crack, but the fact of the matter is that it is a wine produced in this district that is getting poured in honor of the pope," Clogg said, adding that the wine is Sonoma's Sebastiani Vineyards and Winery's 2005 Dutton Ranch Chardonnay.

While he labeled the post as a wise crack, Clogg didn't entirely dismiss it.

"These men are evil," he said of Bush and Cheney. "It's not just a
bad president and vice president, we've never had anything like this where the country is being run by a criminal syndicate. It seems like these guys ought to be tarred and feathered, literally, on their way to prison."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM

WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - About 300,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, but about half receive no care, an independent study said on Thursday.

The study by the RAND Corp. also estimated that another 320,000 troops have sustained a possible traumatic brain injury during deployment. But researchers could not say how many of those cases were serious or required treatment.

Billed as the first large-scale nongovernmental survey of its kind, the study found that stress disorder and depression afflict 18.5 percent of the more than 1.5 million U.S. forces who have deployed to the two war zones.

The numbers are roughly in line with previous studies. A February assessment by the U.S. Army that showed 17.9 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from acute stress, depression or anxiety in 2007, down from 19.1 percent in 2006.

But the 500-page RAND study, based in part on interviews with more than 1,900 soldiers, sailors and Marines, also said that only half of troops suffering debilities receive care. And in half of those cases, the care is only minimally adequate.

"There is a major health crisis facing those men and women who have served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Terri Tanielian, a RAND researcher who helped head the study.

"Unless they receive appropriate and effective care for these mental health conditions, there will be long-term consequences for them and for the nation."

---

I made the point repeatedly in earlier threads relating to the Bush War that this huge cost to our national human resource was never predicted byany of the men who should have known better, and they left this tragic aftermath to be cared for by the careless winds of chance. This is cruelty unbecoming a dictator.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 10:06 PM

What would YOU do with three trillion dollars?


Grim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:41 PM

On Friday, GeorgeÊBush told ABC NewsÊhe personally approved of the approval of torture - including waterboarding - by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

"Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

In the wake of this shocking and appalling confession, we've come to a historic moment where every American - and every Member of Congress - must take a stand.

Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy for a President and Vice President who commit war crimes: impeachment.

Tell Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture
http://www.democrats.com/impeach-for-torture

Dr. Martin Luther King famously said of the Vietnam War, "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

When our President and Vice President personally approve torture, that time is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:33 AM

Gonzo unemployed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 06:53 PM

"People are sick of this Bush-bashing stuff."
-- Right-wing activist Mary Matalin, 4/13/08


"President Bush's job approval rating, at 28%, is the worst of his administration. It's just 4 points above Richard Nixon's lowest rating and 6 points above the all-time lowest approval rating in Gallup history, 22% for Harry Truman back in 1952."
-- USA Today, 4/11/08

Also of recent interest:

A scandal of misinformation in high-school texts by right-wing distortions.

And: "ADMINISTRATION -- IRAQI PARLIAMENT WILL VOTE ON LONG-TERM AGREEMENT, BUT CONGRESS CANNOT: Last year, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship," which could help clear the way for the erection of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told Reuters yesterday that the Iraqi parliament will vote on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): "There isn't any hidden agenda here. This agreement will be transparent, it has to be presented to the representatives of the Iraqi people, the parliament, to ratify it," Zebari said. ButÊlast week, Amb. Ryan Crocker told the Senate that the SOFA was written within the United States as an "executive agreement," not requiring Senate approval, as traditional treaties do. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the framework, suggesting that the White House "can't submit it to Congress," even though presidents in the past, including Ronald Reagan, have asked for congressional approval of SOFAs. Zebari said that parliamentary debate over the agreement would be "for Iraq's good," adding, "We need that continued engagement."


IRAQ -- CHENEY FALSELY CLAIMS AL QAEDA WILL 'ACQUIRE CONTROL' OF IRAQ'S OIL RESOURCES IF U.S. WITHDRAWS:Ê Last Thursday, Vice President Cheney appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show and fear-mongered about the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq. "[I]f al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of a significant oil resource," he told Hannity. This claim appears to be emerging as an administration talking point about the dangers of withdrawal. On March 19, President Bush also warned that out of "chaos in Iraq" could emerge an "emboldened al Qaeda with access to IraqÕs oil resources." In reality, however, it's highly unlikely that al Qaeda would take control of Iraq's oil if the United States redeployed. First, the vast majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites, who want little to do with a fringe Sunni group like al Qaeda. Second, 70 percent of the country's oil is in southern Iraq -- e.g. Basra -- where there are strong Shi'ite strongholds.ÊDespite Cheney and Bush's claims, U.S. withdrawal would not mean that al Qaeda would suddenly be able to defeat at least three different powerful Shi'ite militias (Mahdi Army, Badr Organization, and Fadhila's gangs) to seize control over Iraq's oil."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM

"Mr. BushÕs capacity for denial is limitless. Perhaps he believes that the next president will continue this misadventure without any end in mind, let alone in sight. Even then he owes it to his successor to use his remaining nine months in office to try to address IraqÕs myriad problems. That will not excuse Mr. BushÕs serial failures. But it may increase the chances for the inevitable withdrawal to be as orderly as possible.

Mr. Bush has all the time he needs, but IraqÕs suffering civilians do not, and neither do its masses of refugees, the bloodied and strained United States armed forces, or the American public."


NYT Editorial
4-12-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 11:12 AM

"...But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged ÒprogressÓ is Òfragile and reversible.Ó (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the generalÕs hindquarters next time that, true to MurphyÕs Law, things turn sour again.

Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.

Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?

Not an apt comparison, I admit.

Custer only sent 258 soldiers to their deaths."

Dick Cavett
APril 11 08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:31 PM

Good point, Jack. The reason is that paper forms have to be entered into the system by keyboardists -- a second human point of alteration of data.

On a handheld,t he data is transmitted electronically to the computing system, which makes the error rate less, because computer transfers do automatic error-checking of variosu kinds for every packet and file they exchange. Humans delude themselves more easily than electronic systems. Except when sunspots flare.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

Why is paper and pencil less accurate? It's a human doing it either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:59 AM

Any remaining hope for a modern, efficient and precise census in 2010 has cratered, brought low by managerial incompetence and the administration's relentless antipathy for effective government.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » The latest problem is the Census Bureau's failure— after nearly four years and almost $600 million — to develop a reliable hand-held computer system for counting millions of Americans who are not counted by mail. Census takers will now have to use far less accurate paper and pencil. At a hearing last week Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told lawmakers that the agency would need up to an additional $232 million this year to ramp up systems to accommodate the paper count, including new forms, instructions and training materials and redesigned management and logistical support.

Congress had already been briefed on the hand-held mess. What came as a shock was Mr. Gutierrez's message that the White House insists on cutting other Commerce Department programs to come up with new money for the census. Most of the targeted cuts are from programs the White House tried to kill or reduce in 2008, but were rescued by Congress: such as spending for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, marine sanctuaries, pollution control, Chesapeake Bay restoration and economic development grants for Appalachia.

It is petty for the White House to use the census as a way to challenge the outcome of a lost budget battle. It is unconscionable to hold the census hostage to such demands when administration officials are the ones responsible for the Census Bureau's dysfunction.

In the next few weeks, President Bush will request an emergency appropriation for Iraq. Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, must fight to attach the census money to that bill; the amount comes to less than one day's spending for the war.

(Ibid)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:52 AM

The Bush administration has a well-known aversion to regulating big business. As it turns out, it is also reluctant to prosecute corporations that break the law. Federal prosecutors have been regularly offering settlements to companies for wrongdoing that, in previous administrations, would likely have led to criminal charges. It is another disturbing example of how this administration has taken the justice out of the Justice Department.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Eric Lichtblau reported in The Times on Wednesday that during the last three years, the department has put off prosecuting more than 50 corporations on charges ranging from bribery to fraud. Instead, it has been entering into so-called deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements, in which companies are allowed to pay fines and hire monitors to watch over them.

Defenders say these deals save the government time and the expense of going to trial and avoid doing unnecessary harm to corporations and their employees. The cost to the public and the rule of law is too high.

If corporations believe that they can negotiate their way out of a prosecution, the deterrent effect of the criminal law will inevitably be weakened....
(New York TImes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:48 PM

Nader denounces 'two-party dictatorship'
Colin Kavanaugh
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
Forget Clinton, Obama and McCain.

Ralph Nader says he's the only candidate who has the experience, change and straight-talk to be the next president of the United States.

On Saturday at the National Constitution Center, Nader, an independent presidential candidate, spoke against corporate greed and the current "two-party dictatorship" running the government, referring to the Republican and Democratic parties.

At a rally of more than 200 supporters, Nader said that neither party was addressing the most important issues facing Americans.

During the press conference and the rally for supporters afterward, Nader spoke for two hours on the logistics of his current campaign, single-payer health insurance, the economy, foreign policy and the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Referring to Bush as a "fugitive from justice," Nader mocked the Democrat-controlled Congress for not moving forward with impeachment hearings against "the most impeachable president in American history."

On education, Nader blamed the Department of Education for "standardizing minds" with its emphasis on standardized testing and said tuition at public universities should be more affordable, or even free.

"Students should be able to get adequate student loans from the government," Nader said. "They should be able to afford college without risk to their futures."

Nader proposed paying for such a program by removing troops from Iraq, and ending the "military-industrial complex."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:24 AM

"Gen. Odom told the committee that the last time he had testified about Iraq was in January of 2007. He had been asked about the "surge". He said, "Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims."

Gen. Odom said, "Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic."

Odom went on to say, "No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities."

As for the Bush claim that Sunni Muslims in western Iraq and Fallujah were now siding with the US (the government never mentions that they are being handsomely paid to do so), Odom said,

"Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime."

Odom said America was buying Sunni backing in just one region for $250,000 a day, and he warned, "we don't own these people, we rent them."

Then Odom let fly a real bomb. "As an aside," he told the committee, in a statement that you won't read in your daily paper or hear on the TV news, "it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran."

Saying the Bush administration's argument that it could build a stable democratic government by working with local strongmen in Iraq, he challenged the senators to "Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. "

The general's conclusion: "We face a deteriorating political situation with an over-extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy."

Odom instead called for immediate withdrawal, "rapidly but in good order." He said, "Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq."

He said if Bush and Cheney would simply stop threatening "regime change" by force as a policy, and in specific if it stopped threatening Iran, it would lead Iran to reduce its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to change its policy toward Iraq, too. The US "needs to make Iran feel more secure," he said.

Odom took the occasion to debunk arguments against early and rapid withdrawal. To those who say the US needs to continue to train Iraqi forces, he said, "Training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills...."

More here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:17 PM

Letter to the NY Times:

"It's high time that the authors of the Bush administration's legal recipe book for torture be brought out of the kitchen and into the courtroom. Yet despite volumes of highly credible evidence of human rights crimes, or even war crimes, a negligent Congress continues to fail miserably in its responsibility to mandate proper investigations into these cruel policies.

The United States' moral and political standing in the world have completely eroded, and legitimate prosecutions of crimes against humanity against the United States have been compromised. Congress must finally face its own complicity in torture with concrete measures — not shortsighted hearings — by ordering a full, independent investigation into how torture became United States modus operandi and holding those responsible accountable. "
Curt Goering

Deputy Executive Director

Amnesty International USA

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:25 PM

"The tales of regulatory negligence by the Bush administration never seem to end. An investigation into the death of six coal miners and three would-be rescuers last summer in Utah faults the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration for failing to properly oversee the high-risk mining technique that led to the collapse of the Crandall Canyon Mine.


The finding, by the Labor DepartmentÕs inspector general, presents a stark warning of possible future disasters now that the coal industry is booming. Companies are increasingly turning to the riskier production methods used at Crandall Canyon Ñ techniques that demand more aggressive vigilance to ensure minersÕ safety.

The mine agency lacked a rigorous oversight plan required by law to monitor roof safety at Crandall Canyon as workers there conducted Òretreat miningÓ Ñ winnowing coal pillars bracing the mine ceiling Ñ to extract as much coal as possible. Mining-induced seismic jolts eventually obliterated these supports.

The Bush administrationÕs patronage-driven penchant for appointing industry executives to regulate their own industry is well known. So are the costs. In the Crandall Canyon investigation, the inspector general pointedly questioned whether the mine agency was Òfree from undue influence by the mine operator.Ó" ...

---

Given that the FAA under the Biush Administration has also been ignoring flight safety violations and airworthiness problems in SWA aircraft, it is beginning to look lie George Bush has been responsible for more American deaths than Al Queda...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

You can often tell if someone understands how wrong their actions are by the lengths to which they go to rationalize them. It took 81 pages of twisted legal reasoning to justify President BushÕs decision to ignore federal law and international treaties and authorize the abuse and torture of prisoners.

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board È
Related
Õ03 U.S. Memo Approved Harsh Interrogations (April 2, 2008)
Text of the Memo (pdf): Part One | Part Two
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (235) È
Eighty-one spine-crawling pages in a memo that might have been unearthed from the dusty archives of some authoritarian regime and has no place in the annals of the United States. It is must reading for anyone who still doubts whether the abuse of prisoners were rogue acts rather than calculated policy.

The March 14, 2003, memo was written by John C. Yoo, then a lawyer for the Justice Department. He earlier helped draft a memo that redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts against Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

The purpose of the March 14 memo was equally insidious: to make sure that the policy makers who authorized those acts, or the subordinates who carried out the orders, were not convicted of any crime. The list of laws that Mr. YooÕs memo sought to circumvent is long: federal laws against assault, maiming, interstate stalking, war crimes and torture; international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Yoo, who, inexplicably, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley, never directly argues that it is legal to chain prisoners to the ceiling for days, sexually abuse them or subject them to waterboarding Ñ all things done by American jailers.

His primary argument, in which he reaches back to 19th-century legal opinions justifying the execution of Indians who rejected the reservation, is that the laws didnÕt apply to Mr. Bush because he is commander in chief. He cited an earlier opinion from Bush administration lawyers that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Conventions Ñ a decision that put every captured American soldier at grave risk.

Then, should someone reject his legal reasoning and decide to file charges, Mr. Yoo offered a detailed blueprint for escaping accountability.

American and international laws against torture prohibit making a prisoner fear Òimminent death.Ó For most people, waterboarding Ñ making a prisoner feel as if he is about to drown Ñ would fit. But Mr. Yoo argues that the statutes apply only if the interrogators actually intended to kill the prisoner. Since waterboarding simulates drowning, there is no Òthreat of imminent death.Ó

After the memoÕs general contents were first reported, the Pentagon said in early 2004 that it was Òno longer operative.Ó Reading the full text, released this week, makes it startlingly clear how deeply the Bush administration corrupted the law and the role of lawyers to give cover to existing and plainly illegal policies. (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:16 PM

"I MEAN WHAT I SAY !"
GWB


As told by the people in the room,
When a report that Saddam might be in a Baghdad suburb and capable of being bombed by Stealth aircraft...
George said he would not attack for 48 hours and by God I gave my word.

30 minutes later Dick Cheney had suceeded in over riding GWB's objection and it was Dick who actually ordered the bombing 30 hours premature to George's promise.

GWB was mute and only nodded in silent agreement to Cheney and the planes were cleared to bomb what turned out to be a popular family restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

President Bush likes to talk about not being swayed by public opinion, especially the views of Democrats. At a news conference last December, he said the most important criterion for picking a president is "whether or not somebody's got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions."

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Unhappily for the country, we have learned that Mr. Bush has no idea when standing on principle becomes blind stubbornness and then destructive obsession. So it goes with his choice to run the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury.

In a lower job in that office, Mr. Bradbury signed off on two secret legal memos authorizing torture in American detention camps. The first approved waterboarding, among other things. When Congress outlawed waterboarding, the other memo assured Mr. Bush that he could ignore the law.

Mr. Bradbury is widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as such a toxic choice that he will never be confirmed. The Senate has already refused to do so twice. Still, Mr. Bush clings to this lost cause, snarling the confirmation process for hundreds of nominees and crippling parts of the federal regulatory apparatus. ...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:38 AM

Times slams Pentagon's waste and cost overruns.

"President Bush and a far-too-compliant Congress have already wasted more than $600 billion on the disastrous Iraq war. Since Mr. Bush took office, the Pentagon's weapons acquisition budget has doubled from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year.

Now, in stark terms, we see that an unseemly percentage of that money has gone to wasteful cost overruns and delays. Even when weapons systems are finally delivered, investigators say, far too many fail to deliver the capabilities promised. One example: the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile recorded four failures in four flight tests in 2007.

Figures compiled by the Government Accountability Office showed that 95 major weapons systems — including ballistic missile defense, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship — have exceeded their original budgets by a mind-numbing total of $295 billion in the past seven years. In 2000, new weapons were running 6 percent over initial cost estimates; by 2007, that figure had skyrocketed to 26 percent.

Not only did Mr. Bush and his former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, allow contractors to run amok in Iraq, they let them run amok in the halls of the Pentagon. The G.A.O. cites the Pentagon's heavy reliance on contractors as one reason for the gross mismanagement of acquisition programs. The Pentagon also let contractors submit unrealistically low cost estimates, rushed development of new systems — causing costly mistakes that had to be fixed — and made too many changes after projects were under way, according to the G.A.O. and other experts"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:39 PM

Vice President Cheney was asked about the burden of the Iraq War on our military. His answer? George Bush bears the greatest burden of the war.

4,000 American troops who gave their lives? The Vice President summed it up: "They volunteered."

When I read the Vice President's comments, I was reminded of what Marine Corps 3-star General Gregory Newbold, the former Operations Director at the Pentagon, said about the war in Iraq:

"The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

(From a Dem fundrasiing letter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:34 AM

The Dilbert Strategy

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2008

Anyone who has worked in a large organization — or, for that matter, reads the comic strip "Dilbert" — is familiar with the "org chart" strategy. To hide their lack of any actual ideas about what to do, managers sometimes make a big show of rearranging the boxes and lines that say who reports to whom.

You now understand the principle behind the Bush administration's new proposal for financial reform, which will be formally announced today: it's all about creating the appearance of responding to the current crisis, without actually doing anything substantive

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

KRistof on the dumbing down of the nation's culture:

"Alas, when a politician has the double disadvantage of obvious intelligence and an elite education and then on top of that tries to educate the public on a complex issue Ñ as Al Gore did about climate change Ñ then that candidate is derided as arrogant and out of touch.

The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill OÕReilly. ItÕs enough to make one doubt Darwin.

ThereÕs no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level. And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movementÕs epitome Ñ and its fruit."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:14 PM

"...President Bush likes to talk about not being swayed by public opinion, especially the views of Democrats. At a news conference last December, he said the most important criterion for picking a president is Òwhether or not somebodyÕs got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions.Ó

Unhappily for the country, we have learned that Mr. Bush has no idea when standing on principle becomes blind stubbornness and then destructive obsession. So it goes with his choice to run the Justice DepartmentÕs Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury.

In a lower job in that office, Mr. Bradbury signed off on two secret legal memos authorizing torture in American detention camps. The first approved waterboarding, among other things. When Congress outlawed waterboarding, the other memo assured Mr. Bush that he could ignore the law.

Mr. Bradbury is widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as such a toxic choice that he will never be confirmed. The Senate has already refused to do so twice. Still, Mr. Bush clings to this lost cause, snarling the confirmation process for hundreds of nominees and crippling parts of the federal regulatory apparatus. ..."

ANother blight in the ruins of the Oval Office...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM

"It has been five years since the United States invaded Iraq and the world watched in horror as what seemed like a swift victory by modern soldiers and 21st-century weapons became a nightmare of spiraling violence, sectarian warfare, insurgency, roadside bombings and ghastly executions. Iraq's economy was destroyed, and America's reputation was shredded in the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Central Intelligence Agency's secret prisons.


These were hard and very costly lessons for a country that had emerged from the cold war as the world's sole remaining superpower. Shockingly, President Bush seems to have learned none of them.



In a speech on Wednesday, the start of the war's sixth year, Mr. Bush was stuck in the Neverland of his "Mission Accomplished" speech. In his mind's eye, the invasion was a "remarkable display of military effectiveness" that will be studied for generations. The war has placed the nation on the brink of a great "strategic victory" in Iraq and against terrorists the world over.

Even now, Mr. Bush talks of Iraqi troops who "took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq" — when everyone knows that the American pro-consul, L. Paul Bremer III, overrode Mr. Bush's national security team and, with the president's blessing, made the catastrophically bad decision to disband the Iraqi Army and police force.

Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that Iraq was on the verge of "full-blown sectarian warfare" when he boldly ordered an escalation of forces around Baghdad last year. In fact, sectarian warfare was raging for months while Mr. Bush refused to listen to the generals, who wanted a new military approach, or to the vast majority of Americans, who just wanted him to end the war.

All evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bush is still trying to make it seem as if Al Qaeda in Iraq was connected to the Al Qaeda that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. He tried to justify an unjustifiable war by ticking off benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein, but he somehow managed to forget the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Dick Cheney was equally deep in denial on Monday when he declared at a news conference in Baghdad that it has all been "well worth the effort."..."


Ptui.

(Above is from a NYT Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:30 AM

Excerpt from NYT editorializing on the Bear Stearns-JP Morgan-Fed bailout deal.


". Bear Stearns isn't enormous. It doesn't take deposits from the public. Yet the Fed believed that letting it implode could unleash a domino effect among other banks, and the Fed provided a $30 billion guarantee for JPMorgan to snap it up.

Compared to the cold shoulder given to struggling homeowners, the cash and attention lavished by the government on the nation's financial titans provides telling insight into the priorities of the Bush administration. It's not simply a matter of fairness, though. The Fed is probably right to be doing all it can think of to avoid worse damage than the economy is already suffering. But if the objective is to encourage prudent banking and keep Wall Street's wizards from periodically driving financial markets over the cliff, it is imperative to devise a remuneration system for bankers that puts more of their skin in the game."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:30 AM

Richard Cohen, a liberal hawk with regrets writing in Salon magazine, gives an in depth apologia for the flaws in his reasoning in supporting the Bush administration's war. A good read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

Great interview on npr today

Malachi duped the White House into a rosy Iraq war scenario and rates as the greatest con man in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

The Casualties of War

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:53 AM

"Boy George crashed the family station wagon into the globe and now the global economy. Yet the more terrified Americans get, the more bizarrely carefree he seems. The former oilman reacted with cocky ignorance a couple of weeks ago when a reporter informed him that gas was barreling toward $4 a gallon.

In on-the-record sessions with reporters — and more candid off-the-record ones — he has seemed goofily happy in recent weeks, prickly no more but strangely liberated and ebullient."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:50 AM

Some harder numbers:

"Mr. Bush went on to paint a false picture of the economy. He dismissed virtually every proposal Congress is working on to alleviate the mortgage crisis, sticking to his administration's inadequate ideas. And despite the rush of serious problems — frozen credit markets, millions of impending mortgage defaults, solvency issues at banks, a plunging dollar — he said that a major source of uncertainty today is whether his tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, would be extended.

This was too far afield of reality to be dismissed as simple cheerleading. It points to the pressing need for a coherent plan to steer through what some economists are now predicting could be a severe downturn. Mr. Bush's denial of the economic truth underscores the need for Congress to push forward with solutions to the mortgage crisis — especially bankruptcy reform to help defaulting homeowners. Lawmakers also must prepare to execute, in case it is needed, a government rescue of people whose homes are now worth less than they borrowed to buy them.

Mr. Bush said he was optimistic because the economy's "foundation is solid" as measured by employment, wages, productivity, exports and the federal deficit. He was wrong on every count. On some, he has been wrong for quite a while.

Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush — which it is safe to assume is now over — produced job growth of 4.2 percent. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945.

Mr. Bush also talked approvingly of the recent unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. A low rate is good news when it indicates a robust job market. The unemployment rate ticked down last month because hundreds of thousands of people dropped out of the work force altogether. Worse, long-term unemployment, of six months or more, hit 17.5 percent. We'd expect that in the depths of a recession. It is unprecedented at the onset of one.

Mr. Bush was wrong to say wages are rising. On Friday morning, the day he spoke, the government reported that wages failed to outpace inflation in February, for the fifth straight month. Productivity growth has also weakened markedly in the past two years, a harbinger of a lower overall standard of living for Americans.

Exports have surged of late, but largely on the back of a falling dollar. The weaker dollar makes American exports cheaper, but it also pushes up oil prices. Potentially far more serious, a weakening dollar also reduces the Federal Reserve's flexibility to steady the economy.

Finally, Mr. Bush's focus on the size of the federal budget deficit ignores that annual government borrowing comes on top of existing debt. Publicly held federal debt will be up by a stunning 76 percent by the end of his presidency. Paying back the money means less to spend on everything else for a very long time."


It raises the question, in my mind, how delusory can we get and still survive?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:13 AM

Mister Bush's recent series of unseemly merriments in public places, including singing a song, tap dancing, and other ebullient anomalies, brings a remark from Ms Dowd:

"Maybe the president is just putting on a good face to keep up American morale, the way Herbert Hoover did after the crash of Õ29, when he continued to dress in a tuxedo for dinner.

Or maybe the old Andover cheerleader really believes his own cheers, and that prosperity will turn up any time now, just like the W.M.D. in Iraq.

Or perhaps itÕs a Freudian trip. Now that heÕs mucked up the world and the country, he can finally stop rebelling against his dad and relax in the certainty that the Bush name will forever be associated with crash-and-burn presidencies.

Whatever the explanation, itÕs plumb loco."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM

A blistering editorial analysis of Bush's two-faced falseness on intelligence bill discussions in the NYT today ("The Intelligence Coverup" summarizes his aspergic banditry with this querulous precis:

"We were glad the House ignored his bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit, there is no rush to pass a law.

The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law Ñ like the House bill Ñ would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:50 AM

The Times offers an intelligent analysis of Bush's economic delusions and false notions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:40 AM

Fred Kaplan in WaPo writes "If further proof were needed that President Bush resides in a dream world, he settled the issue on Thursday definitively.
Speaking by videoconference with U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan about the challenges posed by war, corruption, and the poppy trade, the president unleashed this comment:

I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you É in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.

Go ahead, dear reader, pour yourself a stiff one before trudging on.
Someone with such a jaunty vision of warÑconcocted from who knows what brew of Rudyard Kipling, John Wayne, and sheer fantasyÑhas no business leading young men and women into real-life battle, no business serving as the armed forces' commander in chief.
It only compounds the insult to reflect that Bush, when he was younger and not employed anywhere, passed up his chance for a romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia.
Many U.S. soldiers, Marines, and aid workers in Afghanistan (and Iraq) are proud of the work they're doing. They volunteered for duty. They accept the hardships and tolerate the sacrifices to a degree that's truly awesome to behold. But I suspect very few of these men and women see themselves as indulging in enviable adventures from The Green Berets or Gunga Din."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:02 AM

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A03

The FBI has increasingly used administrative orders to obtain the personal
records of U.S. citizens rather than foreigners implicated in terrorism or
counterintelligence investigations, and at least once it relied on such
orders to obtain records that a special intelligence-gathering court had
deemed protected by the First Amendment, according to two government
audits released yesterday.

The episode was outlined in a Justice Department report that concluded the
FBI had abused its intelligence-gathering privileges by issuing
inadequately documented "national security letters" from 2003 to 2006,
after which changes were put in place that the report called sound.

A report a year ago by the Justice Department's inspector general
disclosed that abuses involving national security letters had occurred
from 2003 through 2005 and helped provoke the changes. But the report
makes it clear that the abuses persisted in 2006 and disclosed that 60
percent of the nearly 50,000 security letters issued that year by the FBI
targeted Americans.

snip

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation today, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening the impasse on a fundamental national security issue.

Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.

The legislation, approved 213-197, would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.

But it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal protections to the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and now face about 40 lawsuits alleging they had breached customers' privacy rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:41 PM

Being a "credible threat" is certainly an important, if very small, part of a diplomatic armamentum, Bruce. No disagreement there. I submit for reflection, however, that there are other kinds of transactions that have more deeply binding, longer-lasting, and less destructive results in gaining human compliance. One, for example, is being a credible ally. Another is being a credible example of success. Another is being a credible game-maker, the creator of the game to be played. Another is being a credible mystery. None of these require dropping bombs on civilians. Maybe we need to stretch our view of things a bit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

Washington Post:

A Failing Campaign
By swearing off military action, a U.S. commander weakens the diplomatic offensive against Iran.
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A16

ADM. WILLIAM J. Fallon, the U.S. Middle East commander who resigned on Tuesday, was portrayed in a recent Esquire magazine article as the main obstacle to a potential decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iran. Though the article seems to have precipitated Adm. Fallon's resignation, the assertion was ludicrous on more than one count.

First, there is very little impetus among senior Bush administration officials for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next 10 months. More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives.

In fact, notwithstanding the passage last week of a third U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution, the diplomatic offensive against Iran is flagging. Not only has the threat of U.S. force been undermined, but a December National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had stopped work on the weaponization branch of its nuclear work gave numerous governments an excuse to oppose the sort of tough sanctions that might work.

The latest resolution contains mostly symbolic steps; efforts by France and Britain to push the European Union into adopting its own measures so far have gone nowhere. Though there are signs of some discontent inside Iran with the hard-line government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today's parliamentary election will be a match between conservatives because of the exclusion of hundreds of opposition candidates.

This doesn't mean the Bush administration should abandon diplomacy or prepare for war. As we have said, we oppose an attack on the Iranian nuclear program by this administration. Not all the steps that might be taken against Iran have been tried: For example, the administration is now considering new sanctions against the Iranian central bank, which could enhance what has been a modestly successful effort to squeeze Tehran's access to the international financial system. The administration should continue to press for action by the European Union, which could adopt measures that would seriously threaten the Iranian economy if the governments of E.U. countries were to choose to stop protecting their own business executives. Democratic presidential candidates are proposing broad bilateral negotiations with the Islamist regime, although an established bilateral channel in Iraq has produced no results.

Certainly, a new U.S. military chief in the Middle East should be prepared to take military action against Iran and should avoid ostentatious posturing to the contrary. That readiness, even if never acted on, is essential to checking the surging ambitions of the current Iranian regime.



******************************************************************


Amos: in case you don't read the entire article, here is a point YOU need to be aware of"

"More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:03 PM

The war in Afghanistan is going precisely as planned:

The biggest drug lord in the country is the brother of the US appointed President of Afghanistan.

The opium production is up 86% over the last 6 years.

Most of the heroin in the US now comes from Afghanistan, not India or South East Asia.

The biggest drug lord family in the US continues to make great strides with the assistance of US troops protecting the interests of the Bush family and associates.

Bless the memory of J. Webb who gave his life in exposing the Bush family drug cartel.