BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 07:08 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — The Bush administration has confirmed for the first time that American telecommunications companies played a crucial role in the National Security Agency 's domestic eavesdropping program after asserting for more than a year that any role played by them was a "state secret."

Times Topics: Surveillance of Citizens by Government
The acknowledgment was in an unusual interview that Mike McConnell , the director of national intelligence, gave last week to The El Paso Times in which he disclosed details on classified intelligence issues that the administration has long insisted would harm national security if discussed publicly.

Mr. McConnell made the remarks apparently in an effort to bolster support for the broadened wiretapping authority that Congress approved this month, even as Democrats are threatening to rework the legislation because they say it gives the executive branch too much power. It is vital, he said, for Congress to give retroactive legal immunity to the companies that assisted in the program to help prevent them from facing bankruptcy because of lawsuits over it.

"Under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us, because if you're going to get access, you've got to have a partner," Mr. McConnell said in the interview, a transcript of which was posted by The El Paso Times on Wednesday.

AT&T and several other major carriers are being sued over their reported role in the program, which permitted eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorism ties. The administration has sought to shut down the lawsuits by invoking the state-secrets privilege, refusing even to confirm whether the companies helped conduct the wiretaps.

Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is heading up the lawsuit against AT&T, said her group might ask the appeals court to consider Mr. McConnell's comments in deciding whether the state-secrets argument should be thrown out.

"They've really undermined their own case," Ms. Cohn said.

Mr. McConnell said those suits were a driving force in the administration's efforts to include in this month's wiretapping legislation immunity for telecommunications partners. "If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed," he said, "it would bankrupt these companies."

Congress agreed to give immunity to telecommunications partners in the measure , but refused to make it retroactive.

Mr. McConnell, who took over as the country's top intelligence official in February, warned that the public discussion generated by the Congressional debate over the wiretapping bill threatened national security because it would alert terrorists to American surveillance methods.

"Now part of this is a classified world," he said in the interview. "The fact we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die.".

Asked whether he was saying the news media coverage and the public debate in Congress meant that "some Americans are going to die," he replied: "That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public."

Mr. McConnell, though, put new information on the public record in the interview, on Aug. 14 while in Texas for a border conference.

Mr. McConnell said, for instance, that the number of people inside the United States who were wiretapped through court-approved warrants totaled "100 or less" but on the "foreign side, it's in the thousands." The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves national security wiretaps, told Congress it approved 2,181 eavesdropping warrants last year. The court and the administration have not been willing to break out how many Americans were in those orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 11:32 AM

White House Shell Game

(NEw York Times editorial excerpt)

Published: August 24, 2007

The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy took another absurd turn this week. The administration is claiming that the White House Office of Administration is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, even though there are some compelling reasons to think it is. Like the fact that the office has its own FOIA officer. And it responded to 65 FOIA requests last year. And the White House's own Web site, as of yesterday, insisted the office is covered by FOIA.

The administration's logic-free claim about the Office of Administration follows fast on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney's laughable claim that he was immune to an open-government law because his office supposedly was not an executive agency.

The fight over the Office of Administration's status is part of a larger battle over access to an estimated five million e-mail messages that have mysteriously disappeared from White House computers. The missing messages are important evidence in the scandal over the firing of nine United States attorneys, apparently because they refused to use their positions to help Republicans win elections. The Office of Administration seems to know a lot about when and how those messages disappeared, but it does not want to tell the public.

What exactly does the administration want to hide? It is certainly acting as if the e-mail messages would confirm suspicions that the White House coordinated the prosecutors' firings and that it may have broken laws. It is hard to believe the administration's constant refrain that there is nothing to the prosecutor scandal when it is working so hard to avoid letting the facts about it get out.

The administration's refusal to comply with open-government laws is ultimately more important than any single scandal. The Freedom of Information Act and other right-to-know laws were passed because government transparency is vital to a democracy. The American people cannot monitor their elected officials, and ensure that they act in the public interest, if government is allowed to operate under a veil of secrecy. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 06:27 AM

"There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).

But the serious voices will prevail. When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge "is working" (albeit very late) against the insurgency, and when Petraeus himself concedes that the surge cannot continue indefinitely, making inevitable a drawdown of troops sometime in the middle of next year, the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?

Serious people like Levin argue that with a nonfunctional and sectarian Baghdad government, we can never achieve national reconciliation. Thus the current military successes will prove ephemeral.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses long term and short term. In the longer run, there must be a national unity government. But in the shorter term, our assumption that a national unity government is required to pacify the Sunni insurgency turned out to be false. The Sunnis have turned against al-Qaeda and are gradually switching sides in the absence of any oil, federalism or de-Baathification deal coming out of Baghdad.

In the interim, the surge is advancing our two immediate objectives in Iraq: (a) to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq and prevent the emergence of an al-Qaeda ministate, and (b) to pacify the Sunni insurgency, which began the post-liberation downward spiral of sectarian bloodshed, economic stagnation and aborted reconstruction."

from Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Government and industry officials say the rules are needed to clarify existing laws, which have been challenged in court and applied unevenly.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.

All mining generates huge volumes of waste, known as excess spoil or overburden, and it has to go somewhere. For years, it has been trucked away and dumped in remote hollows of Appalachia.

Environmental activists say the rule change will lead to accelerated pillage of vast tracts and the obliteration of hundreds of miles of streams in central Appalachia.

"This is a parting gift to the coal industry from this administration," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, W.Va. "What is at stake is the future of Appalachia. This is an attempt to make legal what has long been illegal."

Mr. Lovett said his group and allied environmental and community organizations would consider suing to block the new rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM

August 23, 2007

WASHINGTON

President Bush attempted Wednesday to drape war policy in Iraq in the lessons of World War II-era Japan and Vietnam as part of a broader argument for continuing the military campaign despite fierce opposition at home and abroad.

But his remarks to a VFW convention in Kansas City, Mo., also invited stinging criticism from historians and military analysts who said the analogies evidenced scant understanding of those conflicts' true lessons.

What is more, the speech opened a new vein of attack from Bush's political opponents, including the man he defeated in 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Vietnam veteran who called the president's words "irresponsible" and "ignorant."

In drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, Bush said, "Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and if we would just withdraw, the killing would end." But, he added, "The world would learn just how costly those impressions would be."

The president spoke just weeks before the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will present his assessment of the so-called troop surge in Iraq, a report that most believe will be critical in determining the level of political support that the president will be able to sustain for the war.

Several officials, including prominent Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have returned recently from Iraq and reported signs of military progress. Those assessments, however, have been leavened by an ever-bleaker view of Iraq's political leadership on the part of those officials as well as Bush, who on Tuesday said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government must "do more" to achieve political stability.
....

(Chicago Tribune, Aug 23 2007)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 08:15 AM

From the Washington Post:

What September Won't Settle

By George F. Will
Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A19

Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.

After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.

The Weimar Republic was fragile; America's domestic tranquility is not. Still, remember the bitterness stirred by the accusatory question "Who lost China?" and corrosive suspicions that the fruits of victory in Europe had been squandered by Americans of bad character or bad motives at Yalta.

So, consider this: When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his report on the war, his Washington audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.

One faction -- essentially, congressional Democrats -- is heavily invested in the belief, fervently held by the party's base of donors and activists, that prolonging U.S. involvement can have no benefit commensurate with the costs. The war, this faction says, is lost because even its repeatedly and radically revised objective -- a stable society under a tolerable regime -- is beyond America's military capacity and nation-building competence, and it is politically impossible given the limits of American patience.

The other faction, equal in anger and certitude, argues, not for the first time (remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple fingers, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, the capture of Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi, etc.), that the tide has turned. How febrile is this faction? Recently it became euphoric because of a New York Times column by two Brookings Institution scholars, who reported:

"We are finally getting somewhere" ("at least in military terms"), the troops' "morale is high," "civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began" and there is "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability."

But the scholars also said:

"The situation in Iraq remains grave," fatalities "remain very high," "the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark," "the Iraqi National Police . . . remain mostly a disaster," "Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position," it is unclear how much longer we can "wear down our forces in this mission" or how much longer Americans should "keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part," and "once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines."

The rapturous reception of that column by one faction was evidence of the one thing both factions share: a powerful will to believe, or disbelieve, as their serenity requires. Consider the following from the war-is-irretrievable faction:

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, House majority whip, recently said that it would be "a real big problem for us" -- Democrats -- if Petraeus reports substantial progress. Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

In the other faction, there still are those so impervious to experience that they continue to refer to Syria as "lower-hanging fruit." Such metaphors bewitch minds. Low-hanging fruit is plucked, then eaten. What does one nation do when it plucks another? In Iraq, America is in its fifth year of learning the answer.

Petraeus's metrics of success might ignite more arguments than they settle. In America, police drug sweeps often produce metrics of success but dealers soon relocate their operations. If Iraqi security forces have become substantially more competent, some Americans will say U.S. forces can depart; if those security forces have not yet substantially improved, the same people will say U.S. forces must depart. Furthermore, will the security forces' competence ultimately serve the Iraqi state -- or a sect?

Petraeus's report will be received in the context of his minimalist definition of the U.S. mission: "Buying time for Iraqis to reconcile." The reconciling, such as it is, will recommence when Iraq's parliament returns from its month-long vacation, come September.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:42 AM

Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2007 6:17 p.m. EDT
Zogby: Bush's Approval Twice Congress

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has taken a small dip, dropping to 32% positive, down from 34% who gave him positive job marks in mid-July, a new Reuters/Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The survey also shows that the overall job approval rating for the work of Congress remains far below the President's, as just 15% give the national legislature a collective positive rating, up one point since last month. Changes in both the ratings for the President and Congress are statistically insignificant.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll included interviews with 1,020 likely voters between August 9-11, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Bush has lingered in the low 30s all year. His most recent high was a 42% positive rating just a week before the 2006 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. At that time, the positive approval rating for Congress had languished in the low 20s or high teens, but plummeted in the wake of its handling of controversial issues, including immigration reform and the Iraq war, other Zogby polling showed.

Bush wins a positive job rating from 58% of Republicans, 29% of independents, and 11% of Democrats. Among those with a household member who is now or at one time served in the Armed Forces, 37% give the President positive marks, compared with 26% of those with no household member in the military who give him a positive job rating.

Meanwhile, Congress wins just 18% positive approval from Democrats, while 80% of Dems give them negative marks for their performance so far. Republicans watching the performance of the Democratic-controlled Congress are more harsh—just 12% give it good marks, while 86% said they are doing only a "fair" or "poor" job in Washington.

Political independents appear to agree with Republicans on this count—just 16% give Congress positive marks, while the balance give it a negative rating.

Most are not happy with the overall direction in which the nation is now headed, the poll shows. Just 24% said they think things in the country are going well, while 64% said they think things are off on the wrong track. The main problem is foreign policy, the Reuters/Zogby poll shows. Just 22% approve of foreign affairs as practiced by the Bush administration.

Despite their downcast view of the current political leadership in Washington, an overwhelming percentage said they are proud of their nation – 89% said they are either very or fairly proud of the United States.

Just 35% said they are pleased with current U.S. economic policy, but 60% said their own personal economic situation is good or excellent.
Overall, 65% said they feel secure in their current jobs, and most are optimistic about the long-term future of the nation: 64% said they expect their children to have a better life than them.

More than three-quarters—77%—said they feel America is facing threats from abroad, while 21% said they are not concerned about such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:36 AM

Washington Post:

Democrats' Purity Primary

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; Page A17

Every campaign has moments when candidates substitute political preening for substance. Such an episode is unfolding now in the Democratic field, and it involves that perennial piñata, the Washington lobbyist.

John Edwards and Barack Obama won't take lobbyist money; Hillary Clinton will. Edwards, angling for attention in the purity primary, has kicked things up a notch. He is calling on all Democrats to reject lobbyist contributions, and calling on Obama to join him in that call.

"Not a dime from a Washington lobbyist," Edwards declared at the Yearly Kos convention. "Their money is no good with us."

Of course, the folks who would be most delighted with this outcome are lobbyists, the target of relentless haranguing for campaign cash. Of course, it's not going to happen: Democrats, back in partial power and desperate to keep it, aren't about to give up a dime from any (legal) source.

And, as you might have guessed from my tone, I don't think it would much matter if Democrats were to live in The World According to Edwards, who has never taken lobbyist money. Nice symbolism, perhaps, but how does it make candidates any purer to disdain checks from lobbyists while avidly vacuuming up contributions from the various industries they represent?

Edwards is no less tainted by the trial-lawyer money he scoops up by the bucketful than he would be by lobbyist contributions. Obama is no more ethical now than when he was an unknown Senate candidate dutifully calling lobbyists and asking for a check, please.

Clinton botched her initial response on this, telling the Yearly Kos-ers -- they weren't skeptical enough of her already? -- that lobbyists represent "real Americans," too. She refined her argument in time for Sunday's ABC debate, noting "this artificial distinction that people are trying to make: Don't take money from lobbyists, but take money from the people who employ and hire lobbyists and give them their marching orders."

Indeed, who takes money from lobbyists is the wrong question about an essential subject. Instead, voters who care -- and I think voters should care -- ought to ask: What is the candidate's history on campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics rules, and open government generally? How transparent is the candidate about campaign and personal finances? What steps will he or she take to limit the influence of money during the current campaign?

On these, there are revealing differences among the Democratic front-runners.

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 09:27 AM

"...Those Bush dead-enders are in a serious state of denial. Just how much so could be found in the Journal interview when Mr. Rove extolled his party's health by arguing, without contradiction from Mr. Gigot, that young people are more "pro-life" and "free-market" than their elders. Maybe he was talking about 12-year-olds. Back in the real world of potential voters, the latest New York Times-CBS News poll of Americans aged 17 to 29 found that their views on abortion were almost identical to the rest of the country's. (Only 24 percent want abortion outlawed.)

That poll also found that the percentage of young people who identify as Republicans, whether free-marketers or not, is down to 25, from a high of 37 at the end of the Reagan era. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, found that self-identified G.O.P. voters are trending older rapidly, with the percentage over age 55 jumping from 28 to 41 percent in a decade.

Every poll and demographic accounting finds the Republican Party on the losing side of history, both politically and culturally. Not even a miraculous armistice in Iraq or vintage Democratic incompetence may be able to ride to the rescue. A survey conducted by The Journal itself (with NBC News) in June reported G.O.P. approval numbers lower than any in that poll's two decades of existence. Such is the political legacy for a party to which Mr. Rove sold Mr. Bush as "a new kind of Republican," an exemplar of "compassionate conservatism" and the avatar of a permanent Republican majority.

That sales pitch, as we long ago learned, was all about packaging, not substance. The hope was that No Child Left Behind and a 2000 G.O.P. convention stacked with break dancers and gospel singers would peel away some independent and black voters from the Democrats. The promise of immigration reform would spread Bush's popularity among Hispanics. Another potential add-on to the Republican base was Muslims, a growing constituency that Mr. Rove's pal Grover Norquist plotted to herd into the coalition.

The rest is history. Any prospect of a rapprochement between the G.O.P. and African-Americans died in the New Orleans Superdome. The tardy, botched immigration initiative unleashed a wave of xenophobia against Hispanics, the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country. The Muslim outreach project disappeared into the memory hole after 9/11...."

Frank Rich, columnist, NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 10:45 PM

The Nation -- Dennis Kucinich may not be a front runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.


But the congressman from Cleveland has succeeded in distinguishing himself from the other contenders when it comes to speaking those truths that are self-evident.

And in an era of mass delusion and denial on the party of leaders in both major political parties, stating the obvious can be a radical act.

Such is the case with Kucinich's appropriate answer to the latest move by the Bush-Cheney administration to ramp up hostilities with Iran. That move -- the unprecedented attempt to label Iran's 125,000-strong Republican Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist" group -- is, as the congressman says "nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war -- this time with Iran."

No one who has paid even the slightest attention to the Bush-Cheney administration's approach to Middle East affairs can doubt that Kucinich is right. Yet, his is a lonely voice of clarity amid the din of Democratic obfuscation that aids and abets this White House's worst instincts.

"The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable," argues Kucinich.

"This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts," he adds. explaining that, "This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States if our actions point directly to regime change."

Delivering the response that should be coming from New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and especially from Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he isn't campaigning for president, Kucinich argued that, "Our nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration."

Kucinich, who has proposed impeaching Vice President Cheney for continually prodding the country toward an unnecessary war with Iran, may not get the political credit he deserves for calling out this administration. But history will recognize him as the man who sounded the al

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 10:18 AM

"...President Bush took a risk when he put someone so focused on politics as blood sport at the center of his White House. Once he did, he had an obligation to ensure that Mr. Rove understood that his job was to promote the interests of the American people — not solely the Republican Party. Instead, Mr. Rove used his position and power to relentlessly pursue his declared goal of a permanent Republican majority.

Mr. Rove appears to have been deeply involved in the decision to fire nine top federal prosecutors, apparently for either bringing cases that hurt Republicans or refusing to bring cases to punish Democrats. There is also mounting evidence that he turned nonpartisan agencies into campaign boosters, quite possibly violating federal law. Earlier this month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admitted that Justice Department officials attended political briefings at the White House, some led by Mr. Rove. Officials at the General Services Administration and Peace Corps, and even six American ambassadors, among others, were also given briefings.

Mr. Rove has stonewalled Congress's legitimate efforts to investigate. Some of his key e-mail messages on the United States attorneys matter appear to have mysteriously disappeared, while others are being withheld with baseless claims of executive privilege. As for defying that Senate subpoena, some subjects might have been protected by privilege, but Mr. Rove's refusal to show up at all is outrageous — although totally in keeping with his and his boss's disdain for the separation of powers.

Mr. Rove failed his own party, as well as the American people, when he counseled President Bush to turn every serious policy debate — Social Security, the war in Iraq, even terrorism — into one more political dogfight. Today, despite Mr. Rove's claims of invincibility, both houses of Congress are back in Democratic hands, Mr. Bush's approval ratings are around 30 percent and many Republican presidential candidates are running as fast as they can away from the Bush legacy.

Mr. Rove can now contemplate that legacy from his home in Texas. But he should not get too settled in. Congress needs to use all its power to bring Mr. Rove back to Washington to testify — in public and under oath — about how he used his office to put politics above the interests of the American people."

Times editorial 8-14.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:02 AM

"The administration has refused to say how much warrantless spying it has been doing. Clearly, it is more than Mr. Bush has acknowledged, but Americans need to know exactly how far their liberties have been breached and whether the operation included purely domestic eavesdropping. And why did Mr. Bush feel compelled to construct an outlaw eavesdropping operation — apart, that is, from his broader effort to expand presidential power and evade checks and balances?

It's not that FISA makes it too hard; the court approves virtually every warrant request. It's not an issue of speed. The law allows the government to initiate surveillance and get a warrant later if necessary.

Instead of answering these questions, the administration has done its best to ensure that everyone stays confused. It has refused repeated requests by Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for documents relating to the president's order creating the spying program, and the Justice Department's legal justifications for it.

When this issue resurfaces, Mr. Bush will undoubtedly claim executive privilege, as he has done whenever he has been asked to come clean with Americans about his decision-making. But those documents should be handed over without delay for review by all members of Congress. We also agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has petitioned the FISA court, which normally works in secret, to make public its opinion on the scope of the government's wiretapping powers.

If Mr. Bush wants Americans to give him and his successors the power to spy on them at will, Americans should be allowed to know why it's supposedly so necessary and how much their freedoms are being abridged. If Congress once again allows itself to be cowed by Mr. Bush's fear-mongering, it must accept responsibility for undermining the democratic values that separate this nation from the terrorists that Mr. Bush claims to be fighting."...


New York Times,8-11-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:27 AM

The bridges in YOUR state

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Full%20Committee/Structurally_Deficient_Bridges.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:32 AM

And THAT, by the way, was Post 800 to this honorable thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 10:07 AM

BLOG | Posted 08/10/2007 @ 12:22am
Carl Bernstein: Bush More "Disastrous" Than Nixon

PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST COMMENTS (42)


Carl Bernstein will always be known as the journalist who brought down a president whose disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law disqualified the errant executive from completing a second term in the White House. And Bernstein still gets a round of applause when mention is made of the role he played, as part of a Washington Post investigative team that also included Bob Woodward, in exposing the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president named Nixon.

But 33 years after Nixon resigned in order to avoid an inevitable impeachment -- on August 9, 1974 -- Bernstein is more concerned about a president named Bush.

...But the Pulitzer Prize-winning author was under no illusions regarding the extent of Nixon's wrongdoing as compared with that of Bush and those around the current president.

Bernstein says that Bush's presidency has produced far more "disastrous consequences" for the country than did Nixon's.

Unlike the often crude and conniving but unquestionably intelligent and highly-engaged 37th president, Bernstein says of Bush: "He's lazy, arrogant and has little curiosity. He's a catastrophe..."

But that is not the worst part of the Bush era as compared to the Nixon era, explains Bernstein.

What has made this time dramatically more troubling, the 63-year-old journalist explains, is that "there is no oversight."

"The system worked in Watergate," Bernstein told the Denver Post.

...
The news media investigated Nixon, and editorialized boldly when the president's lawless behaviors were exposed.

The Congress responded to those revelations with hearings and demands for White House tapes and documents. ...Congress went to court to force Nixon and his aides to meet those demands.

The courts responded by aggressively and consistently upholding the authority of Congress to call the president to account.

And when it became clear that Nixon was governing in contradiction to the Constitution, the U.S. House took appropriate action, with Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voting for three articles of impeachment. Congressional Republicans, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, then went to the White House to inform their party's president that he stood little chance of thwarting an impeachment vote by the full House or surviving a trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned and so ended a constitutional crisis created by a president's disregard for the rule of law -- a crisis that was cured by an impeachment move by House members who respected their oaths of office.

Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as "worse than Watergate."

Referring to the media, congressional and judicial oversight that is essential to maintaining a republic, Bernstein says, "That hasn't happened here."

That failure of oversight, as opposed to any wrongdoing by George Bush or Dick Cheney, is the great tragedy of our time. But, as I reminded the crowd at the symposium during a discussion of Hunter Thompson's enthusiasm for Nixon's impeachment, it is never too late for the people to lead. Approval ratings for the current president and vice president are now below those for Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. And more and more members of Congress are taking up the call for accountability -- boldly sponsoring and cosponsoring the impeachment resolutions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had tried to keep "off the table.".

Bernstein is right. The system has not worked up to now. But with 18 months to go, it is certainly not too late for Americans to demand that the medicine that cured the Constitutional crisis of 33 years ago should again be applied. ..."

---

Perhaps Nixon's error was in not buying himself a Supreme Court first?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:55 AM

Washington Post:

Admiral Scapegoat

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A17

A sadder but wiser Vice Admiral J.M. "Mike" McConnell, director of national intelligence (DNI), told a senior Republican House member last weekend that the next time he dealt with congressional Democrats he would make sure a Republican was in the room or on the phone. After a lifetime navigating the murky waters of intelligence, McConnell at age 64 was ill-prepared for the stormy seas of Capitol Hill.

Late Saturday, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a bill that is anathema to the party's base: authorization of eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations without a court warrant. It passed because Democrats could not take the political risk of going home for the August recess having shut down U.S. surveillance of threats to the country. But since they could not blame themselves, they blamed the nonpolitical DNI.

At issue is whether McConnell, in a closed-door meeting, accepted a Democratic plan sharply limiting warrantless eavesdropping and then reneged under White House pressure. The Democratic leadership hoped the admiral's approval would give enough Republicans and Democrats cover to vote for their bill. Instead, his disapproval produced a breakdown in Democratic discipline rare during this Congress.

McConnell, who spent 26 of his 29 active-duty Navy years in intelligence, is a gray spook not widely known on Capitol Hill until last week. After serving the last four years of his naval career as director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton, he was not considered a Republican. That was before last week's meeting at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office with other key House Democrats and with McConnell on the phone. As usual, no Republicans were invited, and the bill under discussion was not revealed to the GOP.

Hopes of passing the bill faded when McConnell issued a written statement saying, "I strongly oppose it," adding that it "would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the nation." Nevertheless, Democratic leaders brought up their bill on Friday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote for passage to prevent the Republicans from offering a stronger substitute. The vote, 218 to 207, fell far short.

That left Democrats in a difficult position. Could they go home without having passed a surveillance bill and face Republican taunts that Congress was permitting terrorists to communicate freely? They had no choice but to permit the administration's bill to come to a vote Saturday night just before adjourning, without imposing party discipline. Not a single Democrat spoke in favor of the bill. No committee chairman voted for it. But 41 Democrats did -- mostly junior members, including 13 freshmen from competitive districts. The bill passed 227 to 183. It also passed easily in the Senate, where 16 Democrats supported it.

To explain this defeat, Democrats in floor debate added McConnell to their gallery of rogues, along with George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York suggested McConnell accepted the Democratic restrictions "until he spoke to the White House, and now he changes politically." Off the House floor, one prominent Democrat said -- not for attribution -- that McConnell "was less than truthful." On the record, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel told me: "He was not negotiating in good faith."

What did McConnell say in his conference with the Democrats? The usually prudent House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, was measured in floor debate, saying the DNI (in a "direct quote") informed the Democrats that their proposal "significantly enhances America's security." He added: "I do not imply that he said he supported it." McConnell, a reticent professional intelligence officer, declined to talk to me about his comments to Democrats. But Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, talked with McConnell on Saturday and Monday and told me: "He never had a deal with the Democrats."

In three decades of dealing with intelligence secrets, Mike McConnell was never subjected to the abuse he encountered in the two House sessions, during which he was called a cowardly liar. With the activist Democratic base bitterly opposed to eavesdropping but the party's leadership wary of challenging President Bush on protecting the country from terrorism, the admiral became the scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 03:16 PM

David Swanson writes:

..."Failure to stop Bush is not a victimless crime
by David Swanson
August 8, 2007

If you support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, I'm sure you have your reasons and that they're based in hard scientific calculations. But please indulge me for a moment and help me do this little math problem:

All the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever they may be)…

Actually, let me stop right there. The benefits you have in mind for this calculation should not include the increased price of gas, the killed and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, or the creation of a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq (that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made us less safe is the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, supported as well by a conservative British think tank). Oh, and please don't factor in the Iraqis' gratitude, since the majority of them believe the invasion and occupation have made them worse off, and they want the U.S. to leave.

As I was saying, all the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever in the world they may be) have come at a certain financial cost. U.S. taxpayers have shelled out $450 billion thus far. The Congressional Budget Office expects costs to end up over a trillion. And those calculations do not include the costs of providing health care for veterans and rebuilding the military, or the effects on the economy of removing workers to make them soldiers, of increasing the price of oil, of failing to spend the war money on domestic projects (such as infrastructure), etc. Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes estimate a total cost of at least $2 trillion.

The immediate impact of that expense on human lives has been the following: an estimated 995,320 Iraqis killed, many more severely injured, an estimated 2 million Iraqis displaced within Iraq, and another estimated 2 million Iraqis now living as refugees in surrounding nations. Add to this nearly 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women killed, and nearly 27,000 wounded in combat, and another 27,000 wounded in accidents or suffering illnesses requiring medical evaluation. As of the end of 2006, more than 180,000 U.S. military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had filed disability claims. Contractors and mercenaries in Iraq outnumber U.S. troops, and according to Reuters had suffered 933 deaths as of June 30, and 10,569 wounded as of March 31. About 200 of those dead were Americans.

In very rough terms, then, we have chosen to shell out a trillion dollars to kill a million people. That's $1,000 for each death (plus, again, whatever the benefits have been).

Now, here comes the math problem. What if we had spent that trillion dollars saving lives that were at risk instead of taking away lives that were relatively safe? We know, for example, that tens of thousands of children die every year for lack of basic health care. A measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, including safe injection equipment, costs about $1.00. Thousands of children die every year for lack of drinkable water. You can find a lot of people clean water with a trillion dollars. According to UNESCO's 2007 Global Monitoring Report, we could provide primary education to every child in the world who lacks it for $11 billion a year.

And if we think in terms of just the United States, our needs shrink in the face of wealth as enormous as a trillion dollars. For that kind of money, we could provide health coverage to more people than we have in this country (a misleading statistic, since we already spend more than we need to for health coverage; we don't need to spend more – we need to establish single-payer coverage and spend less). Or we could provide tens of millions of four-year college scholarships (how many soldiers would choose a fourth tour of Iraq over a free college education?). Or we could create a jobs program working on infrastructure and green energy that would boost this economy and provide young people with choices other than the military.

So, this is the question for you to calculate: how would you spend a trillion dollars? If you could save a million lives and not kill the million people we've killed in Iraq, wouldn't that be a net gain of 2 million lives saved? Wouldn't you do it? This is not an academic exercise. The deaths in Iraq are continuing, and the death rate is increasing, not slowing down. After a month's vacation, Congress will vote another gargantuan pile of cash for the occupation of Iraq in September. Don't think for a minute that they won't do it….unless we stop them.
..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:17 AM

"To their shame, 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House voted to hand the president monarchical powers that the signers of the Constitution had withheld. The Fourth Amendment has served to safeguard citizens against warrantless searches and seizures; this president says instead: Just trust me.

These Democrats will no doubt be astonished, but Republicans will not stop calling them weak on terrorism. The rest of us just think they're weak, period.

Fred Roberts

Decatur, Ga., Aug. 7, 2007"

Hmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:05 AM

In the Times, an essay on the deeply flawed attitude of Bush's cronies toward the management of terrorism and the difference between combatants and common criminals. It was argued, by me among others, just after 9-11, that these acts should be prosecuted as crimes. Wesley Clark does a lucid job of unpacking the verygood reasons why Bush's policies of bitterness and militarism toward terrorist crimes is misguided and harmful.


"...If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities "war." The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not "unlawful combatant" but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America's legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the "deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians."

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Mr. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Mr. Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court's reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration's approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not "combatants." They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security."

Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:44 PM

My hat is off to Mister Cohen. May he continue to wake others up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 02:58 PM

Not My Grandpa's Democrats

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; Page A13

As always, I was awakened by a sudden draft through the closed windows, saw the curtains ominously stirring and sensed instantly that someone was in my bedroom. Without even looking up, I knew it was my long-dead grandfather, an immigrant of socialist leanings and what he would call common sense. Wearily, I went through the drill.

"Grandpa, is that you?"

"You were expecting maybe Lucy Lohan?"

"Lindsay," I corrected.

" 'Scuse me. Where I am we don't get People magazine."

I tried to get to the point. "What brings you down this time?" I asked.

He was holding a newspaper, always a dangerous sign.

"What's happened to the Democratic Party?" he asked.

"What do you mean?"

"What do I mean? What do I mean? Listen, college boy, in my day, the Democrats stood for the little man. You know the little man, boychik?"

"Yes, Grandpa."

"He's the working stiff. He's the guy with a lunch pail. You think it's right he pays a higher rate of taxes than those hedge-fund managers?"

"Oh, Grandpa, you're talking about something called the 'Carry.' It stands for carried interest, and it means that these money managers and hedge-fund guys, wonderful risk-takers and builders of wonderful wealth, get taxed as if their income is capital gains -- 15 percent. The IRS says it's legal."

"Legal, shmegal! You think it's fair?"

"Fair?"

"Yeah, fair. You heard of fair, Mr. Famous Columnist?"

"This is not a matter of fairness, Grandpa. Believe me, there are vast issues of macroeconomics and tax policy here, which, if not handled properly, will sink the economy."

"Who are you?" my grandfather bellowed. "The poor pay more than the rich, and you give me this macaroni economics stuff. You should be ashamed of yourself." He paused.

"You know this Schumer?"

"Chuck? The senator? Yeah."

"He's opposed to this tax fairness. What kind of Democrat is this?"

"You have to understand," I explained, "Schumer represents Wall Street."

"What about Main Street?"

" Hillary supports your view."

"You think I was born yesterday? She's not going to campaign on that. She'll let this Chuck character take the heat, and she'll do nothing."

"Do you have two sources for that?"

"Oh, wake up! Don't you know nothing about bosses and workers and who controls politicians? Too much college made your brain soft." He paused again.

"You know any subprime people?" he said.

"What?"

"These people who got these lousy mortgages. They got this fancy word for these poor suckers. Subprime."

"These are wonderful financial instruments that have made us a great nation of homeowners."

"This is a Brooklyn Bridge for poor people to buy. This is a way of selling houses to people who can't afford them. It's a way for bankers to make money. They take the loans from these poor people, and then they put thousands of them in a Vegematic or something and then sell what comes out. The lenders don't lose nothing. They didn't warn people that interest rates would go up, and they would lose everything -- their house and everything they put in it. That's a crime in my book. Someone should be punished. Instead, the mortgage people make out like bandits."

"You have a point."

"Thank you. And where is the Democratic Party? Where is the party of the little man? Nowhere. Who's yelling and screaming about this or, God forbid, leading a march or holding a rally just like the old days? Who's organizing a boycott or maybe holding a show in a theater? Not the Democrats. Too afraid of Wall Street."

"Oh, Grandpa, that's so old-fashioned."

"You think so, smarty-pants? You think honesty and fairness is old-fashioned? You think it's right for the head of this Blackstone group to make hundreds of millions of dollars and pay almost no taxes? Virtually nothing! And he gives a party for himself in New York that costs millions. He has a 35-room apartment that once belonged to a Rockefeller and fancy art on the wall and has the chutzpah to buy lobbyists by the dozen so he don't pay his fair share in taxes. Is that right?"

"Maybe he should pay more."

"Maybe? Maybe you should write columns kicking the Democrats in the pants for forgetting who they represent. Maybe you should get angry yourself. Maybe you should remember who you are and where you come from?"

"Yes, Grandpa."

"Good. How's your mother?"

"Pretty good. She was 95 on July 4th."

"Tell her I love her."

"Yes, Grandpa."

"Go back to sleep, boychik."

And, like the rest of the country, I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 02:54 PM

From the Washington Post.



Our Chance to Capture the Center

By Martin O'Malley and Harold Ford Jr.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; Page A13

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

A majority comes hard for Democrats. In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote.

What's more, political success built on the other party's failure is fleeting. Jimmy Carter won a majority in the wake of Watergate, but his own shortcomings on national security and the economy took him from majority victor to landslide loser in four years. Repudiating the other side's approach is only half the battle. Since neither side has a monopoly on truth, the hard part is knowing when to look beyond traditional orthodoxies to do what works.

Like FDR, we can build a lasting majority only by earning it -- with ideas that demonstrate to the American people that if they entrust us with national leadership, we can deal effectively with the challenges our country faces and the challenges they face in their everyday lives.

Over the past six years, we've seen what happens when an administration writes off the political center and manipulates every decision for partisan gain. Bush's failure to solve -- or even address -- America's great challenges has left our country dispirited, disillusioned and divided.

Contrast the collapse of a conservative president with the success of the last centrist president. Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperity. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory.

Nearly seven years after Bush succeeded Clinton in the White House, America is facing challenges as great as we've ever seen -- a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. To conquer such enduring problems, Democrats will need a broad, enduring majority -- and a centrist agenda that sustains it by making steady progress.

Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great -- and too rare -- to pass up.

A new Democratic president will have the chance to unite Americans around solutions that will make all Americans proud of their country again. For the sake of the hardworking Americans who are depending on us to fix Washington and put our country on the right track, we pray that Democrats set out to build a majority that can last.

Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, is governor of Maryland. Harold Ford Jr. is a former Democratic representative from Tennessee and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:57 PM

Amos while there will always be some rogue idiot public servants, it has always been the American Ruling class who ultimately buys the President, laws and new talent to further their ability to get more money for power and get more power to protect their money.

In a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracal of science, no question gets asked more often than the use of America's wealth and power.

To what ends do the wealth of the Wall Street Banks and the force of the Pentagon's collosal weapons. Where does America get its wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?

THe questions touch upon the nature of America's ruling class/
IF the question is too hard it is because we like to pretend there is no such thing as the American ruling class that has ever darkened an American shore or howled at the dark of an American moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 03:11 PM

The Good Government

(A Fable by Ambrose Bierce)



"WHAT a happy land you are!" said a Republican Form of Government to a Sovereign State. "Be good enough to lie still while I walk upon you, singing the praises of universal suffrage and descanting upon the blessings of civil and religious liberty. In the meantime you can relieve your feelings by cursing the one-man power and the effete monarchies of Europe."

"My public servants have been fools and rogues from the date of your accession to power," replied the State; "my legislative bodies, both State and municipal, are bands of thieves; my taxes are insupportable; my courts are corrupt; my cities are a disgrace to civilisation; my corporations have their hands at the throats of every private interest - all my affairs are in disorder and criminal confusion."

"That is all very true," said the Republican Form of Government, putting on its hobnail shoes; "but consider how I thrill you every Fourth of July."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 03:10 PM

If you are not a DC beaurocrat let me tell you the obvious.

The OMB Office of Management and Budget has become the department in which the White House uses to punish, block, defund and compromise every other department in the government.

It targets the EPA, NIH and has even attacked the GAO.

If you think the justice department is politicized the OMB is far worse.
It is staffed with lots of Regent college 20 year olds who assign entire Federal Departments with catch 22 projects of absolute waste and delay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 02:53 PM

" Blame also belongs to the idiot politicians who decided 30 years ago to abandon the moon and send us on a pointless and endless journey into low Earth orbit. President Bush has sensibly called an end to this nonsense and committed us to going back to the moon and, ultimately, to Mars. If his successors don't screw it up, within 10 years NASA will have us back to where we belong -- on other worlds."

from the Washington Post,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202022.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM

Its Saudacious

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM

That should be SAUDI arms deal, not Audi. As far as I know the Bushies haven't started selling arms to car manufacturers yet--I think it is scheduled for 2010, in the middle of the third term.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 03:35 PM

An acidic analysis of the mind-boggling stupidity behind the multi-billion Audi arms deal the Bush administration is pushing can be found here at The Nation. Highly recommended. A fine argument for impeachment (see other thread on this subject)on the grounds of betrayal of the national trust...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 04:39 PM

The surge is so successful that the plan is to keep it up for another 2 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:43 PM

Bush's Enablers

In the New York Times yesterday, Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack published an op-ed entitled A War We Just Might Win, in which they argue, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." Billing themselves "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," the authors declare that "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." The Bush administration quickly latched onto the op-ed to support its failing Iraq strategy, e-mailing the editorial to every White House reporter yesterday morning with the subject line "In Case You Missed It." Peter Wehner, the White House's departing director of strategic communications, told the Politico that the op-ed was "possibly climate-changing." Predictably, the administration's dead-end pro-war supporters hastily followed suit. The piece was praised in nearly every corner of the right-wing blogosphere. National Review, the flagship magazine of the conservative movement, convened a symposium of eight prominent war-backers, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and another Brookings analyst Peter Rodman, to praise the editorial. In propagating the New York Times column, the White House placed O'Hanlon and Pollack back in the familiar roles they've played throughout the entire Iraq war: establishment left-of-center experts providing political cover for the administration's misguided war policies.

WRONG ABOUT THE INVASION: In the fall of 2002, Pollack published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, which warned that Saddam was extremely close to developing nuclear weapons. Slate's Chris Suellentrop described the book as turning "more doves into hawks than Richard Perle, Laurie Mylroie, and George W. Bush combined." In Oct. 2002, Pollack appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to discuss Iraq for her massive audience, where he pushed the false, but frightening, claim "that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can." O'Hanlon participated in the pre-war fear-mongering as well. In a Dec. 31, 2002 op-ed, O'Hanlon argued that "Saddam Hussein may be poised to bring the battle to American cities via terrorism." "We've got to go to war by March, I think, if we're going to use the good weather," he told Fox News in Jan. 2003. Unfortunately, given the influence of the Brookings Institution, O'Hanlon and Pollack's support for the war helped push many skeptics towards supporting the folly of invading Iraq.

WRONG ABOUT THE SURGE: Though both scholars became more critical of the administration's handling of the war as the situation worsened over the years, both O'Hanlon and Pollack lent their intellectual and rhetorical support to Bush's push for escalation in Iraq in the winter of 2006. Pollack, who was consulted by the military about escalation plans, argued at the time, "[T]he president's plan is almost certainly the last chance to stabilize Iraq." On Jan. 14, 2007, O'Hanlon wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post entitled A Skeptic's Case For The Surge, arguing that though the "surge" may be "too little, way too late...for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try." O'Hanlon argued again in March 2007 that "rather than force a showdown with Mr. Bush this winter and spring, Congress should give his surge strategy a chance."

WRONG ABOUT STAYING THE COURSE: In their op-ed, O'Hanlon and Pollack concede that the alleged success they are seeing is only "in military terms" and that "we still face huge hurdles on the political front." This concession undermines much of their case for "sustaining the effort at least into 2008." Since the "surge" began, even Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has admitted that "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," only a political one. Additionally, O'Hanlon's own research in the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index contradicts his effort to portray the "surge" as successful. Just last week, on July 26, O'Hanlon's assessment argued that "violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge." He also noted that "politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws." When asked to respond to O'Hanlon's assertions of progress in Iraq, CNN Baghdad correspondent Arwa Damon replied that "most [Iraqis] that I've spoken to will not really say that they feel that the situation is getting better." By cherry-picking anecdotal signs of progress in order to justify continuing a war they supported from the beginning, O'Hanlon and Pollack overlook the fundamental problems of the continuing American presence in Iraq. Strategic Reset, a plan put forth by the Center for American Progress, addresses these fundamental flaws and calls for phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year. On MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, Strategic Reset co-author Brian Katulis called out O'Hanlon for writing a "propaganda piece" and "cherry-picking the facts on Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:13 PM

from the Washington Post

Short of Perjury

By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; Page A19

I find myself in an unaccustomed and unexpected position: defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales fans, if there are Gonzales fans left, except for the only fan who counts: Don't take any comfort from my assessment.

In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales once again dissembled and misled. He was too clever by seven-eighths. He employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed. The brutalizing he received from senators of both parties was abundantly deserved.

But I don't think he actually lied about his March 2004 hospital encounter with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury.

Go back to December 2005, when the New York Times reported on a secret program of warrantless wiretapping. President Bush acknowledged an effort "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

Soon, the first stories about the hospital visit appeared.

In a Jan. 1, 2006, article, the Times reported then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's refusal to approve continuation of the surveillance program and described "an emergency visit" to Ashcroft's hospital room by Gonzales and Andrew Card, then White House counsel and chief of staff, respectively.

Similarly, Newsweek reported how the White House aides "visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey's refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his No. 2."

It was in this context -- senators knew about the hospital visit well before Comey's riveting description in May -- that Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006.

Asked about those reports, he said that "with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program." The disagreements, he said, "dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today."

Flash-forward to last week, when Gonzales once again said: "The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital . . . was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."

The emphasis is mine, and it matters. We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague.

In his May testimony, Comey referred only to "a particular classified program." FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the hospital-room encounter was about "an NSA program that has been much discussed."

Does this really contradict Gonzales or turn him into a perjurer? It's clear there was an argument over the warrantless wiretapping program. Comey refused to recertify it. In response, something about the program changed; Justice officials were willing to go along with the modified program.

The New York Times reported Sunday that the disagreement involved "computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- not necessarily the more-limited program the president acknowledged. As the Times put it, "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales' defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."

Congress deserves better than technically correct linguistic parsing. So the bipartisan fury at Gonzales is understandable. Lawmakers are in full Howard Beale mode, mad as hell at Gonzales and not wanting to take it anymore.

But perjury is a crime that demands parsing: To be convicted, the person must have "willfully" stated a "material matter which he does not believe to be true."

The Supreme Court could have been writing about Gonzales when it ruled that "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth" -- even if the answers "were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade."

Consequently, the calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?

Rather, lawmakers need to concentrate on determining what the administration did -- and under what claimed legal authority -- that produced the hospital room showdown. They need to satisfy themselves that the administration has since been operating within the law; to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes.

That's where Congress's focus should be -- not on trying to incite criminal a prosecution that won't happen of an attorney general who should have been gone long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 02:09 AM

WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Senator Ted Stevens on Monday in search of evidence about his relationship to a businessman who oversaw a remodeling project that almost doubled the size of the senator's house, federal law enforcement officials said.

The decision to raid the home suggests that the corruption investigation focused on Mr. Stevens, a long-serving Republican and former chairman, has taken on new urgency.

The businessman, Bill J. Allen, the founder of an oil fields service company that has won tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts with the senator's help, has pleaded guilty to bribing state legislators.

The F.B.I. confirmed that the raid on Mr. Stevens's home in the Alaskan ski resort city of Girdwood, about 40 miles south of Anchorage, began about 2:30 p.m. Alaska time, or about 6:30 p.m. Eastern time.

In Washington, Mr. Stevens issued a brief statement: "My attorneys were advised this morning that federal agents wished to search my home in Girdwood in connection with an ongoing investigation. I continue to believe this investigation should proceed to its conclusion without any appearance that I have attempted to influence the outcome."

A spokesman for the Anchorage office of the F.B.I., David Heller, would not discuss details of what was being sought in the raid and referred calls to the Justice Department's public integrity division in Washington. The division handles major corruption cases involving public officials.

Mr. Stevens is one of more than a dozen current and former members of Congress who are known to be under scrutiny by the F.B.I.

His case may be the most politically consequential. He is the only senator known to be under criminal investigation, and he continues to wield power on the Appropriations Committee, which controls how the federal budget is distributed. Mr. Stevens, 83, is up for re-election next year and has suggested that he will seek another term.

Mr. Stevens has been caught up in a larger corruption investigation in Alaska that resulted in raids last year on the homes of six state lawmakers, including the senator's son, Ben, who was then president of State Senate. All of the state lawmakers are under scrutiny over their relationships with Mr. Allen and his company, VECO, and other large Alaska companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:51 PM

This is the War on Terror by the incomparable Roy Zimmerman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM

Walter Mondale on Cheney:

Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page B07


"The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.

But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.

Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.

Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.

Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.

Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:20 PM

Bush Aide Blocked Report
Global Health Draft In 2006 Rejected for Not Being Political
By Christopher Lee and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page A01


A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post.



Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the "Call to Action on Global Health" while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration's frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report's contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:10 AM

US Senate breaks Bush's budget in homeland security bill, adds money for controlling border
AP July 26, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Senate passed the first of 12 spending bills, smashing President George W. Bush's budget for border control and other homeland security programs.

The $40.6 billion (€29.6 billion) measure passed by an overwhelming 89-4 vote Thursday, as Bush's Republican allies joined with Democrats to flout his veto threat.

The already popular bill became more so with the addition of $3 billion (€2.2 billion) above budget caps set by both Bush and Senate Democratic leaders to secure the U.S-Mexico border and seek out immigrants who have overstayed their visas.

The bill also greatly exceeds Bush's request for homeland security grants to state and local governments for improving disaster planning and training, interoperable radio equipment, and paying for new fire and rescue equipment.

Senate action came as Republicans and the White House stepped up attacks on Democrats for their handling of the must-pass appropriations work, warning that a stack of veto threats and a slow pace of work virtually guarantees a legislative mess in the fall.
Today in Americas
In the Amazon: conservation or colonialism?
FBI director disputes Gonzales testimony on classified intelligence program
Edwards proposes increase to capital gains tax

"Here we are almost in August and we've only passed one" appropriations bill, griped Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. "We're looking at a potential train wreck in September."

In fact, Republicans brought only two spending bills to the floor all of last year when they controlled the Senate. Their performance two years ago was considerably better, however.

The border security money was broken out of Bush's immigration overhaul bill, which failed last month. The money would go toward seizing "operational control" over the U.S.-Mexico border with additional Border Patrol agents, vehicle barriers, border fencing and observation towers, plus a crackdown on people who overstay their visas.

But its addition to the bill seemed to guarantee that Bush will need to either drop his veto threat on the underlying bill — which already exceeded his budget by $2.3 billion (€1.7 billion) — or have his vetoes overturned.

Earlier, House lawmakers approved legislation to increase funding for space and science programs, local crime fighters and the FBI.

The $53.8 billion (€39.2 billion) measure funding the departments of Commerce and Justice passed the House by a 281-142 vote, just enough to sustain a veto.

But the tally belied the widespread support for programs financed by the sprawling measure, including anti-crime grants for states and local governments, the administration's "competitiveness initiative" boosting basic science research and teaching, as well as the FBI and anti-drug programs.

Bush has threatened vetoes or signaled veto threats against nine of the 12 annual spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1; all but two of those threats involve spending levels that exceed the budget the administration proposed in February.

The differences between Bush and Congress involve $23 billion (€16.8 billion) in funding added by lawmakers to the president's $433 billion (€315.6 billion) request for non-defense programs — about a 5 percent increase — as well as $3.5 billion (€2.55 billion) shifted by Democrats from the Pentagon to domestic programs.

In many cases, the Democratic add-ons restore cuts Bush sought. In prior years, Republican-controlled congresses denied many of the same cuts.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Spending.php

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 03:38 PM

Rove Summoned as Democrats Escalate Fight With Bush on Firings

By James Rowley

July 26 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats sought a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to lawmakers and subpoenaed President George W. Bush's top political aide Karl Rove to testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Charges by four Democratic senators that Gonzales repeatedly lied under oath, plus the latest subpoena, raised the stakes in the congressional fight with Bush over his refusal to allow aides to testify about the firing of nine prosecutors last year.

The new allegations against Gonzales came two days after the attorney general appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he faced expressions of incredulity and disdain from senators in both parties about his answers to questions on Bush's surveillance of suspected terrorists.

``The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,'' New York Democrat Charles Schumer told reporters. ``Instead, he tells the half- truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth. And he does it not once, and not twice, but over and over and over again.''

In a letter to the Justice Department, the senators said a special counsel should ``determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself.'' Besides Schumer, it was signed by Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (...)

(From Bloomberg.com)

---

Going to the mat over Karl Rove is a tactical stroke of dramatic import. May it succeed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM

Ideology is never a suitable premise for foreign policy.
Alfred Kayda PHD

$1.5 trillion is the estimated cost to keep the aging US infrastructure intact over the next 5 years.

This is about equal to the actual cost of the ongong Gulf Wars.

The US will pay for the diversion of these funds. Our bridges pipes tunnels and roads currently in need of repair will be futher stressed by an acellerated rate of natural disasters.

It is possible that Halliburton will have its cake and eat it too if called upon for additional Katrina like emergency repairs.








PS
there is no such thing as a stock tip: however to buy low and sell high check out

Texas Instruments.
Exon Mobil
GM (at junk bond status last year)
AG Edwards%Wacovia merger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:02 AM

The administration's contemptuous attitude toward the constitutional role of Congress was on display again this week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He repeatedly refused to answer legitimate questions, and he contradicted himself so frequently that it is hard to believe he was even trying to tell the truth.

Congress must not capitulate in the White House's attempt to rob it of its constitutional powers. Now that the committee has acted, the whole House must vote to hold Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt. The administration has indicated that it is unlikely to allow the United States attorney for the District of Columbia to bring Congress's contempt charges before a grand jury. That would be a regrettable stance. But if the administration sticks to it, Congress can and should proceed against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten on its own, using its inherent contempt powers.

It is not too late for President Bush to spare the country the trauma, and himself the disgrace, of this particular constitutional showdown. There is a simple way out. He should direct Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to provide Congress with the information to which it is entitled.

(Times editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 08:24 PM

Here's an oddball pitch from the Fish and Wildlife people. They want to build a top-security room. Secret fish and bear stuff...

"Subject: Secret Squirrels?

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is commissioning construction of a
SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility)?? Al Qaeda
recruiting racoons or something?

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/FWS/CGSWO/973107Q036/SynopsisP.html

"The US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training
Center (NCTC), Shepherdstown, WV intends to convert a room at the
facility into a SCIF meeting space.    Potential Vendors are
required to provide a design and cost estimate based on information
provided with the solicitation and the scheduled walk through meeting
on August 8, 2007 at 10:00am.    The room upon completion will meet
all of the required National Security Agency SCIF standards."

I can imagine a number of scenarios, I guess, from leaching budget
from one agency to cover another, to "entrepreneurial" efforts to
make use of excess facilities by renting to other agencies, but I
can't imagine a lot of reasons for Fish & Wildlife to use a one itself.

As a metacomment, I'm seeing a lot of solicitations with very tight
deadlines, e.g., this one came out today, it's got a (presumably
necessary) meeting for vendors in two weeks, which doesn't much allow
for anyone who hasn't already got this on the radar to respond."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 02:52 PM

"No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character."

                Ralph Waldo Emerson

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 12:09 PM


Fortunately for rational discourse, Why Bush Is A Loser,By David Corn
A

(Not to be redundant or unaware of earlier posts or anything...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 12:06 PM

Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A03

President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.

President Bush's disapproval rating in the polls has risen to within one digit of President Nixon's record high.

The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.

Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.

The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. "It isn't just the Iraq war," said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. "It's everything."

Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. "You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy," said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. "Not both."

Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival.

"It's astonishing," said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. "It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him."

That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans "strongly" disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as "angry."

"A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions."

Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:20 AM

Odds are, Bush will be a winner By WILLIAM KRISTOL Houston Chronicle July 21, 2007

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil — not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy — also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where — despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week this month — we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed — private Social Security accounts and immigration — I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it — but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaida — because al-Qaida may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.

As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid — you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say — that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaida in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling — but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test. The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress— where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.

And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM

July 23, 2007, 3:05 pm
Poll: U.S. Support for Iraq Invasion Inches Up
By Megan Thee (NY Times back pages)

American support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until General David Petraeus files his report in the fall.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

Support had been at all time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the United States' invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.


Still, the latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly. But the number of people who say the war is going "very badly" has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as "somewhat well" compared to 23 percent just last week.

At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it, and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points and larger for subgroups.

The modest gains in support for the invasion of Iraq come at a time when there are new warnings from the Bush Administration about heightened terrorist activity. A majority of Americans say that in the long run, the United States will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of the affairs of countries in the Middle East. But there is a sharp party divide on the issue — 73 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 28 percent of Republicans agree.

Americans are divided over whether the Bush administration's discussion of terrorism is out of a genuine concern or if it is a political tool. Half of those polled say members of the Bush Administration talk about the threat of terrorism to gain a political advantage, while 39 percent consider the threat a genuine issue.   ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM

...Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress's control over spending as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting "in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence."

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress's role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton's questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq," he wrote. Mr. Edelman's response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an "invitation to struggle" among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

...

(Times Op-Ed, 7-23-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:46 AM

From the Washington Post:


Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 23, 2007; Page A17

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.

That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.

These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.

At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."

In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.

When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.

Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 09:09 PM

Vetoing Children's Health
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: July 22, 2007
President Bush is threatening to veto any substantial increase in spending for a highly successful children's health program on the bizarre theory that expanding it would be the "beginning salvo" in establishing a government-run health care system. His shortsighted ideological opposition would leave millions of children without health insurance at a time when medical costs are soaring.

The president's ire was provoked by a bipartisan bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week that would expand the so-called State Children's Health Insurance Program, a joint federal-state effort that, over the last decade, has substantially reduced the number of uninsured children in the country. The program, known as S-chip, seeks to cover children whose family income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford costly private coverage. It is due to expire on Sept. 30 unless Congress reauthorizes it.

The program now gets $5 billion a year in federal money to match state contributions, and the Bush administration has proposed a meager increase of $5 billion spread over the next five years. With health care costs escalating, that would not even be enough to cover all of the 6.6 million children who were enrolled at some time during the last year. Hundreds of thousands of children would likely fall off the rolls. And there would be no help for some eight to nine million children who now have no health coverage at all.

The Finance Committee rightly rejected that false economy. By a hefty 17-to-4 margin, it voted to authorize a $35 billion increase for S-chip spread over five years. Instead of reducing the number of children enrolled, the Senate bill would provide coverage for an additional 3.2 million children who are uninsured now. And in another boon for American health, the costs would be paid for by a steep increase in taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products — a further disincentive for smokers.

Mr. Bush's objections are primarily philosophical: that the bill would move more people into a government-run program while he would prefer to entice them into buying private insurance with the help of tax deductions, his favored approach for all uninsured Americans. Tax deductions will not make much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. And it seems wrongheaded to impose collateral damage on a successful children's health insurance program while waging that broader ideological battle.

The administration argues that S-chip should be mainly for children in families with incomes no higher than twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. But that hardly suffices in states where medical costs are high and private policies can cost the average family $10,000 to $12,000 a year. At least 18 states now cover children in families with higher incomes, and some also cover pregnant women, parents and some childless adults.

Now the administration wants to reduce matching money for these added categories and push more of the burden onto financially strapped states. It worries that any more generous coverage would lead many families or small employers to drop private policies. That is bound to happen, but it would seem a plus if those families could get better or cheaper coverage through S-chip.

The Senate would still leave millions of children uninsured and would discourage any additional states from covering low-income parents — reducing the likelihood that they would enroll their children. Senate Democrats believe this is the best that could be achieved. Now it will be up to the full Senate to approve the bill by a veto-proof margin. Meanwhile, House Democrats have their sights on a bigger increase — some $50 billion over five years to cover even more uninsured children.

...


(Editorial, NY Times, 7-22-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 02:24 PM

David Halberstam writes in Vanity Fair:

"The History Boys

In the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush and his inner circle have been feeding the press with historical parallels: he is Harry Truman—unpopular, besieged, yet ultimately to be vindicated—while Iraq under Saddam was Europe held by Hitler. To a serious student of the past, that's preposterous. Writing just before his untimely death, David Halberstam asserts that Bush's "history," like his war, is based on wishful thinking, arrogance, and a total disdain for the facts.


We are a long way from the glory days of Mission Accomplished, when the Iraq war was over before it was over—indeed before it really began—and the president could dress up like a fighter pilot and land on an aircraft carrier, and the nation, led by a pliable media, would applaud. Now, late in this sad, terribly diminished presidency, mired in an unwinnable war of their own making, and increasingly on the defensive about events which, to their surprise, they do not control, the president and his men have turned, with some degree of desperation, to history. In their view Iraq under Saddam was like Europe dominated by Hitler, and the Democrats and critics in the media are likened to the appeasers of the 1930s. The Iraqi people, shorn of their immensely complicated history, become either the people of Europe eager to be liberated from the Germans, or a little nation that great powerful nations ought to protect. Most recently in this history rummage sale—and perhaps most surprisingly—Bush has become Harry Truman.


We have lately been getting so many history lessons from the White House that I have come to think of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the late, unlamented Rumsfeld as the History Boys. They are people groping for rationales for their failed policy, and as the criticism becomes ever harsher, they cling to the idea that a true judgment will come only in the future, and history will save them.

Ironically, it is the president himself, a man notoriously careless about, indeed almost indifferent to, the intellectual underpinnings of his actions, who has come to trumpet loudest his close scrutiny of the lessons of the past. Though, before, he tended to boast about making critical decisions based on instinct and religious faith, he now talks more and more about historical mandates. Usually he does this in the broadest—and vaguest—sense: History teaches us … We know from history … History shows us. In one of his speaking appearances in March 2006, in Cleveland, I counted four references to history, and what it meant for today, as if he had had dinner the night before with Arnold Toynbee, or at the very least Barbara Tuchman, and then gone home for a few hours to read his Gibbon.

I am deeply suspicious of these presidential seminars. We have, after all, come to know George Bush fairly well by now, and many of us have come to feel—not only because of what he says, but also because of the sheer cockiness in how he says it—that he has a tendency to decide what he wants to do first, and only then leaves it to his staff to look for intellectual justification. Many of us have always sensed a deep and visceral anti-intellectual streak in the president, that there was a great chip on his shoulder, and that the burden of the fancy schools he attended—Andover and Yale—and even simply being a member of the Bush family were too much for him. It was as if he needed not only to escape but also to put down those of his peers who had been more successful. From that mind-set, I think, came his rather unattractive habit of bestowing nicknames, most of them unflattering, on the people around him, to remind them that he was in charge, that despite their greater achievements they still worked for him.

He is infinitely more comfortable with the cowboy persona he has adopted, the Texas transplant who has learned to speak the down-home vernacular. "Country boy," as Johnny Cash once sang, "I wish I was you, and you were me." Bush's accent, not always there in public appearances when he was younger, tends to thicken these days, the final g's consistently dropped so that doing becomes doin', going becomes goin', and making, makin'. In this lexicon al-Qaeda becomes "the folks" who did 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not just the speech that got dumbed down—so also were the ideas at play. The president's world, unlike the one we live in, is dangerously simple, full of traps, not just for him but, sadly, for us as well. ...