BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM

Wow! 35%!!! When they reached that level last October he was viewed as a dead duck.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:16 AM

Bush Job Approval Up To 35%
As Bush's approval numbers inch upward, satisfaction with where the country is headed is also trending higher.

National NewsPresident Bush's job approval rating has rebounded to 35%, after hitting a all-time low of 30% for the second time earlier this month, the latest Zogby International telephone poll shows.

Bush's job approval rating bump returns him to an approval level he last attained in late October 2006, when his positive marks stood at 36% during a torrid campaign to hold Republican control of both the U.S. House and Senate. Ultimately, that effort failed, and since, his positive numbers have hovered between 30% and 32%. His latest ratings boost now, as he winds up a five-country visit to Latin America, where anti-Bush sentiment runs high in many areas.

Sixty-three percent of Republicans gave Bush positive job marks, up from 61% in our early March poll. This compares to 11% of Democrats, up from 7% in early March. Among self-described independents, the President's positive job rating jumped from 20% in early March to 31% in our most recent poll.

The telephone survey of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted March 7-9, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

In addition to a positive job rating boost for Bush, the same poll finds a slight increase in his ratings for handling the war in Iraq – overall, 26% give him a positive performance rating on the war, up from 23% in polling in early March. While nearly half of Republicans (47%) said they approve of how Bush is handling the war, Republican support is down slightly from the last round of polling, when it stood at 49%.

As Republican support slips slightly, gains have been made among Democrats and independents. Although there is significantly less support for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq among Democrats, 8% give positive ratings to his handling of the war, up from just 3% in the last round of polling. Among independents, 25% approve of Bush's handling of the war, a boost from 15% who said the same earlier this month.

As Bush's approval numbers inch upward, satisfaction with where the country is headed is also trending higher. Overall, 33% said the country is headed in the right direction, an increase from 31% in early March polling. But while Republicans' confidence in the country's direction grew to 57% from 54% earlier this month, Democrats remain skeptical – 16% of Democrats said the U.S. was headed in the right direction earlier this month, compared to just 10% in the most recent poll. Independent voters show the most positive swing, with nearly a third (32%) who believe the nation is headed in the right direction, up from 23% in the last poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

From AP, 3-31-07:

WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman on Saturday urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, citing what he said were Gonzales' contradictory statements about his role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"I trusted him before, but I can't now," said five-term Rep. Lee Terry, whose district includes metropolitan Omaha.

Gonzales' credibility took a blow this past week during testimony by his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sampson, who resigned March 12, said the attorney general was regularly briefed about plans to fire the prosecutors and was involved with discussions about "this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."

Lawmakers impatient to hear Gonzales' side of the story said the embattled attorney general needed to explain himself quickly or risk more damage to his department. Gonzales is to testify on Capitol Hill on April 17.

"My views were that this was Democrat posturing and a witch hunt," Terry said. "My trust in him in that position has taken a hit because of these contradictory statements by him."

Gonzales on Friday sought to explain weeks of inconsistencies about how closely involved he had been in decisions to dismiss the U.S. attorneys. He said he had been aware his staff was drawing up plans for the firings but did not recall taking part in discussions over which people would actually be told to go.

"I believe in truth and accountability, and every step that I've taken is consistent with that principle," Gonzales said in Boston. "At the end of the day, I know what I did. And I know that the motivations for the decisions that I made were not based upon improper reasons."

Asked why he had not resigned, as some Democrats and Republicans have demanded, he said: "I am fighting for the truth."

Terry, asked whether he believed Gonzales' accounts, said: "I don't know ... I don't think so. ... I trusted him before, but I can't now."

He added, "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is demanding a retraction from Gonzales on behalf of New Mexico's former U.S. attorney, who was among the prosecutors fired last year.

Schumer wrote Gonzales on Friday demanding that the attorney general clear David Iglesias' name. Schumer's letter came the day after Sampson testified that in hindsight, he would not have recommended Iglesias for dismissal.

Sampson orchestrated the firings for department officials as part of a plan to replace some prosecutors in President Bush's second term. He added Iglesias' name late in the process, but on Thursday said he could not remember exactly why.

Iglesias has said that he wants a written retraction from the Justice Department stating that performance had nothing to do with his dismissal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

See also this thread on scientific fascism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:30 PM

"When Will Fredo Get Whacked?"

The New York Times
Frank Rich.


PRESIDENT BUSH wants to keep everything that happens in his White House secret, but when it comes to his own emotions, he's as transparent as a teenager on MySpace.

On Monday morning he observed the Iraq war's fourth anniversary with a sullen stay-the-course peroration so perfunctory he seemed to sleepwalk through its smorgasbord of recycled half-truths (Iraqi leaders are "beginning to meet the benchmarks") and boilerplate ("There will be good days, and there will be bad days"). But at a press conference the next day to defend his attorney general, the president was back in the saddle, guns blazing, Mr. Bring 'Em On reborn. He vowed to vanquish his Democratic antagonists much as he once, so very long ago, pledged to make short work of insurgents in Iraq.

The Jekyll-and-Hyde contrast between these two performances couldn't be a more dramatic indicator of Mr. Bush's priorities in his presidency's endgame. His passion for protecting his power and his courtiers far exceeds his passion for protecting the troops he's pouring into Iraq's civil war. But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president saddled with the nickname Fredo; they revolted when Mr. Bush flirted with appointing him to the Supreme Court and shun him now. The attorney general's alleged infraction — misrepresenting a Justice Department purge of eight United States attorneys, all political appointees, for political reasons — seems an easy-to-settle kerfuffle next to his infamous 2002 memo dismissing the Geneva Conventions' strictures on torture as "quaint" and "obsolete."

That's why the president's wild overreaction is revealing. So far his truculence has been largely attributed to his slavish loyalty to his White House supplicants, his ideological belief in unilateral executive-branch power and, as always, his need to shield the Machiavellian machinations of Karl Rove (who installed a protégé in place of one of the fired attorneys). But the fierceness of Mr. Bush's response — to the ludicrous extreme of forbidding transcripts of Congressional questioning of White House personnel — indicates there is far more fire to go with all the Beltway smoke.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:32 PM

"News that war veterans were not getting adequate care stunned the public, outraged Capitol Hill and forced three high-level Pentagon officials to step down. Bush met with soldiers once housed in Building 18, who endured moldy walls, rodents and other problems that went unchecked until reported by the media.
"I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush said. "It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem.""

Hey, he learned a new trick. Off the top of my head this is only the second time he's admitted to something having gone wrong, and the first I have ever heard him apologize for something.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 03:13 PM

As the old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times". I'd say we do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:04 PM

Poll: A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for '08
Thursday, Mar. 29, 2007 By JAY CARNEY/WASHINGTON

Could things be any worse for George W. Bush and his beleaguered party? In the new TIME poll, the President's job approval rating continues to wallow near his all-time lows, at 33%, while his disapproval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third consecutive survey. On Iraq, meanwhile, just 38% of respondents think the U.S. was right to invade, and only 37% believe "the new Iraqi government will be able to build a stable and reasonably Democratic society." Given a choice of policy options going forward, 68% endorse proposals to withdraw most combat troops, either within a year or no later than August 31, 2008, while just 28% say troops should stay in the country "as long as needed until the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves."

And then there's the burgeoning scandal stemming from the Justice Department's dismissal last year of eight U.S. attorneys. Forty-eight percent of respondents say the federal prosecutors were fired because they "refused to be pressured by politics," compared to just 22% who believe they were dismissed "for proper reasons." By a 55-33% margin, Americans believe Bush is refusing to allow top aide Karl Rove and other White House aides to testify under oath "because he's trying to cover up the reasons for the firings" , not because he "wants to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers." A slight plurality, 39-36%, believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign.

So it's taken almost as a given among the professional political class that the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats' to lose. Republicans are so morose in general, and conservatives so unhappy with their current field of candidates, that the assumption of a Democratic advantage has become bi-partisan. And with the public so soured on the Republican in the White House, and so many other trends working against them, including an up-tick in the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats , it's hard to find any good news for Republicans these days. So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.

It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."

Another GOP advantage in these match-ups is the way the party's top two candidates are viewed by the public. "Giuliani and McCain are not traditional Republicans," says Schulman. "Rather they both have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democratic bastions, such as the Northeast and California, the left and right coasts." As anyone following the campaign knows, the perceived "independent streak" that helps both McCain and Giuliani with the general electorate could hurt them, and possibly doom them, with GOP primary voters. Also, as Schulman points out, every Republican candidate is vulnerable because of his support for Bush's policy in Iraq and his closeness to Bush in general. "If Iraq persists as an issue, all of our polls show this will undercut Republican candidates," he says. "Being seen as 'close to Bush' is a real negative in the polls. When the campaign really heats up, the Democrats should have a lot of cards to play."

Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons GOP candidates appear competitive at all.

There are other interesting developments in the poll. John Edwards has surged among Democrats since he announced that his wife Elizabeth's cancer had recurred. In a three-way match-up, Clinton polls 38% among registered Democrats, vs 30% for Obama and 26% for Edwards. Edwards received just 17% in mid-March.

In the GOP race, Giuliani's post-announcement honeymoon appears to be over. The former New York City mayor's lead over erstwhile front-runner McCain has narrowed to 13 points, 35-22%, among registered Republicans, down from a 20-point lead two weeks ago.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html?cnn=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Our current president could certainly be described as cunning and idealistic, but he has chosen to use those traits in ways that have robbed us of our blood, treasure and international reputation.

After six years of incompetence, deceit and deception, I'd prefer a president who exudes the qualities of honesty, compassion and intelligence. "

John Esposito
Huntington, N.Y., March 25, 2007
In a letter to the NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:51 AM

"Like the House last week and the voters last November, the Senate made clear Tuesday that Americans expect to see the disaster in Iraq brought to an early and responsible end.

President Bush's reaction was instantaneous, familiar in its contempt for views that do not follow his in lockstep, and depressing in its lack of contact with reality. Mr. Bush threatened to veto the spending bill needed for this year's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than accept language calling for most American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq sometime next year. Nor was there any hint of his own prescription for ending this war.

Mr. Bush, his advisers and his loyalists on Capitol Hill threw up a cloud of propaganda aimed at making Americans think there is a debate going on between those who want to win the war and those who want to lose. That's nonsense, and the White House knows it. Mr. Bush's inadequate response was a cynical attempt to portray the Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted with the majority as indifferent to the political future of Iraq and to the morale of American soldiers stationed there.

In truth, it is Mr. Bush who has been defaulting on his own responsibilities in both areas, and that is why Congress needed to add the language he now objects to so vehemently.

Instead, he has handed a blank check to a government of divisive Iraqi politicians adept at paying lip service to national reconciliation while working hard to undermine it in practice. And he continues to ratchet up an already unsustainable troop escalation that will require sending exhausted units back into combat and compromise the Army's ability to maintain high-quality forces ready to respond to crises around the world.

..."

(NY Times 3-28-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:03 AM

A summary of Nancy Pelosi's first 100 days as Majority Leader.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:15 PM

Dickey:

That is what we call circular reasoning ; I assume you have been espousing it for a long time, as it always produces smaller and smaller circles.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:41 PM

A Liberal is a person that believes in Liberalisim. If you want to know what Liberalisim is, ask a Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:34 PM

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region's politics.

The king's speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.

The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.

In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.

Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.

Mustapha Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said the Saudis were sending Washington a message. "They are telling the U.S. they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel's side," Mr. Hamarneh said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

Donuel:

I am not sure what you mean. Elucidate!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

Bobert, you hit the nail succinctly on the head.
Amos your overview is seen through the crystal clear eyes of the American eagle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM

SETTING the stage for a direct confrontation with President George Bush, the US Senate has voted in favour of a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

The 50-48 vote turned aside a Republican bid to strip the timelines from a $US122 billion ($152 billion) emergency spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Republicans unexpectedly giving up plans to block the bill, the Senate appears ready to pass it as soon as today.

With the House of Representatives having approved its own timetable last week, congressional Democrats are now close to presenting the President with a stark choice: veto the essential war funding or negotiate directly with war critics.

"He doesn't get everything he wants now, so I think it's time that he started working with us," said the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a chief architect of the Democratic campaign to pressure the President to alter his war policy. "The President must change course."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:37 AM

Alao, while we are on definitions...

Would any of you Bushites like to define:

1. "lose war"

or 2. "victory"

???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

Sometimes you read something about this administration that is just so shameful it takes your breath away. For me, that was the March 20 article in this paper detailing how a House committee had just released documents showing "hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role."


The official, Philip A. Cooney, left government in 2005, after his shenanigans were exposed in The Times, and was immediately hired by, of course, Exxon Mobil. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil industry lobby arm.

The Times article, by Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, noted that Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on behalf of the oil industry had "no bearing" on his actions at the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration." (How about loyalty to scientific method?) Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing on what he had seen in good faith as the "most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge."

Let's see, of all the gin joints. Of all the people the Bush team would let edit its climate reports, we have a guy who first worked for the oil lobby denying climate change, with no science background, then went back to work for Exxon. Does it get any more intellectually corrupt than that? Is there something lower that I'm missing?

I wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."

I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.

But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.

"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming?' "

What is "amazing for someone that does not come from a political background like myself," said Governor Schwarzenegger, is that "this line is being drawn" between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. "You say to yourself: 'How can it be drawn on the environment?' But it is. But the great thing is more and more Republicans are coming on board for this. Seeing how important this is. And more and more Democrats and Republicans are working together. ... I said in my inaugural address: 'There isn't such a thing as Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.' Let's get our act together, fix this problem and fight global warming. ..."

(Friedman, NY Times, 3-27-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:03 AM

All kinds of people fall into gross generalizations. Anybody can once in a while.

By the way, what is your definition of the word "Liberal" in this context?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

Amos:

I have never heard the terms "pinko bleeding hearts" and "fascistic ragheads" before. Is that Liberal terminology that goes with "tree dwelling, leather jacketed, Bushite goons"?

My favorite Liberal term, by Ward Churchill, the Indian imposter is Camel Jockey.

This guy has the right perspestive: "Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," he said in an interview. "You hook into a movement that exists - in this case the antiwar movement - and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism,"

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2955§ionid=3510101

Radicalized and activated Liberals never wave their arms do they? It is the conservatives that wave their arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:30 PM

Mister D, you are seriously deluded about what the word "liberal" means, and have allowed your thinking to become frazzled with arm-wavig generalizations and terror of the most nebulous sort. The man you quote above seems to have no concept of identifying who he is talking about -- he has only vague bogey-clusters of generalized fear and hatred to offer. Such generalizations make him, and you in turn, look like a right wingf nutball. Get your definitions and facts straight to start with, and name your enemies specifically and on clear grounds -- "fascistic ragheads" doesn't count, and neither does "pinko bleeding hearts" -- and you might come across as a reasonable human being.

But not with links like this one.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:06 PM

Liberals would rather see us lose war than support Bush

"I am amazed that we so quickly forget the realities we face in this dangerous world. We are willfully ignorant of the Islamic terrorist jihad being perpetrated against the free world and how far-reaching this evil goes...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:16 AM

he news that Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general and liaison to the White House, is invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination takes the United States attorney scandal to a new level. Ms. Goodling's decision comes just days after the Justice Department released documents strongly suggesting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not been honest about his own role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors. Mr. Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate in three weeks, but that is too long to wait. He should speak now, and explain why he continues to insist that his department did nothing wrong.

As the liaison between the White House and the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling seems to have been squarely in the middle of what appears to have been improper directions from the White House to politicize the hiring and firing of United States attorneys. Mr. Gonzales has insisted the eight prosecutors were let go for poor performance, and that the dismissals are an "overblown personnel matter." But Ms. Goodling's decision to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights suggests that she, at least, believes crimes may have been committed.

Last Friday night, the Justice Department released a calendar entry that directly contradicts Mr. Gonzales's insistence that he was out of the loop. It shows that he attended an hourlong meeting on Nov. 27 to discuss the upcoming firings of seven of the prosecutors. Previously, he had insisted that he never "had a discussion about where things stood."

The release of the calendar entry is disturbing because it suggests not only that Mr. Gonzales may have personally approved the firings — something he has denied — but that the Justice Department has been dishonest in its responses to Congress. The department had already released what it claimed was a full set of relevant documents, and it now says it simply overlooked the ones released on Friday. But the information about the Nov. 27 meeting may have been released because Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, who was present at it, has agreed to testify before Congress this week. ... (New York Times editorial 3-26-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM

Inspector General Details Failures of Iraq Reconstruction

By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A18

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such magnitude

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM

Dobbs: 'Showdown' really a battle of partisan buffoons
POSTED: 10:20 a.m. EDT, March 22, 2007

By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

Now the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has voted to approve subpoenas that would force chief policy adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other top presidential aides to testify publicly and under oath about their involvement in the firings.

Guess what? That little ol' subcommittee can't do much of anything to force executive branch employees to testify without the help of the very man and department at the center of this altogether silly and over-baked controversy. That's right; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or one of his U.S. attorneys would have to enforce any subpoenas refused by any of the president's aides.

This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?

While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics.

Is there not one decent, honest man or woman in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, in either party's leadership, who possesses the courage and the honesty to say, "Enough. The people who elected us deserve better"? So far the answer is no. Is there really any wonder that public opinion polls demonstrate that the president and this Congress share equally low approval ratings in poll after poll?

The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

WASHINGTON, March 21 — A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.

Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.

"We have worked toward voluntary cooperation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth," said Representative Linda Sanchez of California, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics.

"The only purpose of the subpoenas is to the fan the flames and photo ops of partisan controversy," said Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, the senior Republican on the subcommittee.

President Bush and Congress appear to be headed toward a constitutional showdown over the demands for testimony and for internal White House documents.

Under growing political pressure, the White House had offered to allow private interviews with Mr. Rove, Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

An excerpt from an interesting essay called "Winning Smart Power" by Ernest Wilson:

"It's easy to beat up on the current administration for failing to understand and deploy 'soft power' and public diplomacy in their toolkit of foreign policy. Bush, Cheney and the gang prefer coercion, i.e. hard power.

But the previous Democratic campaigns have not done such a good job either.

During the Kerry campaign there was pressure on the candidate to give a diplomacy/soft power speech. It would describe the 'third leg' of a triad of effective foreign policy instruments. Guess what? He never gave the speech. Whatever his campaign's reasoning, it demonstrated how little the Democratic candidate for president thought of the subject. Maybe he didn't want what we wanted.

Now, four years later, it is patently obvious to all that the administration's hapless mix of coercion and diplomacy has been a disaster. By using far too much of the former and far too little of the latter it has seriously compromised America's national interest. Washington lacks an effective combination of hard and soft power to make smart power. Instead of a smart power policy, we have a policy of 'stupid power'. Bush barely uses traditional or public diplomacy at all, and uses coercive power badly.

The disastrous consequences of 'stupid power' have created an attentive public ripe for a serious conversation about the proper mix of convincing and coercing. But the amount of ink (or bits and bytes) devoted to developing a 'smart power' agenda is modest relative to talk about force structures, troop strength and intelligence reform. It is ironic that those most interested in seeing a better balance between hard and soft power have not been particularly adept at using soft power. They have failed to make a consistent and tough-minded public argument linking America's national security and soft power, and tying the 'why' with the 'how'.

Between now and November 2008 believers in smart power will need to make a much more effective case for soft power if they hope to restore America's standing in the world. (For more discussion of 'smart power' check out http://smartpowerblog.org). "

---

Here's the core issue. The limits of "soft power" as described above are, generally, the common interests of disparate groups -- individual food and shelter, getting laid, having kids, freely forming groups and communicating amongst them. These are values to whichevery individual from Kabul to Juneau can subscribe, to one degree or another.

Additionally, of course, the freedom to engage in belief has to be considered; this runs into trouble when belilefs are intolerant or so radical that they cut across the other core importances ("I believe you should not be free", essentially).

Hard power only comes into play when seeking to prevent destruction that comes from these specialized fanatic beliefs; and typically, such beliefs are promulgated by very small cliques of men, more in the character of criminals than statesmen. If this were widely recognized, of course, they would be treated as criminals in every domain where they began their practices. Maybe some day, Rebecca!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:29 AM

4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war

March 21, 2007
BY LISA DONOVAN Staff Reporter
About 4,000 war protesters, under the watchful eye of hundreds of Chicago Police officers, walked 1½ miles to the Loop Tuesday night pumping "Impeach Bush" signs and chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, our troops in Iraq have got to go."

With a chilly breeze off Lake Michigan, protesters marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq began at Oak and Michigan at 7:30 p.m., marching to Daley Plaza as approved in a request to the city. Police officers lined the marching route. No arrests were reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

So Bush says God tells him what to do.

Did God tell him that they can't swear to God to tell the truth?

naw

More likely they have seen with their own eyes what a "democracy" like Iraq does to their authoritarian leaders like Saddam.

they must surely hang together or they will hang seperately.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:39 AM

One can view pdf copies of the released documents at http://judiciary.house.gov/.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:30 AM

In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that "people just need to hear the truth" about the firing of eight United States attorneys. That's right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for "interviews" did not come close to meeting that standard.

Mr. Bush's proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush's idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush's threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials' statements to Congress, which may have been untrue. It needs to question Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials.

It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.

The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush's overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton's high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.

The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of "executive privilege." That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Mr. Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical. President Richard Nixon tried to withhold the Watergate tapes, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him.

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

Excerpted from the New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

After four years of a war brazenly launched by a large United States bombardment, President Bush and his administration seem audaciously indifferent to the morass and suffering in Iraq that American actions and presence worsen each day.

There is no good that can come of a continued United States troop presence in Iraq. Rather than stemming terrorism, American military might and bases are fueling a maelstrom of hatred and determination that merely give rise to terrorism.

What is unconscionable is that Mr. Bush claims sole authority in this matter. It is little wonder, then, that no mention was made of democracy in this war anniversary speech. It has been useful as a war slogan, yet discarded as a guiding principle to abide.

Democracy's erosion is a threat that whittles away at us by bits and pieces, until our voices are neither heard nor heeded, and a war we decry rages on with no end in sight.

Nancy Dickeman
Seattle, March 20, 2007

It is only presidential hubris that can account for President Bush's latest plea that we be "patient" as he commits upward of 20,000 more troops to the nightmare called Iraq.

I feel almost certain that Mr. Bush will leave office expressing the same empty, almost meaningless refrain that the war "can be won" if only we have the "resolve" to see it through.

Presidential stubbornness is no substitute for policy. Telling us to be patient and applauding our troops for their bravery does nothing to cure the absence of an intelligent, comprehensive, diplomatic and military plan to stop the death and destruction in Iraq now and in the forseeable future.

This president is hopelessly lost in his own single-minded inability to accept failure. I already feel sorry for Mr. Bush's successor, because it will take years, maybe decades, for the United States to restore its reputation.

The "resolve" the American people really need is to survive the remainder of Mr. Bush's term without this country getting into yet another war, this time with Iran, and to be thankful that Mr. Bush can't run again.

Peter C. Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y., March 20, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:53 AM

Nicho0las Kristoph writes an amusing column on the hypothesis that Dick Cheney is actually a mole in the service of Iran. He argues almost persuasively.

Then he says "Even at home, Iran's leaders have been bolstered by President Bush and Mr. Cheney. Iran's hard-liners are hugely unpopular and the regime is wobbly, but Bush administration policies have inflamed Iranian nationalism and given cover to the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Why focus on Dick Cheney rather than his boss? Partly because Mr. Cheney, even more than Mr. Bush, has systematically pushed an extreme agenda that has transparently served Iranian purposes. And domestically, his role in the Scooter Libby scandal — and his disgraceful refusal to explain just what he was doing at the crime scene — ended up paralyzing executive decision-making and humiliating our government.

Is that really just one more coincidence? Or could it be another case of Mr. Cheney's following instructions from his Iranian bosses to damage America?

O.K., O.K. Of course, all this is absurd. Mr. Cheney isn't an Iranian mole. Nor is he a North Korean mole, though his we-don't-negotiate-with-evil policy toward North Korea has resulted in that country's quadrupling its nuclear arsenal. It's also unlikely that he is an Al Qaeda mole, even though Al Qaeda now has an important new base of support in Iraq.

Like Kennedy and Johnson wading into Vietnam, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney harmed American interests not out of malice but out of ineptitude. I concede that they honestly wanted the best for America, but we still ended up getting the worst.

So what are the lessons from this episode?

Our national interests are as vulnerable to incompetence as to malicious damage. So we must identify and abandon the policies that backfired so catastrophically. The common threads of those damaging policies are clear: a refusal to negotiate with "evil"; an aggressive willingness to use military force to solve problems; contempt for our allies; and the bending of legal and moral principles to allow indefinite detention and even torture, particularly for anyone with olive skin and a Muslim name.

Whenever we've suspected a mole in our midst, we've gone to extreme lengths to find the traitor. This time, betrayed not by a mole but by failed policies, let's be just as resolute. It's time to uproot policies that in the last half-dozen years have damaged American interests incomparably more than any mole or foreign spy ever has in the last 200 years. ".


I think he's right. We have been harboring the mole of stupidity about human nature, the mole of indifference to genuuine workiable principles, the mole of apathetic callousness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM

One of President Clinton 's very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire all 93 United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

Changes Sought in Naming of Prosecutors (NY Times)

By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 19 — The Senate moved Monday to revoke authority it granted the Bush administration last year to name federal prosecutors, with Democrats accusing the administration of abusing the appointment power at the center of an escalating clash over the ouster of eight United States attorneys.

The move to overturn an obscure provision of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation came amid growing speculation that the controversy over the prosecutors would cost Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales his job.

President Bush has said he has confidence in Mr. Gonzales, but the White House seemed to offer only tepid support for him on Monday.

"Nobody is prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said when asked if Mr. Gonzales would remain until the end of Mr. Bush's term. Mr. Bush has said Mr. Gonzales needs to repair his relations with Capitol Hill; asked if the attorney general had done so, Mr. Snow said, "I don't know."

At the Justice Department, neither Mr. Gonzales nor his staff have engaged in a major effort to reverse the erosion of his support among Republicans in Congress, associates said. Mr. Gonzales read budget briefing books over the weekend and on Monday he phoned one or two lawmakers, said one aide, who declined to identify them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:01 PM

Not to worry, Amos...

Business-as-usual in the Bush White House has been replaced with a big "Going Out of Business" sign...

Yeah, the Bushites had their run and now it's coming to a close... All the dirty tricks 'n dirty politcis are now being exposed on a daily basis...

Okay, I ain't too fond of Dems but one thing is fir sure, the Dems winning over Congress has certainly exposed 6 years of some of the nastiest and distasteful politics and policies since, ahhhhh??? Geeze, maybe forever....

I mean, even Helen Keller would plainly see the Bushites fir what they are: rich or stooges of the rich!!! That's the bottom line here... Bruce Springsteen sang "Sooner or later it all comes down to money" and the Bushite regiegm is ***proff positive***... Behind every stupid thing they have done you will find a pot of gold...

Think about it...

Iraq??? Here's the most anti-human grasping for money... Iraq has Rove written all over it... Hey, the voters don't throw out a war president until it is apparent that the war is lost and thus, the timing was right to invade Iraq... Hey, it kept the thieves in office and it would take a million accountants and an act of God to figure how much $$$ they stole from the American people...

That's, unfortaunately, is what American politics has come down to... Okay, in the Dems defense (tho flimsy) they haven't really had much of an opportunity to ***take the money and run*** but I have no faith that they won't do the same if they get themselves in the same position that the Bushites have enjoyed but fir now???

Glad to see the current crooks gettin' what they deserve...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM

BB, I stand by what I wrote.

. . . a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

I do not regard or treat any racial or ethnic group with hatred or intolerance. Nor do I regard the Bush administration with hatred and intolerance. I do, however, regard them as being both incompetent and corrupt, and I can give you a whole list of reasons why I—and large numbers of other people who are rational and in no way bigoted—regard them as such.

And you will also note that in no way can the Bush administration, and their apologists such as yourself, be regarded as an "ethnic or racial group." Being a member of an ethnic or racial group is not a matter of one's choice. One's philosophical and political position, on the other hand, is a matter of choice.

So your charge of bigotry against me is completely empty, and having to descend to mischaracterizing those with whom you disgree and calling them names in that manner displays a certain desperation on your part.

Feeling that the weakness of your position makes you a bit vulnerable?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM

Scientist accuses White House of 'Nazi' tactics
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
1:05 PM PDT, March 19, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

"I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy and that some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching evolution and climate change," Issa said.

Hansen said the Bush administration was not the first in U.S. history to practice information management over government scientists, but it has been the most vigorous. He deplored a "politicization of science."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=97

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth - PM
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

"...And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point?"


********************************************************************
" If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."
*********************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

Bruce:

OK. I have to leave this one between the two of youse, and hope you iron out your data and judgements among you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

Amos,

Because, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, with supporting info, in THIS case the Bush administration TRIED to do exactly what Don suggested that they should have ( with the implication they did not) and was rebuffed by the UN in its ( the Bush administration's) efforts.


Hardly a case of "Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?"

I have no problem with his, or your comments on other topics, regardless of whether I agree with your conclusions, but in THIS he is out of line, and beyond reasonable debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Bruce:

This is a bit like saying that accusing a killer of killing is bigoted. The instantiations of the over-secretive, repressive, and destructive policies imposed on the nation by the current executive suite are legion. Their lies are legion; their economic blunders, legal evasions, and poor decisions are legion. Wherefore would it be bigotry to say so? Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:07 PM

Don,

"Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb "

If the shoe fits....

Your blame of the Bush administration for all the evils of the world demonstrate your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Perhaps I'm jaded to political rewards and punishment of the Bush administrations.

It does not strike me as unusual to punish the prosecutors of Duke Cunningham since the bribery case struck at the very heart of the standard operating procedures of Defense Contrators buying off Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:26 AM

Paul Krugman has an interesting essay on why Bush is the extension of the spirit of Reagan's administration in today's Times.

An excerpt:

"Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan's administration, like Mr. Bush's, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be "loyal Bushies."

The movement's apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn't likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.

Still, Mr. Reagan's misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush's. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan's relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it's the movement, not just one man, that has failed. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM

Senator Insists Bush Aides Testify Publicly
Jamie Rose for The New York Times
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the judiciary panel, said a vote on subpoenas would be held Thursday.

               E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 18 — The Democratic senator leading the inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors insisted Sunday that Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush must testify publicly and under oath, setting up a confrontation between Congress and the White House, which has said it is unlikely to agree to such a demand.

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, is among the officials who may be subpoenaed to testify publicly and under oath.
Some Republicans have suggested that Mr. Rove testify privately, if only to tamp down the political uproar over the inquiry, which centers on whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

But Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seemed to rule out such a move on Sunday. He said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Mr. Rove as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel.

"I do not believe in this 'We'll have a private briefing for you where we'll tell you everything,' and they don't," Mr. Leahy said on "This Week" on ABC, adding: "I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this."

---

Nice to hear a Senator is getting tired of half-truths. Slow, but steady.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 01:30 AM

LH:

You read a book like that Hitman thing, by the guy that believes in time travel, and you believe it but you are not fooled as easily as the American people.

Have you ever heard the saying "they will believe a lie quicker than they will believe the truth? Those books and exposées are a real money maker. They tell you exactly what you want to hear. The things that the government dosn't want you to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

Bigotry?

Okay, beardedbruce, this conversation is over!

Don Firth