BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:18 PM

"Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties.

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

..."

Hillary Clinton, writing for the Wall Street Journal today.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:16 PM

The WSJ reports:

"Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq.

The story, broken yesterday by the Journal's Gina Chon, marks the latest of serial defeats for Mr. Sadr, beginning in February 2007 when he was forced underground (reportedly to Iran) in anticipation of the surge of U.S. troops. More recently, the Mahdi Army was defeated and evicted from Basra and other southern strongholds by an Iraqi-led military offensive. The Mahdi Army capitulated without a fight from its Baghdad enclave of Sadr City. Now the young cleric will focus his group's efforts on politics and social work, perhaps while he pursues theological studies in Iran. He wouldn't be the first grad student in history with a tendency toward rabble-rousing.

"

If true, this is a serious piece of good news for Western interests.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM

Amos:

Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced by you in these posts:
--------------------------------------------------
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM
From Salon on-line, an essay by Garrison Keillor:
Daddy issues

Our president is resolving unconscious Oedipal obsessions by lashing out at foreign countries -- and it's time his father stepped in.

By Garrison Keillor

Jan. 3, 2007 | As the new Congress convenes this week and Speaker Pelosi .... and then he doggedly stuck by them until his approval ratings sank into the swamp.Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
----------------------------------------------------
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:38 PM

The Australian "theage.com.au" opines:

"
Bush's popularity hits new low



US President George Bush's popularity fell to a new low following his state of the nation speech this week, Newsweek has reported in its latest poll.

With two years left in the White House, only 30 per cent of the 1003 people polled said they approved of Bush's job performance, down from a high of 83 per cent approval at the beginning of 2002.
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 ............... to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

God bless America
and damn its enemies
traitors and dissenters.

On 9-11 the pretender
pretended surprise
with total failure.

When the pretender commits murder
They say who cares?
It doesn't matter.

After Katrina
The pretender's feet of clay
washed away

On his knees
an amputatee pretender yells
"none shall pass"

Now buried to his neck
the pretender forges one last letter
God bless America, adios.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:00 PM

Suskind's new book reveals that the documents that supported an alledged Iraq - AlQuada connection was not only a forgery, but it was ordered by the White House.

MY friend Tucker Carlson was the moderator of a low budget pbs segment that used these documents to justify an invasion of Iraq.
It stunk then and it stinks now.



Public justice is needed if the justice department will not act.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:29 AM

"

Book: White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Intelligence

The White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to forge a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein in an attempt to portray a false link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The fake letter was backdated July 1, 2001, and it stated that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained for his mission in Iraq. Those are the claims of the explosive new book, The Way of the World, by journalist Ron Suskind. He reports the Bush administration then used the forged letter to show there was an operational link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. On NBC's The Today Show, Suskind said then-CIA Director George Tenet received orders directly from the White House to forge the letter.

Ron Suskind: "Well, the CIA folks involved in the book and others talk about George coming back—Tenet—coming back from the White House with the assignment on White House stationary and turning to the CIA operatives, who are professionals, saying, 'You may not like this, but here is our next mission.' And they carried it through, step by step, all the way to the finish. Ultimately, people even talked about it after the fact. It was a dark day for the CIA. It was the kind of thing where they said, 'Look, this is not our charge. We're not here to carry forward a political mandate,' which is clearly what this was, to solve a political problem in America. And it was a cause of great grievance inside of the agency."

According to Ron Suskind, the CIA's forged letter was passed on to Con Coughlin, a reporter from the London Sunday Telegraph, who wrote a front-page article titled "Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike Was Trained by Saddam." The story was published on Dec. 14, 2003, the same day Saddam Hussein was captured. Coughlin's article was picked up in the US media, and he was interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press. Suskind reports the CIA forgery was likely produced in violation of statutes that bar the agency from conducting covert operations intended to influence US public opinion or the media. The White House described Suskind's report as absurd and accused Suskind of engaging in "gutter journalism.""

(Democracy Now!)

---

THis is not, particularly, a surprise -- it is in keeping with the constant tenor of low-life immorality we are accustomed to hearing about from the Bush regime.

But it does highlight the stark and desperate depths to which these warmongers were willing to sink in order to pursue their confused, anti-social (not to say psychopathic) agenda.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

Sawz:

Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced byu this post:

"#3 Congress has an approval rating of 9% while GWB is 27%.

#4 Why don't you condemn Congress for the war and the spending?
"

which appeared under your name.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

Amos:

You are the one who brought up the approval rating so it must be you who thinks it is linked to his culpability.

Mother Joness
Smart Fearless Journalisim

" Worth noting that the American Research Group may not be the bellweather for accurate polling. A little digging shows that the group is backed by New Hampshire pollster Lafell Bennett, and that ARG was widely off the mark in New Hampshire in 2004 when it called a victory for Bush, only to see John McCain take the state by an 18-point margin.

Also, turns out ARG doesn't believe in including cell phone numbers in its random draws, which of course lops off a chunk of Obama supporters. He defended his rationale telling the New Hampshire Business Review that he omits cell phones because mostly young people "don't vote."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

No, Sawz, you are right. 27% is not the lowest approval rating in history, I was mistaken. Congratulations--your man is not the most disapproved of in history, at 27%.

In some respects, though, his approval rating has been as low as 18%.

Ya jknow, though, even when he was highly thought of he was commitng impeachable offenses, so I don't really see the linkage you posit between is culpability and his approval rating.

A lot of people like Pretty Boy Floyd, Billie Bonnie, and Robin Hood, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:37 AM

Dear Amos:

"Bush's 27% is the lowest of any President in history"

____ TRUE?


____ FALSE?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:12 AM

The perfidious Justice Department.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM

From the Salt Lake Trib:

"Bush the abuser
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 08/01/2008 07:52:22 PM MDT

How great it is to read about a politician who will stand up and call out President Bush on the abuses he has bestowed upon the office of president and the American people ("Ex-SLC mayor to Congress: Impeach Bush," Tribune, July 26). It amazes me that the two candidates for president have not been more adamant about the dictator-like manner in which this president has behaved while in office.
    Bush's unrestrained power and total disregard for the opinion of the people is disgraceful and embarrassing. It is sad to think of the lives that could have been saved, both American and innocent Iraqi, as well as money, if only someone had stood up and said, "No, Mr. Bush, you cannot do whatever you please." How much different our economy might be if so much had not gone for a an unwarranted and unnecessary war.
    Remember, Mr. President, you work for us!
   
    Mary Anne Hyde
    Salt Lake City
   
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:39 PM

October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'.....
  .....By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.
  Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.
  Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.
  Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'
  I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

The Carter Doctrine:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:49 PM

"2. Cngress voted under false information provided by the Rove machine. They were lured into the vote by false PR. That is a criminal abuse of office."

Why were so many members of congress declaring that Saddam had WMDS before GWB took office?

"it was the Clinton administration, not the current administration, which first insisted-despite the lack of evidence-that Iraq had successfully concealed or re-launched its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Clinton's fear-mongering around Iraqi WMDs began in 1997, several years after they had been successfully destroyed or rendered inoperable. Based upon the alleged Iraqi threat, Clinton ordered a massive four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, forcing the evacuation of inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.) As many of us had warned just prior to the bombing, this gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. It also provided a "lesson" that unilateral military action, not nonviolent law-based processes through inter-governmental organizations, was the means to respond to the threat of WMD proliferation.

Clinton was egged on to take such unilateral military action by leading Senate Democratic leaders -- including then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and others who signed a letter in October 1998 -- urging the president "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Meanwhile, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was repeatedly making false statements regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs, even justifying the enormous humanitarian toll from the U.S.-led economic sanctions on Iraq on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction."

Congressional Democrats continued their efforts to scare the American people into believing the Iraq was a threat to U.S. national security after President Bush came to office. Connecticut senator Joseph Leiberman sent a letter to President Bush in December 2001 declaring that "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs" and that Iraq's "biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status." Eight months later, in order to frighten the American people into supporting a U.S. takeover of that oil-rich land, the 2000 Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee even claimed "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

"illegal excursion, pre-emptive and optional."

How was it Illegal when Congress approved of it?

Did North Vietnam attack the US? The Gulf of Tonkin attack was fabricated.

Did North Korea attack the US?

Weren't both wars optional?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM

From the LA Times:

"Seven months before the end of his term, President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low.

In the just-released Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll, the president won approval from 23% of all registered voters -- including 3% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. Those numbers are down from February, when he had an approval rating of 35%. His high mark, according to the poll, was in November 2001, just after the 9/11 terror attacks, when the president's popularity rating among registered voters was at 85%.

Perhaps the most interesting number is that 50% of self-described conservatives disapprove of the way the president is handling his job. But conservatives have been besieging The Times with complaints that the sample was overly weighted with Democrats. Jamie Gold, the paper's readers' representative, plans to post a blog response soon. (*Update: This is now online at the Readers' Representative Journal.)"

One commentator on this piece remarked:

"Bushs approval rating was at 19 percent in February...and it's much worse now....the MSM refuses to report on the reality that dumbya's poll numbers are more than likely in the single digits and john mcsame mcbush jr is going to lose in a landslide on November 4th 2008."

HEre's an interesting graph:

Approval Ratings 2004-2007.

And from last month month:

"George W. Bush's overall job approval has dropped to 21% as 76% of American say the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 21% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 72% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 77% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 22% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 18% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 77% disapprove.

A total of 76% say the national economy is getting worse, 61% say their household financial situations are getting worse, and 68% say the national economy is in a recession. Of those disapproving of the way Bush is handling his job, 84% say the national economy is getting worse, 73% say their household financial situations are getting worse, and 79% say the national economy is in a recession."

The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed July 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Overall, 21% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 72% disapprove, and 7% are undecided...

(American Research July 08)

It is a pathetic record, given the amount of control his Administration exercised over the media.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM

I did not use your name on purpose. I guess I was typing in Amos to begin the post and did not notice it was in the From: box. Sorry.

"Bush's 27% is the lowest of any President in history"

I notice you want to compare Bush to history now but you really should check your facts.

Details:

Harry S. Truman

In February 1952, Truman's approval rating was at 22% from a public that was tired of the Korean War and outraged at his order to break a steelworkers strike by seizing the factories. He also had the lowest sustained approval ratings. During the last three years of his second term, Truman's approval rating never went above the low thirties.

Unlike Truman, President George W. Bush also holds the record high approval rating, over 93%. This occurred shortly after the September 11th attacks.

Richard Nixon

Nixon's 23% approval rating during the Watergate scandal is still second to Truman's 1952 low of 22%.

Jimmy Carter

George W. Bush was at one time tied with President Jimmy Carter for third lowest approval rating at 28%. Carter's popularity hit the skids during the Iranian hostage crisis and resultant gas station lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:31 PM

Excerpt from a new report from the Rand Institute:

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday
July 29, 2008

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."

The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.

Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.

Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida's goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.

The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force -- though not necessarily the U.S. military -- when insurgencies are involved.

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.

"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."...

Full report here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:52 PM

Sawz:

I assume that was you purloining my login and disguising yourself as a Guest.


1. The important difference between the Vietnam War, which you loosely call JFK's, and Bush's war is that this one is happening now, and is an illegal excursion, pre-emptive and optional.

2. Cngress voted under false information provided by the Rove machine. They were lured into the vote by false PR. That is a criminal abuse of office.

3. Bush's 27% is the lowest f any President in history. FUrthermore I have no interest in who approves of which criminal.

4. This thread is focused on the Bush Administration. There are plenty of other threads complaining about Congress.

5. Which fact are you thinking of? Let's be specific.

6. I never refused to admit any such thing. I rejec ted those assertions on the grounds that it in no way lessens a crime just because someone once committed a similar crime at an earlier time. The very idea is idiotic.

7. Sorry my humor didn't appeal to you, but it was not incoherent, which you should learn to spell, merely sarcastic.

8. I attack "questioners" when they resort to really dumb or really invidious arguments instead of discussing facts and issues.

9. You claim to have found a quote of mine, but have given no context for it, so I really don't know what you are carrying on about. Did you actually read the thread in which you believe I advocated such things? You may need to have your irony filter re-tuned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM

I am pointing out the inconvenient truths that you continue to deny.

#1 Your horror about GWBs war is nothing compared to JFK's war. You choose to grasp at any straw to draw attention to the current war and away from much worse wars As if this is the most horrible thing that has ever happened.

#2 Congress voted for this war and the spending. Why aren't you blaming them?

#3 Congress has an approval rating of 9% while GWB is 27%.

#4 Why don't you condemn Congress for the war and the spending?

#5 You have no knowledge of the factuality of what you present. You are incapable of recognizing a fact and refuse to do so. You just echo what someone else said, defend it with personal assaults and refuse to discuss the details.

#6. You refuse to admit that Rendition, wiretapping and spying were legacies legacy handed to GWB by previous administrations. It is nothing new as you pretend.

#7 You accuse others of being rambling and incoherrant while your contributions to the form are similar to "Ohhh, Harriet!!! And we thought everything was so perfect!" "Sounds like Oedipal dŽjˆ vu all over again" Which are rambling an incoherrant.

#8. When confronted with facts and questions like I have outlined above you avoid answering fully and completely by either ridiculing the question or the questioner.

#9. You yourself advocated spying and "summary justice" so how can you possibly object to it?

Do you need any more details?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 04:17 PM

Saqz-
Just to point out that most folks don't object to W's actions because they hate him--they hate him because they object to his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

A federal judge yesterday ordered a former White House counsel to testify before a House committee, rejecting the Bush administration's broad claims of executive privilege in its fight with Congress over the role politics played in the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

Wading into a landmark legal battle between Congress and President Bush, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates sided firmly with lawmakers. Bates ordered former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which had filed suit after being rebuffed by the administration, to answer questions about the dismissals.

He also ruled that White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten must turn over documents to the committee or explain in detail why records are being withheld.

The Bush administration has increasingly invoked executive privilege in its battles with Congress over documents and testimony related to issues as diverse as greenhouse gas emissions and FBI interviews of Vice President Cheney about the controversial leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Bates, who was appointed by Bush, seemed particularly concerned with White House assertions that Miers and other close presidential advisers had immunity from ever appearing before congressional committees.

The administration also argued that it had the right to decide which documents to turn over to Congress under executive privilege, a doctrine designed to protect the advice given to the president by his closest advisers. Bates rejected that contention, too.

"The Executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege and hence Ms. Miers is not entitled to absolute immunity from compelled congressional process," Bates wrote in a 93-page opinion for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Although Miers must appear before Congress to testify, Bates wrote, she will be permitted under his ruling to invoke executive privilege when asked specific questions.

(WaPo)

---

Ohhh, Harriet!!! And we thought everything was so perfect!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:00 AM

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers trimmed jobs once again in July and the unemployment rate hit a four-year high, according to a government report Friday that showed the seventh straight month of job losses .

The Labor Department reported a net loss of 51,000 jobs in the month, compared to a revised loss of 51,000 jobs in June. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had been forecasting a loss of 75,000 jobs in the latest report.

The latest report brought job losses this year to 463,000.

The unemployment rate edged up to 5.7% from a 5.5% reading in June. It was the worst reading since March 2004, and slightly worse than economists' forecast of a 5.6% rate.

The rate has now jumped a full percentage point from a year ago.

But the 5.7% unemployment rate only tells part of the problem faced by job seekers. It doesn't include those who have become discouraged from looking for work, or those who have accepted part-time jobs when they want to be working full time."

---

Heckuva job, there, Georgie!! Be sure and train up that McCain feller real good so he keeps up the good work for ya.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

"Another stunning report has documented the bold and illegal influence of politics at the Justice Department over the past eight years. For decades, Republican and Democratic attorneys general had protected from political influence the hiring of career prosecutors and administrative judges. There was an unbroken rule, embodied in law, regulation and department policy, that no political questions would be asked of those who wanted to serve in career -- as opposed to political -- positions in the department. We demanded of our Justice Department, in its core prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, that it be separate from politics. Until the Bush administration.

Last month, we learned that political functionaries deputized by Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales had screened the best and the brightest coming out of law schools, judicial clerkships and other positions to weed out those who appeared to be Democrats or who might hold liberal ideas; favor was shown to Republicans, members of the Federalist Society, and those considered to be good and loyal conservatives. As the department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility noted, this is illegal. It also breaks the promise of justice that is above politics and undermines the department's best values.

Now, an equally graphic report by the same two offices concludes that in 2003, the apolitical process for selecting immigration judges and prosecutors was stood on its head. A chief aide to Attorney General Ashcroft (and later to Attorney General Gonzales) "outlined a new process for hiring [immigration judges] that listed the White House as the sole source for generating candidates."

Thus, immigration judges -- who, by law, are to be chosen without regard to their political pedigree -- were no longer picked by the nonpolitical office that is supposed to find and train the men and women who mete out justice to tens of thousands of immigrants. In the interview files for these candidates were such comments as "Cons[ervative] on 'god, guns + gays' " -- but not much about whether they understood immigration law or had the capacity for fairness.

Even more appalling, others, including a counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, illegally selected individual line prosecutors -- who wield tremendous power over the reputations, liberty and livelihood of Americans -- using Internet searches on such keywords as "Bush, Gore, Republican, Democrat, Clinton, spotted owl, abortion, gay, gun, and Florida recount" to assess their political and policy views.

Why does this matter?

In a long career counseling individuals being investigated by the Justice Department, I have had to explain to sometimes cynical citizens that politics are prohibited from influencing such inquiries. My ability to give that assurance has hinged on both the public perception -- and reality -- that the career assistant U.S. attorneys, line prosecutors and lawyers who work at the department are picked on their merits and proceed without regard to politics.

Until now.

During the Bush administration, we have seen U.S. attorneys fired under circumstances that have led many to conclude they paid the price because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats; honors program applicants screened for their political leanings; and now the process of hiring line prosecutors and immigration judges similarly politicized. How do we reassure the American people that justice is being meted out fairly? Trust and respect lost are hard to win back.

Worse, the reports lay out evidence that the political appointees behind many of these missteps knew that what they were doing was wrong.

But responsibility does not end there. The department's senior leadership turned over hiring decisions to people with no history and no understanding of the institution, people who came from the Republican National Committee or White House political functions. The predictable result was that the department would have, in essence, political appointees in career positions. Thus was the department's fundamental promise to the American people -- which had been respected for decades -- broken. ..." (Full article here on the WaPo site).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

Sawz:

Your last post is disjoint, incoherent, and rambling.

So I don't have any idea how to answer it. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:14 AM

"They are offered a deal: They can admit their guilt to lesser charges, waive their rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, spend five months in prison, then be deported. Or, they can spend six months or more in jail without bail while awaiting a trial date, face a minimum two-year prison sentence and be deported anyway.

Nearly 300 people agree to the five months, after being hustled through mass hearings, with one lawyer for 17 people, each having about 30 minutes of consultation per client. The plea deal is a brutal legal vise, but the immigrants accept it as the quickest way back to their spouses and children, hundreds of whom are cowering in a Catholic church, afraid to leave and not knowing how they will survive. The workers are scattered to federal lockups around the country. Many families still do not know where they are. The plant's owners walk freely.

This is enforcement run amok. As Julia Preston reported in The Times, the once-silent workers of Agriprocessors now tell of a host of abusive practices, of rampant injuries and of exhausted children as young as 13 wielding knives on the killing floor. A young man said in an affidavit that he started at 16, in 17-hour shifts, six days a week. "I was very sad, and I felt like I was a slave."

Instead of receiving merciful treatment as defendants who also are victims, the workers have been branded as the kind of predator who steals identities to empty bank accounts. Accounts from Postville suggest that that's not remotely what they were. "Most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served," said Erik Camayd-Freixas, a Spanish-language interpreter for many of the workers. "This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English."

The harsh prosecution at Postville is an odd and cruel shift for the Bush administration, which for years had voiced compassion for exploited workers and insisted that immigration had to be fixed comprehensively or not at all.

Now it has abandoned mercy and proportionality. It has devised new and harsher traps, as in Postville, to prosecute the weak and the poor. It has increased the fear and desperation of workers who are irresistible to bottom-feeding businesses precisely because they are fearful and desperate. By treating illegal low-wage workers as a de facto criminal class, the government is trying to inflate the menace they pose to a level that justifies its rabid efforts to capture and punish them. That is a fraudulent exercise, and a national disgrace."

Complete article here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:39 AM

"I don't know the details" Well said Amos. I agree.

Yes, there are more than 300 people in the united states but are there 57 states?

Israel will always be a friend of Israel. I agree.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died" I missed that one. Got Any details on that Amos? Gawd, it must have been worse that the American death toll in Iraq and
Afghanistan together.

"See, Bush invaded two countries and started major military operations against the wrong target, caused thousands of deaths, orphans, and disabled civilians and soldiers, and spent the country into somethign like a .6 Trillion dollar deficit. Yes?"

No I don't see, First of all congress voted on all these actions. The invasions, the spending, the 6 trillion deficit, all of it. Now Bush's approval rating is three times higher than Congress's approval rating.

JFK started his war and invaded two countries in secret. Congress did not know until after it began.

Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973, requiring the president to receive explicit Congressional approval before committing American forces overseas.

Thousands of deaths? The [vietnam] war exacted a huge human cost. In addition to approximately 58,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, and 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians lost their lives.

In 1961 and 1962, the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops. Between 1961 and 1967, the U.S. Air Force sprayed 20 million U.S. gallons (75 700 000 L) of concentrated herbicides over 6 million acres (24 000 km²) of crops and trees, affecting an estimated 13% of South Vietnam's land. A 1967 study by the Agronomy Section of the Japanese Science Council concluded that 3.8 million acres (15 000 km²) of foliage had been destroyed, possibly also leading to the deaths of 1,000 peasants and 13,000 head of livestock

The Vietnam war cost between $600 billion and $494 billion. If you can think in percentages, like most people can, the deficit now is less in relation to the GDP than it was in 1960, 1968, 1972 and 1976 and about a tenth of what it was in 1944.

If you need any more details, I will try to help as much as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 12:04 AM

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee approved a report and resolution recommending that the House of Representatives cite former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, for contempt of Congress for failing to appear before the Committee as required by subpoena. The report and resolution passed by a vote of 20-14.

"TodayÕs vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person Ð not even Karl Rove Ð is above the law." said Chairman John Conyers, Jr. "This weekÕs Inspector General report on the pervasive politicization of the Department of Justice particularly   underscores the urgent need for Mr. Rove to testify before Congress. Any suggestion that the matters for which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed are not important, or that no Administration misconduct has been revealed, is just inconsistent with the facts. Our investigation has revealed Mr. Rove to be a key figure in the firings of US Attorneys, and the questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount."

"Today's vote demonstrates   that the House will not tolerate Mr. Rove's flawed excuses for avoiding his responsibility to obey a Congressional subpoena," said Rep. Linda S‡nchez, Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. "We are serious about defending the legislative branch's constitutional oversight role, and it's time for Mr. Rove to get serious about following the law."

Below are links to materials related to today's vote.

Committee Contempt   Report

    Judiciary Committee Markup   Memo

Conyers Opening   Statement

S‡nchez Opening Statement

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM

Administration urges FISA court to keep its secrets
By Julian Sanchez | Published: July 30, 2008 - 09:35PM CT

The American Civil Liberties Union wants the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to let a little sunlight in to its traditionally closed proceedings. But the Bush administration argues, in a motion filed yesterday, that the only thing the Court should be showing ACLU attorneys is the door.

Related StoriesACLU, others greet Bush FISA bill signing with new lawsuit
Crucial vote on foreign intel reform scheduled for Monday
Vote set on FISA compromise, opposed by "strange bedfellows"
FISA vote looms: hopes, hate focused on Bingaman amendment
As Ars reported earlier this month, the ACLU responded to the passage of the controversial FISA Amendments act with both a constitutional challenge in civil court and a request that the FISC, which oversees foreign intelligence surveillance, notify the group of proceedings likely to raise questions about the "scope, meaning, and constitutionality" of the new law. It also asked for permission to file briefs in such proceedings, in order to ensure that they are "transparent and adversarial," and urged the Court to issue redacted public versions of both its own rulings and legal briefs submitted by the government. Otherwise, the ACLU argues, the Court would be in the position of crafting a body of secret constitutional law, a prospect in tension with basic democratic values.

Justice Deparment attorneys responded yesterday, with a plea for the court to reject the ACLU request. As the government motion argues—and the ACLU does not appear to contest—no third party can claim any statutory right to be informed of or participate in the Court's ex parte proceedings. But the government further claims that the executive branch's prerogative to control classified information and the statutory provision for closed proceedings both limit the Court's discretion to admit outsiders—and that it is "precluded from doing so here by statute, court rule, and mandated security measures."

The FISA court has, in a few exceptional circumstances, elected to release public versions of its own rulings—and even permitted the ACLU to submit arguments. But it has also rebuffed the group's requests for greater disclosure in the past. And that, according to the government, is as it should be, because without access to classified information, the ACLU could not "present any meaningful argument on the questions posed" before the Court.

...

(Ars TEchnica)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Congress in its fight with the Bush administration can subpoena current and former top White House aides in its investigation over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, rejected the administration's arguments that the aides were immune from such subpoenas and that Congress cannot force them to testify or turn over certain documents.

In a lengthy ruling totaling nearly 100 pages, he rejected the administration's request to dismiss the lawsuit that had been filed by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in March.

The lawsuit seeks to get testimony or documents from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The lawsuit charged that Bolten and Miers, cited by the House for contempt of Congress, defied subpoenas by refusing to testify or provide documents in the long-running investigation into the administration's 2006 firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

It marked the first time the House or the Senate had ever filed a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena aimed at the White House.

Disclosure of the firings prompted charges by Democratic lawmakers that the dismissals were politically motivated and led to the resignations of a number of top Justice Department officials, including the departure under fire nearly a year ago of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney general.

Bates ruled that Miers is required to testify under the subpoena, but she still may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:37 AM

"Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people."
-- George W. Bush, July 4, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

The differences between Lincoln and W are so great as to be colossal in their distinctions.

Clinton lied about sex with an intern. Clinton, therefore, was a liar.

Bush lied about international relations, about the basis of war, about the oil industry, about invading the privacy of Americans, and a long list of other important things. Therefore, W., also, was a liar, and therefore, in the Manichean world view they were equally bad.

That fact that one of the governed the nation in relative prosperity and economic prudence while the other governed the nation into a near-depression makes no nevermind, in light of the fact that they are in an identical moral category.

Dear gawd, how many people are left able to think about differences and similarities without going into cuckooland. I swan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:10 PM

It is insincere however to pretend that something is unprecedented when it is not.

JPK started a war in Asia and lied to the American public and Congress about it.

The congress voted for these wars.

Go back to Abe Lincoln's precedent for suspending the constitution.

To be PC you would have to say GWB was more honest than JFK and Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:52 PM

BEsides, it is a bit whacky to argue that something cannot be illegal because the same crime was committed in the past by someone else.

The way the law acts is on the particulars of a case, you see, and charges against an individual. So the question of antecedent offenses, which remain incompletely defined here in any case, has no bearing on the question of Bush's culpability or innocence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:49 AM

Hold on there, pal.

I don't know the details behind thes eindividual cases, but I think you can plainly see, in addition tot hese similarities, that there are some really big differences.

See, Bush invaded two countries and started major military operations against the wrong target, caused thousands of deaths, orphans, and disabled civilians and soldiers, and spent the country into somethign like a .6 Trillion dollar deficit. Yes?

Maybe (probably) you voted for him and don't like thinking you could have made such a mistake. But not to fret. Come to your senses and forgiveness will be yours.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:04 AM

It is obvious that you can't see anything outside of the scope of your hate Bush agenda. You post articles about how illegal and unconstitutional the GWB administration renditions are when in fact they are a legacy from previous administrations.

Did GWB campaign on a policy of ending rendition? Did anyone ask him if he would stop rendition? No, he just carried on the customs of previous administrations. If rendition was so wrong then, where was huge public outcry back then? To pretend that the QWB administration is responsible for these things is a red herring, a straw man ploy or scapegoating.

You don't even read the articles you post and ponder their sincerity. That way you can say anybody that disagrees is wrong due to your knowledge and experience while at the same time feigning ignorance of any details by saying you are just repeating what someone else said.

Then, when criticized, you think by belligerently repeating what somone else said several times that you are "overruling" the objection. Quantity does not make up for a lack of quality.

You yourself were in favor of wiretapping when you advocated "spiking their cellphones".

Now you can heap some verbal abuse on me, maybe attack my spelling or sentence structure and post more articles adhering to your agenda to try to obliviate my analysis of your postings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:21 PM

Interesting list, Sawz. I am not sure what bearing it has on the Bush administration, but perhaps it is intended as a sort of red herring?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

Extraditions and Renditions of Terrorists to the United States, 1993-1999
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
March 1993         Mahmoud Abu Halima
(February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         *
July 1993         Mohammed Ali Rezaq
(November 1985 hijacking of Egyptair 648)         Rendition         Nigeria
February 1995         Ramzi Ahmed Yousef
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot,
February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         Pakistan
April 1995         Abdul Hakim Murad
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot)         Rendition         Philippines
August 1995         Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim
(February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         Jordan
December 1995         Wali Khan Amin Shah
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot)         Rendition         *
September 1996         Tsutomu Shirosaki
(May 1986 attack on US Embassy, Jakarta)         Rendition         *
June 1997         Mir Aimal Kansi
(January 1993 shooting outside CIA headquarters)         Rendition         *
June 1998         Mohammed Rashid
(August 1982 Pan Am bombing)         Rendition         *
August 1998         Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya)         Rendition         Kenya
August 1998         Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya)         Rendition         Kenya
December 1998         Mamdouh Mahmud Salim
(August 1998 East Africa bombings)         Extradition         Germany
October 1999         Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in
Tanzania)         Rendition         South Africa
* Country not disclosed

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM

"Fucking stupid."
-- David Kilcullen, advisor to Condoleezza Rice, on the decision to invade Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

Beer-worthy - Doonesbury

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:17 AM

WASHINGTON - Vice President Cheney's invitation to address wounded combat veterans next month has been yanked because the group felt his security demands were Draconian and unreasonable.
The veep had planned to speak to the Disabled American Veterans at 8:30 a.m. at its August convention in Las Vegas.
His staff insisted the sick vets be sequestered for two hours before Cheney's arrival and couldn't leave until he'd finished talking, officials confirmed.
"Word got back to us ... that this would be a prerequisite," said the veterans executive director, David Gorman, who noted the meeting hall doesn't have any rest rooms. "We told them it just wasn't acceptable."
When Cheney spoke to the group in 2004, his handlers imposed the same stringent security lockdown, upsetting members, officials said.
Many of the vets are elderly and left pieces of themselves on foreign battlefields since World War II, and others were crippled by recent service in Iraq and Afghanistan. For health reasons, many can't be stuck in a room for hours....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:03 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will leave his successor with a record-high budget deficit of $482 billion, according to an administration estimate released Monday.

White House officials blamed the slowing economy and a $150-billion bipartisan stimulus package for the worsening picture for the 2009 fiscal year, but Democrats cited the president's tax cuts and fiscal management over his eight years in office.

"The important point to remember is that near-term deficits are both temporary and manageable if, and only if, we keep spending in check, the tax burden low and the economy growing," said Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, which released the budget report -- the last of Bush's presidency.

Nussle argued that although it would be the highest deficit in history, it was manageable as a percentage of the country's economic output -- roughly 3.3% of the gross domestic product. And he said the deficit for fiscal 2008, at $389 billion, would be somewhat less than anticipated.

"The best way to compare a deficit is by your ability in the economy to manage that deficit," Nussle told reporters in a White House briefing. "We have a plan to address that deficit and bring it down, which I think is a responsible one."

The budget office's report also predicted that the country's gross domestic product would grow by 1.6% in 2008, down from February's projection of 2.7%. The lower figure was attributed to higher-than-expected prices for oil and other commodities, problems in the credit markets and the continuing difficulties in the housing market.

Democrats on Capitol Hill blamed the revised deficit figures on Bush's large tax cuts and freewheeling spending.

"If we gave Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, the silver and the bronze, because he's got the three highest record deficits ever," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "He sets records in every single category: 2009 would be the gold; 2004 the silver; 2008 the bronze."

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) noted that Bush inherited a budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor, so the blame for the poor fiscal performance rests with him.

"Mr. Bush came to office with the biggest surpluses in history and he will leave office with the biggest deficit in history. That's the bottom line," said Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee. ...

LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year, a senior government official told CNN.


The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.

The deficit would amount to roughly 3.5 percent of the nation's $14 trillion economy.

The official pointed to a faltering economy and the bipartisan $170 billion stimulus package that passed earlier this year for the record deficit.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing lack of authorization to speak publicly ahead of an official briefing later Monday by Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," Perino said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.

"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

(CNN)

But ya know, they had to do it to repair the damage caused by Bill Clinton's balanced budget...




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:31 AM

Exposing Bush's historic abuse of power

(Salon.com)

July 23, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s.

While reporting on domestic surveillance under Bush, Salon obtained a detailed memo proposing such an inquiry, and spoke with several sources involved in recent discussions around it on Capitol Hill. The memo was written by a former senior member of the original Church Committee; the discussions have included aides to top House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, and until now have not been disclosed publicly.

Salon has also uncovered further indications of far-reaching and possibly illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency inside the United States under President Bush. That includes the alleged use of a top-secret, sophisticated database system for monitoring people considered to be a threat to national security. It also includes signs of the NSA's working closely with other U.S. government agencies to track financial transactions domestically as well as globally.

The proposal for a Church Committee-style investigation emerged from talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress, according to sources involved. (Pelosi's and Conyers' offices both declined to comment.) Looking forward to 2009, when both Congress and the White House may well be controlled by Democrats, the idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror to undermine the Constitution and U.S. and international laws. The goal would be to implement government reforms aimed at preventing future abuses -- and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials.

"If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping despite the administration's attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don't know," says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal and has been involved in several high-profile congressional investigations.

"You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse," says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we don't know [the extent of] what laws have been violated."

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM

Gore Vidal has little patience for the Bush claque and clique, the tap-it brothers:

"...Press TV: How can it just be one person among so many hundreds of Congressmen who wants the impeachment of George W. Bush in these circumstances?

Gore Vidal: Well it's because we no longer have a country. We don't have a republic any more. During the last 7 or 8 years of the Bush regime, they've got rid of the Bill of Rights, they've got rid of habeas corpus. They have got rid of one of the nicest gifts that England ever left us when they went away and we ceased to be colonies - the Magna Carta - from the 12th century. All of our law and due process of law is based on that. And the Bush people got rid of it. The president and little Mr. Gonzales who for a few minutes was his Attorney General. They managed to get rid of all of the constitutional links that made us literally a republic.

Press TV: You have often written about the US's superpower status in terms of the history of previous superpowers. Do you think we're witnessing the end of US power as some suggest. Will the White House be seen like Persepolis?

Gore Vidal: Well it won't make such good ruins, no. It'll be more like the tomb of Cyrus nearby. They managed to destroy the United States - why? Because they're oil and gas people and they're essentially criminals. I repeat that this is a criminal group that's seized control of the country through what looked like an ordinary election. But there's some very nice films and documentaries about what happened in the year 2000 when Albert Gore won the election for president and they saw to it that he couldn't serve. They got the Supreme Court - which is the Holy of Holies ordinarily in our system - to investigate and then accuse the thieves of being absolutely correct and the winners - Mr. Gore and the Democrats - of being the cheaters. It's the first law of Machiavelli, whatever your opponent's faults are, you pick his virtues and you deny he has them. That's what they did when Senator Kerry ran a few years ago for president. He's a famous hero from the Vietnam War. They said he was a coward and not a hero. That's how it's done. When you have a bunch of liars in charge of your government you can't expect to get much history out of that. But later on we'll dig and dig… and we will dig up Persepolis.

Press TV: Senator Obama talks about change but of course he has courting Wall Street as well as the Israeli lobby - do you see any prospect of change with him as president?

Gore Vidal: Not really. I don't doubt his good faith, just as I do not doubt the bad faith of Cheney and Bush. They are such dreadful people that we've never had in government before. They would never have risen unless they were buying elections as they did in Florida in 2000, as they did in the State of Ohio in 2004. These are two open thefts of the Presidency. When I discovered that this did not interest the New York Times or the Washington Post or any of the press of the country I realized our day was done. We are no longer a country we are a framework for crooks to go in and steal money. Knowing that they'll never be caught and they'll be admired for it. Americans always take everybody on his own evaluation. You say I'm a state and they say "oh, yeah yeah yeah, he's a state, isn't that great." And you accuse the other people of your crimes before you commit them. It's an old trick which was known to Machiavelli who wrote about it in his handbook, the Prince.

Press TV:Finally that issue which is exercising so many minds in the Middle East and beyond. You, yourself have written about so many Imperial wars of the United States. Do you think Bush and Cheney would risk another war in what Mohammad ElBaradei of the IAEA calls a fireball?

Gore Vidal: They are longing to but they have spent all of the money. They have got it in their own private companies like the Vice-President and a company called Halliburton which is stealing more money and should be on trial sooner or later before Congress. But perhaps not, who knows? But it's well known in Washington, these people are leaking away the money of the country. Well there's no more money. They are longing for a war with Iran. Iran is no more a harm to us than was Iraq or Afghanistan. They invented an enemy, they tell lies, lies, lies.
The New York Times goes along with their lies, lies, lies. And they don't stop. When the public that's lied to 30 times a day it's apt to believe the lies, is not it?

Gore Vidal is a renowned American writer and erstwhile political candidate. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 06:54 PM

A European Perspective involving a really cool Mustang.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM

One reason why the Bush philosophy of picking up the soap for big money fat cats does not work is that it corrupts. It corrodes government, and the systems that government touches. Here's a brief excerpt from a recent NY Times article demonstrating this:

"For one thing, this argument goes, taxpayers Ñ who now confront plunging house prices, a drop on Wall Street and soaring costs for food and fuel Ñ will ultimately pay the costs. To finance a bailout, the government can either pull more money from citizens directly, or the Fed can print more money Ñ a step that encourages further inflation.

ÒThey are going to raise the cost of living for every American,Ó said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a Connecticut-based brokerage house that focuses on international investments. ÒThe government is debasing the value of our money. Freddie and Fannie need to fail. They are too big to save.Ó

Using public money to spare Fannie and Freddie would increase the public debt, which now exceeds $9.4 trillion. The United States has been financing itself by leaning heavily on foreigners, particularly China, Japan and the oil-rich nations of the Persian Gulf. Were they to become worried that the United States might not be able to pay up, that would force the Treasury to offer higher rates of interest for its next tranche of bonds. And that would increase the interest rates that Americans must pay for houses and cars, putting a drag on economic growth...."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

Voters Finally Inspect Their Rationale... (as explained by Doonesbury).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

From THomas Freedman:

"I am reliably told by a Bush administration official that there is an old saying in Texas that goes like this: ÒIf all you ever do is all youÕve ever done, then all youÕll ever get is all you ever got.Ó


Could anyone possibly come up with a better description of President BushÕs energy policy? America is in the midst of its worst energy crisis in years and what is the big decision our Decider has decided? Drum roll, please: Our Decider decided to lift the executive orders banning drilling for oil and natural gas off the countryÕs shoreline Ñ even though he knew this was a meaningless gesture because a Congressional moratorium on drilling passed in 1981 remains in force.

The economist Paul Romer once said to me that Òa crisis is a terrible thing to waste.Ó President Bush is well on his way to being remembered as the leader who wasted not one but two crises: 9/11 and 4/11. The average price of gasoline in the U.S. last week, according to the Energy Information Administration, was $4.11.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on breaking our addiction to oil. Instead, he told us to go shopping. After gasoline prices hit $4.11 last week, he had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on clean energy. Instead, he told us to go drilling.

Neither shopping nor drilling is the solution to our problems.

What doesnÕt the Bush crowd get? ItÕs this: We donÕt have a Ògasoline price problem.Ó We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports, widening Òenergy povertyÓ across Africa, destroying plants and animals at record rates and fostering ever-stronger petro-dictatorships in Iran, Russia and Venezuela...."