BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:30 AM

The ex-CIA director examines Saddam Hussein's foolish bluff about WMD.

In George Tenet's new book, "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA," there is an intriguing phrase that pinpoints the miscalculation that may have done much to trigger the Iraq war.

The former CIA director, who served both Presidents Clinton and Bush, writes, "Before the war, we didn't understand that [Saddam Hussein] was bluffing, and he didn't understand that we were not." Mr. Tenet was referring to the fact that Mr. Hussein was a "genius at what the intelligence community calls 'denial and deception' - leading us to believe things that weren't true."

While asserting to the United Nations that he had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Hussein perpetuated to others - including his own generals - the myth that he did possess them. Thus American and British intelligence agencies, mindful that Hussein had earlier used WMD against his own people, and mindful that evidence emerged after the earlier Gulf war that his regime had been much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons capacity than they had believed, concluded that he might have again clandestinely developed WMD.

The intelligence agencies of a slew of other countries, such as France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, were similarly convinced. The Germans had their own prized informant, "Curve Ball," who gave them graphic accounts of Hussein's hidden weaponry. In the end, it all proved not to be true. The clever shell game that Hussein had played - assuring the United Nations Security Council that he was without WMD, while signaling a warning to others that he did have them and could use them if threatened - was his undoing.

Tenet says Hussein was "a fool" for not understanding, especially after 9/11, that the United States "was not going to risk underestimating his WMD capabilities as we had done once before." The irony, says Tenet, is that [Hussein] could have allowed UN inspectors free run of the country, and if they found nothing, "UN sanctions would have melted. In that case, he might be alive and living in a palace today. Without sanctions, he would be well on his way to possessing WMD." Thus his bluff failed, and he miscalculated the will of the US to act with military force against him. .."

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/dialogue/2007/05/09/tenet_dia/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:39 AM

American soldiers are pawns for the politcal ambitions of Democrats:

Dems Urged to Seize 'Political Opportunity' Of Iraq War
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 10, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats hoping to win control of the White House in 2008 must seize the "golden opportunity" presented by failures in the war in Iraq and rethink their approach to national security, according to a security analyst and former staffer for Vice President Al Gore.

"For Democrats, who desperately want to regain the White House, the political opportunity is obvious," writes Haas, a former communications director for Gore and a former communications director for the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton.

Haas speculates that the war in Iraq "has given Democrats an opening - but only an opening, not a guarantee of future political success," and outlines steps Democrats must take to regain the American people's trust on national security issues.

He said the next Democratic presidential hopeful must "proudly trumpet the superiority of U.S.-style freedom and democracy, clearly define the challenge of militant Islam, and convince the American people that he or she is eager to grab the reins of power in order to protect their safety and security."

Haas also criticized Democrats for associating with filmmaker Michael Moore, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, and activist groups like MoveOn.org, writing that Democrats have been "seized by an almost obsessive anger at the president, leading too many of them to discount, if not dismiss, everything with which he is associated."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070510a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:13 AM

Moore had the balls to tell the world that the Emperor had no clothes.

Sheehan has shown more guts by far than Bush's sycophants.

If associating with such people is bad PR for Democrats, then to hell with the PR. These are people who are trying for truth.

Something I recommend.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 11:36 PM

We need to "use this" for political purposes:

It seems that, on Sunday, a few hours after Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, made her remarks about Bush sending all their National Guard Members and Resources to Iraq, she made a call to Brownback

Sebelius, was calling to apologize to the Senator for making the Political statements that she did. She explained that she did not believe them and that they actually had too many National Guardsmen show up.

Governor Sebelius explained "Sam, you know how political everything is right now and we're not allowed to let an opportunity like this just pass." She continued "I made sure not to blame you or Pat (Senator Roberts?) or anybody outside the White House. With his (Bush's) numbers, you can't really blame me for usin' that."

Then Sebelius explained the path to her comments. After Brownback told her that he was very disappointed in her, She pleaded "You know me Sam, I wouldn't have said it if I didn't have to." She declared "Howard (Dean) called me around 5 o'clock (in the morning) and told me not to ask The White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back. Dick (Durban?) called me an hour or 2 later and that's when he told me we needed to use this 'n' said to talk about the Guard all bein' at war."

She then explained the thinking; "Speaker and Harry got so much heat on them from both sides over this damn war, 'n' they need to get the press on somethin' else. I didn't think it was right to use it like this either, but I didn't see's I had much choice in this climate, Sam."

She then apologized a few more times and promised that she'd try to move away from the comment when she and Brownback were to meet up later and tour the damage, but she had to so it without disappointing Dean and Pelosi.

Source: Quinn & Rose XM Radio

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:10 AM

Wow -- a small taste of their own medicine. Droll.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 07:35 AM

From the Washington Post:

How the CIA Failed America

By Richard N. Perle
Friday, May 11, 2007; Page A19

George Tenet sets the stage in his memoir by recalling a conversation he claims to have had with me on Sept. 12, 2001: "As I walked beneath the awning that leads to the West Wing[, I] saw Richard Perle exiting the building just as I was about to enter. . . . Perle turned to me and said, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.' I looked back at Perle and thought: Who has [he] been meeting with in the White House so early in the morning on today of all days?"

But I was in Europe on Sept. 12, 2001, unable to get a return flight to Washington, and I did not tell Tenet that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, not then, not ever. That should have been the end of the story: a faulty recollection, perhaps attributing to me something he may have heard elsewhere, an honest mistake.

So I was surprised when, having been made aware of his error, Tenet reasserted his claim, saying: "So I may have been off on the day, but I'm not off on what he said and what he believed."

On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Tenet argued that his version "seems to be corroborated" by a comment I made to columnist Robert D. Novak on Sept. 17 and a letter to President Bush that I signed, with 40 others, on Sept. 20. But my 10-word comment to Novak made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Neither did the letter to the president, which said that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Tenet insists on equating two statements that are not at all the same: that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11 -- which I never said -- and that removing Saddam Hussein before he could share chemical, biological or nuclear weapons with terrorists had become an urgent matter, which I did say. He continues to assert falsely that the president's decision to remove Hussein was encouraged by lies about Iraq's responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Understandably anxious to counter the myth that we went into Iraq on the basis of his agency's faulty intelligence, Tenet seeks to substitute another myth: that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein resulted from the nefarious influence of the vice president and a cabal of neoconservative intellectuals. To advance that idea, a theme of his book, he has attributed to me, and to others, statements that were never made.

Careful readers will see at once that what Tenet calls "corroboration" is nothing of the sort. But Tenet is not a careful reader -- a serious deficiency in a CIA director and a catastrophe for an intelligence organization. Indeed, sloppy analysis and imprecision with evidence got Tenet and the rest of us stuck in a credibility gap that continues to damage our foreign policy.

For years the American intelligence establishment has failed to show meticulous regard for the facts that are essential to its mission. The CIA's assessment that Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons was only the most recent damaging example. The president, the vice president, Congress and others relied on intelligence produced by Tenet's CIA -- and repeated CIA findings that never should have been presented as fact.

When Defense Department officials pressed the CIA to reassess whether Hussein's intelligence service supported terrorists, and had links to al-Qaeda, Tenet first resisted, then treated with derision the evidence of such links that CIA analysts had ignored. While he later acknowledged some of that evidence in a letter to then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), he continues to minimize it while targeting critics of the CIA.

But the greatest intelligence failure of the past two decades was the CIA's failure to understand and sound an alarm at the rise of jihadist fundamentalism. It is Wahhabi extremism and the call to holy war against infidels that gave us the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and much of the terrorism that has followed. In his attempts to blame others for CIA shortcomings, Tenet cannot say, "I told the president that our Saudi allies were financing thousands of mosques and schools around the world where a hateful doctrine of holy war and violence was being inculcated in young potential terrorists." Fatefully, the CIA failed to make our leaders aware of the rise of Islamist extremism and the immense danger it posed to the United States.

George Tenet and, more important, our premier intelligence organization managed to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist while failing to find links to terrorists that did -- all while missing completely the rise of Islamist fundamentalism. We have made only a down payment on the price of that failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 09:37 AM

The Times editorializes:

"...If Mr. Bush hopes to salvage anything from his 20 months left in office, and, more to the point, if he wants to play a constructive role in the accelerating Iraq endgame, he needs to understand how much has changed in this country, and how tragically little has changed in Iraq.

The American people are no longer willing to write blank checks of blood and treasure to an Iraqi government that has refused to stop rampaging Shiite militias, has failed to approve constitutional changes to bring estranged Sunni Arabs back into the political system, and has still not come up with a way to share oil revenues fairly. Now it wants to give itself a two-month summer vacation.

Mr. Bush needs to face up to this grim reality and abandon his fantasies of ultimate victory and vindication. Otherwise, he could find himself, and America's best long-term interests, run over by a bipartisan rush toward the nearest exit."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 09:47 AM

Re "Bush Warns of Vetoes Over Abortion Issue" (news article, May 4):

President Bush has threatened to veto "any measures that 'allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.' "

You did not note the irony of such a threat from a man who pursues the destruction of human life relentlessly in Iraq.

Why shouldn't his sound-bite rationale apply equally to war financing?

Chase Chiasson
Boston, May 4, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 11 May 07 - 10:18 AM

NEW talking points: benchmarks good . Democrats bad.


Bush says he was for BENCHMARKS ALL ALONG.



must be another case of our lieing ears and eyes fooling us again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:24 PM

"He continues to assert falsely that the president's decision to remove Hussein was encouraged by lies about Iraq's responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks."

Exactly when and where was this assertion made and by whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:36 PM

Perle is accusing Tenet of having made false statements about Perle saying Iraq was linked to 9-11. Perle denies both the event and the sentiment claimed for him by Tenet.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 06:33 PM

"Bush has a lot to worry about on many fronts
editorials and opinion
By ANN MCFEATTERS
Scripps Howard News Service
Friday, May 11, 2007

Recent votes in Congress show widespread disaffection with President Bush among Republicans as well as Democrats and bode ill for the nation for the next 20 months.

Bush has tasked his already overworked chief of staff, Josh Bolten, with the Herculean job of finding agreement on war spending while Congress tries futilely to change Iraq policy, a constitutional crisis if there ever was one. But the president is finding he has a lot to worry about on many other fronts....

...

This is a sample of what just one week brings these days. The likelihood is that the remaining months of Bush's term increasingly will be hell for Republicans, who not only face the possibility of losing a presidential election next year but more losses in the Senate and the House and in state legislatures.

The man they will blame if that happens will not be former CIA head George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney or one-time defense chief Donald Rumsfeld or Gonzales or anybody else in a long list of people who have seen their reputations diminished during this administration. It will be George W. Bush."

The inventory of Bush's latest 'bad wee' is in the full article, found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 11:39 PM

Who gives a shit about what Perle said and what Tenet said about what Perle said and what Perle said about what Tenet said?

And does "Wow -- a small taste of their own medicine." Mean it is OK for Dean to use people's pain and suffering in a disaster to political purposes and create a straw man issue about not enough National Guard to bitch about the war in Iraq?

Does it mean it is OK for the Gov to lie for political purposes?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 11:45 PM

Iraq Leaders Plead for Congress' Support


CBNNews.com - With growing pressure for U.S. troops to leave Baghdad, top Iraqi officials are lobbying Capitol Hill to consider the consequences of pulling the plug on U.S. military support too soon.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with both Republicans and Democrats, concentrating on those considered influential on the war debate.

Before the House voted to limit funds for the war Thursday, Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators.

"He understands that American patience is waning," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., after eating lunch with Saleh.

Baghdad's ability to sell members on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Several Republicans have become impatient with the progress in Iraq and have grown tired of a war that does not sit well with their constituents..."

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/155970.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:44 AM

Dickey:

I was responding to your question, "Exactly when and where was this assertion made and by whom?". Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

A

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

According to a draft US government report obtained by the New York Times, up to 300,000 barrels of oil a day have gone missing in Iraq over the past four years, at an estimated cost of up to $15m a day. It's not yet known whether the shortfall is due to theft or overstated oil production; there are concerns that the missing oil may be helping to fund insurgents. Some observers see parallels to the UN oil-for-food scandal, in which up to half a million barrels of oil a day were smuggled out of the country.

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

A Feeble Performance
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: May 12, 2007
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has reportedly begun telling friends and associates that he has weathered the storm over the firing of nine United States attorneys and that his job is safe despite widespread calls for his resignation. We can only hope he is wrong. Not only is the purge of the attorneys extremely serious, it is part of a long chain of evidence that Mr. Gonzales does not have the ability or the moral compass to do his vitally important job.

Consider Mr. Gonzales's performance the other day before the House Judiciary Committee, where the chairman, John Conyers Jr., framed the questioning with admirable simplicity: who made up the list of prosecutors to be fired, and why? That should not be a hard question. The nine prosecutors who are now known to have been purged — it was eight until the case of Todd Graves of Missouri came to light this week — are nearly 10 percent of all United States attorneys. It defies belief that an attorney general would allow so many top officials to be fired without being well aware of the reasons....

Full article here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 07 - 08:44 AM

Well, well, well...

300,000 barrels of oil missing a day, Amos??? How could this occur in an Arab country where honesty reigns supreme... Not!!!

This is the problem that Bush (and the US) faces... He doesn't understand the Middle Eastern culture... He should have had to deal with Arabs in a business deal before invading Iraq...

These people don't think like us (US)... I know... I have had business deaslings with Saudis, Kuwaitis and Palestinians and one common denominator in dealing with Widdle Eastern people is that telling a good lie to gain an advantage in a business deal is not only standard-operating-procedure but a time honored skill... Even after the ink has dried these folks will crizzle and wiezel during the entire length of the deal...

This is what concerns me about Bush, or anyone else, thinking that the Iraqis are capable of finding a negoitiated settlement between the Sunnis and the Shiites... It isn't in these folks history or culture for that to occur... They are simply not **wired** that way and not capable of pulling this off... The only thing they understand is force...

That is why Saddam was somewhat successful in ruling Iraq...

That is why this thing isn't going to end well... Like I, as well as others, predicted during the mad-dash-to-Iraq when the day is done Iraqis wilkl fight it out among themselves... This is all they understand... The US can stay there for the next 10 years, bankrupt our own governemnt in doing so, but when we do leave the real slugfest will begin that makes what we see now look like a school yard wrestling match...

Do I want that to happen??? Hell, no, I don't... But can nayone stop it??? Probably not... Especially Bush...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 May 07 - 10:53 AM

Bobert: I see a hint of optimisim in your "Probably not" statement. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 07 - 08:32 PM

Don't read too much into it, Dickey... Optimism isn't quite what I'm feeling... Not even a hint of it... But, hey, being a humanitarian, I always "hope" that things will work out fir people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 11:43 AM

Bobert:

Hope is good. Defeatisim is bad.

I always say "prepare for the worst and hope for the best".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:28 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel - PM
Date: 11 May 07 - 10:18 AM

NEW talking points: benchmarks good . Democrats bad.

Bush says he was for BENCHMARKS ALL ALONG.

must be another case of our lieing ears and eyes fooling us again."

What lies where?

Bush supports security 'benchmarks' in Iraq
By Joseph Curl | Published Oct/26/2006 | Peace and Conflict | Unrated
Al-Maliki rejects timetable


By Joseph Curl
The Washington Times

President Bush yesterday firmly supported setting "benchmarks" in Iraq to move toward stability and security in the war-torn country, and warned Iraqi leaders that the United States has "got patience, but not unlimited patience."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:34 PM

Bush's Proposal of 'Benchmarks' for Iraq Sounds Familiar

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006; Page A17

The text of President Bush's news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.

The president talked repeatedly about "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html?nav=emailpage

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 01:06 PM

Come on, Dockey, pull it out. If he is so supportive of requiring benchmarks, or other measured results, why the hell is he rejecting the budget set conditional on those results?

Mouth service is different from walking the damned walk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 01:25 PM

May 13, 2007 at 10:58:06
Bush and the Media: Playing Us for Fools

by Dave Lindorff    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




"The idiot American media are giving Bush another free pass, running stories now that the U.S. is "willing" to talk with Iran, but only about how to calm down the Iraq conflict.

What a pathetic joke!



How can anybody take this claim from the White House that it is trying to negotiate with Iran about Iraq seriously, when the U.S. is simultaneously threatening Iran with a catastrophic attack?

While the State Department is claiming it wants to negotiate with Iran on the narrow issue of settling the Shia-Sunni conflict inside Iraq, Vice President Cheney stands on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Stennis in the Persian Gulf, F-18 Hornets arrayed carefully behind him for maximum belligerent effect, and threatens to attack Iran if it tries to obtain nuclear weapons or tries to close down shipping in the Persian Gulf.

This is not the way to get Iran to agree to accept a role as peacemaker in Iraq and to rescue America from a military disaster in that benighted country.

If the White House truly wanted to settle the conflict in Iraq, Bush would call for broad talks with Iran on settling differences between the two countries on a whole range of issues, from nuclear proliferation and nuclear power to trade and including a regional solution to the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But of course, the White House has no interest in any of that.

Bush and Cheney, indeed, have been pushing ahead with their goal of attacking Iran, which is basically their ace in the hole for defending a collapsing presidency from imploding entirely before the scheduled end of Bush's second term of office. That's why they've moved three powerful aircraft carrier battle groups into position in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea—an armada big enough to launch a massive air assault on Iran on a moment's notice.

The last thing the Bush gang want to do is end the conflict in Iraq, which would mean surrendering to the insurgency. Better, from their perspective, to let American troops continue killing and dying until the January, 2009, when a new president will be left with the thankless job of cleaning up the mess.

Endless war has become the modus operandi of this administration.

But obvious as it all is, the complicit U.S. media won't admit this. They play along instead with the fantasy that the administration is trying its best to bring it all to an end. They report on administration claims to be interested in narrow negotiations with Iran on Iraq, as though they are making serious efforts towards peace, when in fact it is all are nothing but propaganda meant for American consumption.

Nobody in the rest of the world takes this nonsense seriously.

Nobody in America should either."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:12 AM

Army Career Behind Him, General Speaks Out on Iraq
         
By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 13, 2007 New York Times

ROCHESTER, May 10 — John Batiste has traveled a long way in the last four years, from commanding the First Infantry Division in Iraq to quitting the Army after three decades in uniform and, now, from his new life overseeing a steel factory here, to openly challenging President Bush on his management of the war.

"Mr. President, you did not listen," General Batiste says in new television advertisements being broadcast in Republican Congressional districts as part of a $500,000 campaign financed by VoteVets.org. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."

Those are powerful, inflammatory words from General Batiste, a retired major general who spent 31 years in the Army, a profession sworn to unflinching loyalty to civilian control of the military. Many senior officers say privately that talk like this makes them uncomfortable; when you pin that first star on your shoulder, they say, your first name becomes "General" for the rest of your life.

But General Batiste says he has received no phone calls, letters or messages from current or former officers challenging his public stance, although he occasionally gets an anonymous e-mail message with the heading "Traitor." Having quit the Army in anger at what he calls mismanagement of the Iraq war, he says he chose a second career far from Washington and the Pentagon so that he could speak freely on military issues.

"I am outraged, as are the majority of Americans," General Batiste said over sandwiches in a blue-collar diner here. "I am a lifelong Republican. But it is past time for change."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:55 AM

Excerpt from a Frank Rich column in the Times, 5-13:

"Much as the Republicans hope that the Gipper can still be a panacea for all their political ills, so they want to believe that if only President Bush would just go away and take his rock-bottom approval rating and equally unpopular war with him, all of their problems would be solved. But it could be argued that the Iraq fiasco, disastrous to American interests as it is, actually masks the magnitude of the destruction this presidency has visited both on the country in general and the G.O.P. in particular.

By my rough, conservative calculation — feel free to add — there have been corruption, incompetence, and contracting or cronyism scandals in these cabinet departments: Defense, Education, Justice, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. I am not counting State, whose deputy secretary, a champion of abstinence-based international AIDS funding, resigned last month in a prostitution scandal, or the General Services Administration, now being investigated for possibly steering federal favors to Republican Congressional candidates in 2006. Or the Office of Management and Budget, whose chief procurement officer was sentenced to prison in the Abramoff fallout. I will, however, toss in a figure that reveals the sheer depth of the overall malfeasance: no fewer than four inspectors general, the official watchdogs charged with investigating improprieties in each department, are themselves under investigation simultaneously — an all-time record.

Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That's the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.

It's not the philosophy Mr. Bush campaigned on. Remember the candidate who billed himself as a "different kind of Republican" and a "compassionate conservative"? Karl Rove wanted to build a lasting Republican majority by emulating the tactics of the 1896 candidate, William McKinley, whose victory ushered in G.O.P. dominance that would last until the New Deal some 35 years later. The Rove plan was to add to the party's base, much as McKinley had at the dawn of the industrial era, by attracting new un-Republican-like demographic groups, including Hispanics and African-Americans. Hence, No Child Left Behind, an education program pitched particularly to urban Americans, and a 2000 nominating convention that starred break dancers, gospel singers, Colin Powell and, as an M.C., the only black Republican member of Congress, J. C. Watts.

As always, the salesmanship was brilliant. One smitten liberal columnist imagined in 1999 that Mr. Bush could redefine his party: "If compassion and inclusion are his talismans, education his centerpiece and national unity his promise, we may say a final, welcome goodbye to the wedge issues that have divided Americans by race, ethnicity and religious conviction." Or not. As Matthew Dowd, the disaffected Bush pollster, concluded this spring, the uniter he had so eagerly helped elect turned out to be "not the person" he thought, but instead a divider who wanted to appeal to the "51 percent of the people" who would ensure his hold on power.

But it isn't just the divisive Bush-Rove partisanship that led to scandal. The corruption grew out of the White House's insistence that partisanship — the maintenance of that 51 percent — dictate every governmental action no matter what the effect on the common good. And so the first M.B.A. president ignored every rule of sound management. Loyal ideologues or flunkies were put in crucial positions regardless of their ethics or competence. Government business was outsourced to campaign contributors regardless of their ethics or competence. Even orthodox Republican fiscal prudence was tossed aside so Congressional allies could be bought off with bridges to nowhere.

This was true way before many, let alone Matthew Dowd, were willing to see it. It was true before the Iraq war. In retrospect, the first unimpeachable evidence of the White House's modus operandi was reported by the journalist Ron Suskind, for Esquire, at the end of 2002. Mr. Suskind interviewed an illustrious Bush appointee, the University of Pennsylvania political scientist John DiIulio, who had run the administration's compassionate-conservative flagship, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bemoaning an unprecedented "lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House, Mr. DiIulio said: "What you've got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

His words have been borne out repeatedly: by the unqualified political hacks and well-connected no-bid contractors who sabotaged the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq; the politicization of science at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency; the outsourcing of veterans' care to a crony company at Walter Reed; and the purge of independent United States attorneys at Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department. But even more pertinent, perhaps, to the Republican future is how the Mayberry Machiavellis alienated the precise groups that Mr. Bush had promised to add to his party's base. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:07 PM

And from New Zealand, this gritty parallel between past tyrants and Mister Bush.

Bush Actions Recall History's Tyrants


"As public sentiment begins to build for impeachment, it might be illuminating to examine the many ways President Bush operates in a manner reminiscent of history's tyrants. Here are 10 areas that come readily to mind.

...". (See link for details).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 08:53 PM

WASHINGTON, DC, May 14, 2007 (ENS) - After resisting the regulation of greenhouse gases since he took office in 2001, President George W. Bush today signed an Executive Order directing four federal agencies to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new mobile sources. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels, contribute to global climate change.

The President directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture to work together "to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines, in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth," the Executive Order states.

---

An analysis of the actual merits of Bush's surrender in lip service can be found here. While it is nice to have him at least say the right words, it would also be helpful if he worked a bit on actually meaning them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:00 PM

By John Batiste
Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Page A17 Wasington Post

We have the best military in the world, hands down. We must complete what we started in Iraq, and there is no doubt in my mind that we have the military capacity to do that, provided the political will is there. Our success in Iraq is due to the incredible performance of our servicemen and women. I believe that I have an obligation and a duty to speak out....... There is no question that we will succeed in Iraq...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:17 PM

Heroes And Cowards
By ALICIA COLON
February 20, 2007

"..The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?..."

http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:33 PM

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United states, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:54 PM

So we've spent 4000 lives and a trillion dollars and killed 100,000 other human beings, to protect America from Saddam's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and you find this a good idea? Jumpin' Jehosophat, man, did your Mom leave you no brain cells at ALL?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:13 AM

Weeeel Amos, The above was uttered by Mr William Jefferson Clinton December 16, 1998. Seems like your crusade against the present administration ignores the pfact that the Bush administration got it's pointers from the previous administration.

Where were your cries of protest then? Your charges of lying? You assertions of warmongering for profit? You did not protest because you did not hold a grudge againts Clinton like you do against Bush.

You want people to believe that everything was fine until George W Bush came into power and drummed up a war to benefit oil companies and Haliburton using fake evidence and lies that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Remember that there were 4,417 military lives lost from 93 thru 96 during Clinton's peace time? Where were your cries of anguish then? Ask the widows, orphans and amputees of that period what was accomplished and get back to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:48 AM

And your point, Dickey? In imitating Clinton, Bush is doing good?

Nope.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:51 AM

"...Under the Bush Administration no senior civilian official or military officer has been held responsible for what will probably turn out to be the greatest foreign-policy disaster in American history. (Donald Rumsfeld was thrown overboard only after he became too much trouble politically.) Those in highest authority have been kept in office (Dick Cheney), promoted (Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice), honored with medals (Tenet, General Tommy Franks, Paul Bremer), or sent off with encomiums (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld). Generals who held command over chaos and looming defeat have received additional stars and more powerful posts, such as George Casey, Jr., who was promoted earlier this year to Army chief of staff. Recently, an Army lieutenant colonel and Iraq veteran named Paul Yingling published an essay in the Armed Forces Journal, entitled "A Failure in Generalship." Yingling's open indictment of a military leadership composed of yes-men was the first by an active-duty officer during the Iraq war, and it expressed in analytical terms a simmering rage among lower-ranking soldiers. "A private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war," he wrote.

Eventually, war enforces its own accountability—though heads might not roll, bodies will render a final judgment—but the point in punishing failure is to correct mistakes before a war is lost. Bush's refusal to do so has come at an unimaginably high cost, which will include his own legacy. The most common explanation for this stance is his loyalty to people loyal to him, but folly on this scale is never entirely personal. Bush represents the apotheosis, and perhaps the demise, of politics as war by other means. Bring overwhelming force to the political battlefield without apology, this deluded ideology holds, and reality—even a real war—will take care of itself. ♦

---

Excerpted from The New Yorker article, No Blame, No Shame, by George Packer.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:46 PM

More green clingy floating scum from the high echelons of the "Justice" Department...from a column in the Washington Post.

"Alberto Throws Paul Under Bus; Ditto James to Alberto"

What a morning it's been for devotees of the U.S. Attorney scandal. While former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about ghoulish behavior on the part of then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General himself was throwing under the bus his former deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who resigned under fire yesterday from the Justice Department. Got that? The guy who should be Attorney General was highlighting the backhanded way in which the current Attorney General operated back in 2004. And Gonzales, the guy who has kept his job thanks to blind loyalty on the part of President Bush, was unable and unwilling to show any measure of fealty to his own subordinate, savaging him less than 24 hours after McNulty decided to go.

All of a sudden, Gonzales, the man who last week said he would take "responsibility" for the disaster at the Justice Department, now is saying that "You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names... And he would know better than anyone else, anyone in this room, anyone -- again, the deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community, and he signed off on the names." I am sure this golden nugget of blame came as a surprise to McNulty, who expressed some frustration earlier in this saga for not being in the loop on the firings. And remember that Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, the two high-ranking Justice Department officials integral in the prosecutor purge, were part of the House of Gonzales and not part of Team McNulty.

Anyone out there think that we won't see be hearing again from McNulty, under oath and with immunity, before Congress? Anyone surprised that Gonzales would immediately blame his deputy but still continue to deflect his own measure of blame for the scandal? Anyone out there still think that Gonzales is the type of leader likely to inspire confidence and respect among his employees at Justice? I didn't think so. Gonzales' treatment of McNulty represents a new low for the Attorney General in a story marked by similar valleys-- the guy who refuses to be candid with the Congress blasts the guy who is.

And speaking of candid, I hope that some of you were able to see live (or can find online) Comey's account of the sinister work performed in 2004 by Gonzales and Andrew Card, then White House chief of staff. John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, was seriously ill and at hospital. Comey was acting Attorney General. When asked by Gonzales and Card to sign off on the (illegal) National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, Comey understandably refused to do so. Case closed, right? No. The Andrew and Alberto Show travelled to the hospital and tried to get Ashcroft's consent to the program. Comey stood in the way, literally, at Ashcroft's hospital bed. It got so bad, Comey told the Committee, that he refused to meet with Card and Company without a witness (namely, then Solicitor General Ted Olsen) being present. It's no wonder that senators on both sides of the aisle were talking about Watergate before the morning was out."

By Andrew Cohen | May 15, 2007; 12:51 PM ET
Previous: The Fall of the House of McNulty |

---

Some public comments:


"Gonzales keeps racking up the mistakes. McNulty will testify in this case and I am certain that he will be more than happy to expose the deceit and illegal activities of the man who threw him under the bus.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. What is going to happen when Congress, finally exercising its oversight responsibilities, gets to the really juicy stuff, like warrantless wiretaps, kidnapping and rendition, torture, and the signing statements?

I weep for our Republic."

Posted by: Nellie | May 15, 2007 01:52 PM

"Geez, what ever happened to the Justice Department? Can we rename it the Karl Rove Memorial Politburo? And then we can rename Gitmo The Gulag Archipelago. And then we can change the name of the NSA to Big Brother on Speed-dial...Josef Stalin would be so proud!"

Posted by: braultrl | May 15, 2007 01:57 PM

"Gonzales is carrying out the crimes as designed and commanded by Karl Rove's offices in the whitehouse."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:05 PM

I will repeat the question: Where were your cries of protest then? Your charges of lying? You assertions of warmongering for profit?

I will answer your question: If Clinton set the precedent, GWB should not be prosecuted for following his precedent.

You present averything as an "new" unprecedented atrocity when in fact it was precedented, without protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:31 PM

Take your time Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:37 PM

I get it. I should not protest corruption and venality, wilful acts of violence, fraud dissembling, the erosion of the Consittution, and all the rest, because something similar happened once before.

Gee, I guess everything since Hamiltopn is just an understandable decline under the inexorable power of prescedent. May as well go back to sleep, Dicker. Ya ain't gonna change anything.

Your question is more of a desperate deflection than a reasonable argument; but I answered it in the other htread where you pounded the same dull drum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:56 AM

I answered your question Amos, but you dodged mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:05 AM

A gem from Thomas Friedman on the Manichaean obsessions of The Party:

"...Only a united America could have the patience and fortitude to heal a divided Iraq — and we simply don't have that today. Why? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney asked everyone to check their politics at the door when it came to Iraq, because victory there was so important — everyone but themselves. They argued that the war in Iraq was the central front of the central struggle of our age — an unusual war, a war against terrorism and the pathologies that produce it — but then they indulged in the most rancid politics as usual at home.

They actually thought they could unite Iraq, while dividing America.

Whenever Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had a choice between seeking political advantage at home or acting in a bipartisan fashion to buy more unity, time and space to do all the heavy lifting needed in Iraq, they opted for political advantage.

When Franklin Roosevelt fought World War II, he made a conservative Republican, Henry Stimson, his secretary of war and did all he could to hold the country together. The Bush- Cheney team, by contrast, summoned us to D-Day and then treated it like it was just another political wedge issue, whenever it suited them.

It has not worked. As Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, put it: "You cannot govern like Winston Churchill some of the time and like Grover Norquist most of the time."

Democrats need to be careful, though, that they don't let their rage with the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush make them totally crazy, and blind them to the fact that they — we — still need a credible plan to deal with the very real threat to open societies posed by Islamist terrorism. But I understand that rage. After all, who can ask more soldiers to sacrifice their lives in Iraq for an administration that wouldn't even sacrifice its politics? "

Full article here (Subscription).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:28 AM

John Ashcroft was writhing in pain from a gall bladder infection. As the last morphine injection was fading Andrew Card and his cohort was urging John Ashcroft to sign the sweeping NSA spy program program. One problem was that Mr. Ashcroft had signed over his duties and power to his deputy for the duration of his gall baldder surgury and recovery. The other problem was that the domestic spy program was illegal and unconstitutional.

Jonn Ashcroft was either unwilling or unable to sign, so the White House merely made a secret executive order to authorize the NSA spy program and later install a lyal military general to head the NSA.

The program is in effect to this day and amounts to a Watergate crime of subverting goverment agencies to commit crimes.
Its scope and sweeping drag net scope however is millions of times more shocking than Nixon's tinkering with the FBI.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:52 AM

As ususal Amos avoids direct answers or any independant logical thinking an reverts back echoing the thoughts and opinions of others, even if they are based on history which Amos himself has deemed irrelavant.

If he can build the pile high enough it will conceal everything else.

This latest GEM presented by Amos was written by Thomas Freidman who previously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and wrote that the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize. In his February 9, 2003 column for The New York Times, Friedman also pointed to the lack of compliance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:

    "The French position is utterly incoherent. The inspections have not worked yet, says Mr. de Villepin, because Saddam has not fully cooperated, and, therefore, we should triple the number of inspectors. But the inspections have failed not because of a shortage of inspectors. They have failed because of a shortage of compliance on Saddam's part, as the French know. The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman

After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Friedman called for the U.S. State Department to to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears," create a quarterly "War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against others." Friedman said the governmental speech monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate violence, and also include what former State Department spokesperson Jamie Rubin calls "excuse makers." In his 25 July column, Friedman wrote against the "excuses" made by terrorists or apologists who blame their actions on third-party influences or pressures.

    After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us...why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism" Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."

http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-l-friedman

Now that the war in Iraq that he supported has not gone the way he wanted, Friedman is backpedaling and looking for a scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 10:16 AM

Dickey:

This is the third or fourth time you have resorted to these ad hominem slurs and insults. I advise you to desist. If you will stick to the issues, and specifics about them, we can have a dialogue.

I answered your question here as a courtesy, despite the fact that it was not germane to the discussion on this htread or on the Declaration of Impeachment thread.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:52 AM

"third or fourth time you have resorted to these ad hominem slurs and insults" Give an example and comapre it to the thousands of slurs and insults you have heaped on GWB.

"But the point is not what Clinton did. The point is the deterioration of international repute, national integrity."

BRUSSELS, May 2 1995
American plans for trade sanctions against Iran have
come in for fierce criticism from the European Union. French Foreign
Minister Alain Juppe, current chairman of the EU's decision-making
Council of Minsisters, has said that the EU "does not believe in
unilateral embargoes". EU officials in Brussels say the Union intends
to continue its "critical dialogue" with Tehran.

Of the 15 EU states, France, Germany and Britain have said clearly
that they will not follow the American initiative. German Economic
Minister Guenter Rexrodt said in a radio interview that Bonn did not
believe that a trade embargo is "the appropriate instrument for
influencing opinion in Iran".

"The right thing to do is to conduct a political dialogue with Iran,"
Rexrodt added. "Only political dialogue can bring Iran to behave
responsibly."

A British Foreign Office spokesman said London maintained a policy of
"critical dialogue" with Iran, but denied allegation of a rift
between the EU and the US on the issue.

But, EU officials say that President Clinton's decision to cut off
trade and investment ties with Iran has taken the Union by surprise.

According to French diplomats the EU was not consulted by the
Americans although Washington is clearly seeking European support in
its policy vis-a-vis Iran.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1995/04My95.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:58 AM

Yes Amos, there was plenty of friction between the Clinton Administration and the rest of the world but you want to ignore it. You dig up bullshit (you used that word aginst me first) and you try to present it as something new and shocking. A one side of the story man since your man lost and GWB won the election against your wishes twice.

Wednesday, May 24, 1995
President Bill Clinton's top trade officials accused the European Union on Tuesday of favoring managed trade after Brussels opposed America's tactics in its dispute with Japan.
Mickey Kantor, the president's trade envoy, and Ronald H. Brown, the commerce secretary, were reacting to repeated charges by Sir Leon Brittan, the European trade commissioner, that it was illegal for the United States to threaten to impose $5.9 billion of punitive tariffs on Japanese goods.
Mr. Kantor cited an array of European restrictions on Japanese car imports, criticizing European rules that require 60 percent local content in all Japanese cars. He said in an interview that Sir Leon was "somewhat confused" and that European criticism of possible U.S. sanctions was hypocritical.
"How can they criticize us when they themselves maintain a closed market to the Japanese?" Mr. Kantor asked, accusing the European Union of favoring a policy of "managed trade."
M r. Brown, speaking as he emerged from the annual ministerial meetings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said "the Europeans are going to be a major beneficiary of our success with the Japanese." He added that "it is a little frustrating when those benefit from what we do are publicly not supporting us."
Several diplomats here said, however, that once the shouting this week was over, they expected some serious, behind-the- scenes, talking to begin.
Ryutaro Hashimoto, Japan's trade minister, said in an interview that Japan found support from Sir Leon "encouraging." Mr. Hashimoto added he hoped the trade dispute could be resolved by the time leaders from the Group of Seven industrialized countries meet in mid-June in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He added that this could happen only if "the United States will change its position."
Günter Rexrodt, Germany's economics minister, said "we are interested in a friendly solution otherwise this could impact world trade." He said he could imagine a solution by the time of the Halifax meeting being "possible."
Mr. Rexrodt distinguished himself from most other European delegates, who were critical of the U.S. sanctions threat, by saying that "in general I feel closer to the Americans." He added, however, that U.S. manufacturers should not expect to reap benefits in Japan overnight "when German car companies have invested over a long time, and made more efforts, and sell more cars."
The OECD meetings here, in which plans for a new investment treaty and the need to fight unemployment were discussed, were almost completely eclipsed by the U.S.-Japan trade dispute.
Renato Ruggiero, the new director-general of the World Trade Organization, meanwhile made his debut here in a round of separate consultations with the Americans, Japanese and Europeans.
Although he made clear that no negotiations had been held, Mr. Ruggiero did stress that Mr. Kantor had assured him Washington would respect any ruling made by the WTO on its dispute with Tokyo. Both the United States and Japan have brought their complaints to the WTO.
Mr. Ruggiero also tried to reduce tension between the United States and Japan, saying "I would not want to overdramatize things."
President Bill Clinton's top trade officials accused the European Union on Tuesday of favoring managed trade after Brussels opposed America's tactics in its dispute with Japan.
Mickey Kantor, the president's trade envoy, and Ronald H. Brown, the commerce secretary, were reacting to repeated charges by Sir Leon Brittan, the European trade commissioner, that it was illegal for the United States to threaten to impose $5.9 billion of punitive tariffs on Japanese goods.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/05/24/oecd_1.php

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:58 AM

Dickey, your appetite for illogic continues to boggle my mind. GWB is not a particpant here, and he is a figure in the public domain.

You added to your deathless repartee a news clipping from some 12 years back, that seems to have no bearing on any topic. IS this a tactical device on your part -- obfuscatory irrelevance bombs? Or are we just meant to meander up and down the old time stream wherever your wandering mental feet take you?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:32 PM

Then your mind is easily boggled when presented with facts to ponder.

WMD Proliferation, Globalization, and International Security: Whither the Nexus and National Security?
Strategic Insights, Volume V, Issue 6 (July 2006)

Arguably, the kick-off to the more recent formal shift in emphasis in the U.S. national security bureaucracy came in September 1993 when President Clinton told the United Nations General Assembly:

    One of our most urgent priorities must be attacking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological; and the ballistic missiles that can rain them down on populations hundreds of miles away… If we do not stem the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons, no democracy can feel secure.

Ten years after President Clinton addressed the United Nations about the emerging WMD threat, the Bush Administration drew upon some of the same metaphors in describing a dark new security environment in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. In the foreword to the 2002 National Security Strategy report, President Bush stated: "…shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies to turn the power of modern technologies against us." The prospect of these networks gaining access to mass destructive technologies arguably constitutes the pre-eminent security challenge facing the United States, according to the document. In a poignant and oft-cited passage, the report noted: "The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed."

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/Jul/russellJul06.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:50 PM

No, my mind is easily boggled when I see human illogic posing as intelligent conversation. Does it occur to you that conditions were in any way different between the time Clinton spoke and 2001?

Do you think that Bush was justified in asserting Saddam was a WMD threat when he was not?

You are not speaking from a basis of fact, but from a basis of rhetoric. And before you resort to "You too"-isms, I already knwo that I was rhetorical sometimes. But I can find and point out the facts behind my rhetoric.

A