BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: More Antics of a Slimeball
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 10:16 AM

"Just before Monday night's State of the Union speech, in which Mr. Bush extolled bipartisanship, railed against government excesses and promised to bring the troops home as soon as it's safe to withdraw, the White House undermined all of those sentiments with the latest of the president's infamous signing statements.

The signing statements are documents that earlier presidents generally used to trumpet their pleasure at signing a law, or to explain how it would be enforced. More than any of his predecessors, the current chief executive has used the pronouncements in a passive-aggressive way to undermine the power of Congress.

Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed. This is not just constitutional theory. Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then proceeded to ignore, as he told C.I.A. interrogators that they could go on mistreating detainees?

This week's statement was attached to the military budget bill, which covers everything except the direct cost of the war. The bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to.

The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so we'll do our best to figure it out.

The first provision created a commission to determine how reliant the government is on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and what has been done to hold accountable those who are responsible. Congress authorized the commission to compel government officials to testify.

Perhaps this violated Mr. Bush's sense of his power to dole out contracts as he sees fit and to hold contractors harmless. The same theory applies to the second provision that Mr. Bush said he would not obey: a new law providing protection against reprisal to those who expose waste, fraud or abuse in wartime contracts.

The third measure Mr. Bush rejected requires intelligence officials to respond to a request for documents from the Armed Services Committees of Congress within 45 days, either by producing the documents or explaining why they are being withheld. Clearly, this violates the power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.

It's glaringly obvious why Mr. Bush rejected the fourth provision, which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

It is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an unceasing American military presence in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 08 - 11:42 PM

Scientists Say Bush Stifles Science and Lets Global Leadership Slip

By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 30 January 2008 12:52 pm ET

In his final State of the Union address, President George W. Bush devoted several lines to science and technology topics. He called for research and funding to reduce oil dependency and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow," Bush said.

But several scientists around the country aren't buying what they see as rhetoric not backed by funding. And they are frustrated by what they view as the White House's morality-based politics that they say ignores scientific evidence, distorts facts and leads to outright censorship of reports and scientists. The White House responded to the criticisms point-by-point.

In email interviews this week with 21 researchers in various fields of study, LiveScience and SPACE.com found widespread criticism for Bush's "retardation of research," as one scientist put it, that threatens to knock the country out of its global leadership role in science and technology.

"Science has been seriously undermined by the censorship and alteration of testimony and news releases," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Science and facts are not a factor in decisions, and ideology dominates."

(A Democratic congressional report in December stated: "The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.")

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at John Moores University in the UK, holds a more favorable view of the president.

"Bush has been as supportive and as reluctant as one would expect from a very conservative president," Peiser said.

And Peiser disagreed with the perception that America's heydays are over.

"Scientific research and exploration have continued to advance during Bush's presidency," Peiser said. "The United States remains the top country in the world on every aspect of science and research and it is still the most popular destination for international scientists looking for a better career and future."

Broad criticisms

Trenberth's criticisms, however, were echoed by several researchers.

"Science establishes facts but facts can unmask bad policy," said Ken Caldeira, a climate and ecology researcher at Stanford University. "Thus good science has been seen as a threat by the Bush administration."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM

"President BushÕs excesses in the name of fighting terrorism are legion. To avoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought early dismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct, brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national security secrets at risk.

The courts have been far too willing to go along. In cases involving serious allegations of kidnapping, torture and unlawful domestic eavesdropping, judges have blocked plaintiffs from pursuing their claims without taking a hard look at the governmentÕs basis for invoking the so-called state secrets privilege: its insistence that revealing certain documents or other evidence would endanger the nationÕs security.

As a result, victims of serious abuse have been denied justice, fundamental rights have been violated and the constitutional system of checks and balances has been grievously undermined.

Congress Ñ which has allowed itself to be bullied on national security issues for far too long Ñ may now be ready to push back. The House and Senate are developing legislation that would give victims fair access to the courts and make it harder for the government to hide illegal or embarrassing conduct behind such unsupported claims.

Last week, Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, jointly introduced the State Secrets Protection Act. The measure would require judges to examine the actual documents or other evidence for which the state secrets privilege is invoked, rather than relying on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be publicly disclosed. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and an important supporter of the reform, has scheduled a hearing on the bill for Feb. 13. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, expects to introduce a similar measure in the House. ..."

(New York Times editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:23 AM

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Well, the Veterans administration DID by counseling our wounded troops back home from Iraq in how to fill out the forms regarding their battle injuries. When the figures came in the veterans who got the counseling got more benefits than those who were not taught how to fill out the forms.

SO,, the Pentagon ordered the Veterans Adminstration to cease and desist from supporting our troops in filling out wound reports.

The non govermental Veterans agency said they were sorry and stopped helping the troops with paperwork.



Way to go YAHOO support our troops support our troops, YAAAAY
Chalk up another victory for the military.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:24 AM

btw the troops that got the (now denied) extra help were in upstate NY.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 09:44 AM

he more than $3 trillion federal budget for 2009 that Bush will unveil is his final opportunity to shape the priorities of the government before leaving office a year from now. Lawmakers and their aides say Bush has little leverage left to force his proposals on a recalcitrant Congress.

But even in the unlikely event that he were to get his way, the budget deficit would jump sharply, from $163 billion in 2007 to about $400 billion in 2008 and 2009 -- partly the result of the new economic stimulus plan. Such deficits would rival the record deficit of $412 billion of 2004, though administration allies argue that shortfalls of that size now represent a smaller share of the overall economy and are thus more manageable.

Still, the new budget underscores Bush's inability to get control of spending over the course of his seven-year tenure, a failure that has concerned even his conservatives allies. The problem is projected to get worse in coming years with the retirements of the baby-boom generation, a big obstacle to the ambitious tax-cutting or spending plans of the leading presidential contenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

An interesting "collateral" impact of Bush's decision to invade five years ago is documented on CNN today:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every day, five U.S. soldiers try to kill themselves. Before the Iraq war began, that figure was less than one suicide attempt a day.

The dramatic increase is revealed in new U.S. Army figures, which show 2,100 soldiers tried to commit suicide in 2007.

"Suicide attempts are rising and have risen over the last five years," said Col. Elspeth Cameron-Ritchie, an Army psychiatrist.

Concern over the rate of suicide attempts prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, to introduce legislation Thursday to improve the military's suicide-prevention programs.

"Our troops and their families are under unprecedented levels of stress due to the pace and frequency of more than five years of deployments," Webb said in a written statement. Watch CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre on the reasons for the increase in suicides È

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, took to the Senate floor Thursday, urging more help for military members, especially for those returning from war.

"Our brave service members who face deployment after deployment without the rest, recovery and treatment they need are at the breaking point," Murray said.

She said Congress has given "hundreds of millions of dollars" to the military to improve its ability to provide mental health treatment, but said it will take more than money to resolve the problem.

"It takes leadership and it takes a change in the culture of war," she said. She said some soldiers had reported receiving nothing more than an 800 number to call for help.

"Many soldiers need a real person to talk to," she said. "And they need psychiatrists and they need psychologists."

According to Army statistics, the incidence of U.S. Army soldiers attempting suicide or inflicting injuries on themselves has skyrocketed in the nearly five years since the start of the Iraq war.

Last year's 2,100 attempted suicides -- an average of more than 5 per day -- compares with about 350 suicide attempts in 2002, the year before the war in Iraq began, according to the Army."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:12 AM

Late and Lame on Warming

Published: February 4, 2008 NYT (Excerpt)
...Even allowing for the low expectations we bring to any lame-duck president's final State of the Union address, President Bush's brief discussion of climate change seemed especially disconnected from reality: from the seriousness and urgency of the problem and from his own responsibility for obstructing progress.

His call for a new international agreement to address global warming was disingenuous, coming as it did from a president who rejected the Kyoto Protocol as soon as he moved into the White House. His promise to work with other nations on new, low-carbon technologies is one he has been unveiling for the last seven years.

We were told that Mr. Bush's thinking on global warming had evolved. So there were slim hopes that, after years of stonewalling, he might agree to work with Congress on a mandatory program of capping carbon emissions. That would begin to address the problem at home and give the United States the credibility it needs to press other major emitters like China to act. No such luck. Mr. Bush remains wedded to a voluntary approach that has not inspired industry to take aggressive action. ...

Meanwhile, the stonewalling continues. Despite heavy pressure from Congress and many state governors, the Environmental Protection Agency shows no sign of reversing its decision to prohibit California and more than a dozen other states from moving forward with aggressive measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:25 AM

As George W. Bush entered the final year of his presidency, it was widely speculated that he would hand out a big bunch of pardons before bowing out — albeit, it was hoped, far more carefully than Mr. Clinton did. But saying no is as much an exercise of the pardon power as saying yes, and it is here that President Bush stands out in comparison with his predecessors. He has already denied more pardon and clemency petitions than any post-World War II president. In his first seven years in office, he rejected 5,966 requests, almost twice as many as Bill Clinton did in eight years, five times more than his father did in four years, and almost five times as many as Ronald Reagan did in eight years.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration's pardon program is in complete disarray. According to the pardon attorney's official reports, there is still a huge backlog of clemency petitions in the bureaucratic mill, a total of 2,501 requests "pending" as of Jan. 1.

Just where each one is in the process is never officially disclosed. More than 800 are apparently sitting at the White House waiting a final decision; but the bigger logjam is at the Justice Department, primarily at the Office of the United States Pardon Attorney. Yet nobody there seems to feel much pressure to change things. The five staff lawyers in the office have no deadlines, and in the past they have been allowed to work about half of the time out of their homes. It can take months for a petition to get any attention even thought it's been logged in as "pending."

"The wheels are coming off the cart," one Justice Department official told me the other day. Yet no one up the chain of command seems to be worried. Margaret Colgate Love, who was the pardon attorney from 1991 to 1997 and now represents people seeking pardons, says of her former co-workers, "It's hard to run an operation when you genuinely feel that what you're doing doesn't mean anything to anybody."

The sorry state of the system became apparent last month with the abrupt resignation of the pardon attorney, Roger Adams, who had succeeded Ms. Love. His departure came on the heels of a seven-month investigation of alleged mismanagement by the Justice Department's inspector general. While Mr. Adams has disputed the findings, a heavily censored report of the investigation, provided to me on Friday under the Freedom of Information Act, found that he made "highly inappropriate" racial remarks concerning a Nigerian petitioner and threatened retaliation against employees who dared complain about other aspects of his work....


(From here).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:44 PM

Old news, but interesting:

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press">American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"

GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM

Book: 9/11 panel exec had close ties to Rice
February 4, 2008
BY HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON -- The Sept. 11 commission's executive director had closer ties with the White House than publicly disclosed and tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration's responsibility, a new book says.

Philip Zelikow, a friend of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the 20-month investigation. He also exchanged frequent calls with the White House, including at least four from Bush's chief political adviser at the time, Karl Rove.

Zelikow once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the commission staff's viewpoint, according to Philip Shenon's The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.

Shenon, a New York Times reporter, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush, who at the time was running for re-election, and Rice. Zelikow and Rice had written a book together in 1995 and he would later work for her.

Reached by the AP, Zelikow provided a 131-page statement with information he said was provided for the book. In it, Zelikow acknowledges talking to Rove and Rice during the course of the commission's work. But he said the conversations never dealt with politics.

The White House had no immediate comment Sunday.

The book seeks to raise new questions about the independence of the bipartisan commission. Initially opposed by the White House, the panel issued a unanimous final report that did not blame Bush or former President Clinton for the attacks but did say they each failed to make anti-terrorism a priority. AP

Chicago Sun-Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM

GENEVA: The United Nations' torture investigator blasted the White House for defending the use of waterboarding on Wednesday, and urged the U.S. government to give up its defense of "unjustifiable" interrogation methods.

"This is absolutely unacceptable under international human rights law," said Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture. "Time has come that the government will actually acknowledge that they did something wrong and not continue trying to justify what is unjustifiable."

On Tuesday, the Bush administration acknowledged publicly for the first time that waterboarding was used by U.S. government questioners on three terror suspects. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director Michael Hayden said the suspects were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003.

Nowak, who has clashed with the U.S. over his failed efforts to investigate at Guantanamo Bay, said he has received more allegations of waterboarding. But he said he did not have proof to back up those allegations, partly because the U.S. will not allow him to speak with high-level terror detainees who were previously held in CIA-run secret prisons.

"If it concerns secret places of detention, it is very difficult to prove," Nowak told The Associated Press by telephone from Vienna, Austria. He added that all allegations of waterboarding were from the "early years" of the war on terror, consistent with Hayden's testimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 09:57 AM

Lame-Duck Budget


Published: February 5, 2008
(NY Times editorial)


President Bush's 2009 budget is a grim guided tour through his misplaced priorities, failed fiscal policies and the disastrous legacy that he will leave for the next president. And even that requires you to accept the White House's optimistic accounting, which seven years of experience tells us would be foolish in the extreme.

With Mr. Bush on his way out the door and the Democrats in charge of Congress, it is not clear how many of the president's priorities, unveiled on Monday, will survive. Among its many wrongheaded ideas, the budget includes some $2 billion to ratchet up enforcement-heavy immigration policies and billions more for a defense against ballistic missiles that show no signs of working.

What will definitely outlast Mr. Bush for years to come are big deficits, a military so battered by the Iraq war that it will take hundreds of billions of dollars to repair it and stunted social programs that have been squeezed to pay for Mr. Bush's misguided military adventure and his misguided tax cuts for the wealthy.
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 04:24 AM

Listen, the stakes in November are high,Ó Mr. Bush told the boisterous audience in Washington. ÒThis is an important election. Prosperity and peace are in the balance.Ó S
)as reported in the NY Times)

We should pay attention. Bush after all is the one who took prosperity and gave back recession; and who gave us less peace than we had, as well.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:09 AM

WASHINGTON Ñ President Bush often denounces the propensity of Congress to earmark money for pet projects. But in his new budget, Mr. Bush has requested money for thousands of similar projects.



Presidential Projects

He asked for money to build fish hatcheries, eradicate agricultural pests, conduct research, pave highways, dredge harbors and perform many other specific local tasks.

The details are buried deep in the presidentÕs budget, just as most Congressional earmarks are buried in obscure committee reports that accompany spending bills.

Thus, for example, the president requested $330 million to deal with plant pests like the emerald ash borer, the light brown apple moth and the sirex woodwasp. He sought $800,000 for the Neosho National Fish Hatchery in Missouri and $1.5 million for a waterway named in honor of former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat.

At the same time, Mr. Bush requested $894,000 for an air traffic control tower in Kalamazoo, Mich.; $12 million for a parachute repair shop at the American air base in Aviano, Italy; and $6.5 million for research in Wyoming on the Òfundamental properties of asphalt.Ó

He sought $3 million for a forest conservation project in Minnesota, $2.1 million for a neutrino detector at the South Pole and $28 million for General Electric and Siemens to do research on hydrogen-fuel turbines.

The projects, itemized in thousands of pages of budget documents submitted last week to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, show that the debate over earmarks is much more complex than the Òall or nothingÓ choice usually presented to the public. The president and Congress both want to direct money to specific projects, but often disagree over the merits of particular items.

The White House contends that when the president requests money for a project, it has gone through a rigorous review Ñ by the agency, the White House or both Ñ using objective criteria.

Congressional leaders said they would focus more closely on items requested by the president this year. ÒThe executive branch should be held accountable for its own earmark practices,Ó said the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats agreed that Òthe large number of presidential earmarks deserve the same scrutiny and restraintÓ as those that originated in Congress.

(NY Times 02-09-2008)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:53 AM

Unworthy Nominees

From THe NEw York TImes

His nominations — of judges, top Justice Department officials and others — are stalled, (Bush) said, because of undue Senate delay. The real problem, of course, is that 15 months after American voters put the Democrats in control of the Senate, Mr. Bush is still trying to muscle far-right ideologues with troubling records into important positions.

To hear Mr. Bush tell it, he has been the nation's meritocrat in chief. The man who brought us Alberto Gonzales to head the Justice Department and Michael Brown to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency said at the Thursday gathering that he had "nominated skilled and faithful public servants to lead federal agencies and sit on the federal bench."

One of the most prominent people Mr. Bush is stomping his foot over is Steven Bradbury, his choice to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Bradbury is best known for signing legal opinions that cleared the way for harsh interrogation techniques, and perhaps torture. He has also defended the administration's lawless domestic surveillance programs.

Another of the unrequited, Hans von Spakovsky, a nominee to the Federal Election Commission, used his position in the Justice Department to put up barriers to voting by minority groups. He was instrumental in changing the focus of the voting section from defending voting rights to advancing a partisan agenda.

And then there are the patently unsuitable judicial nominees. Richard Honaker, Mr. Bush's nominee for the District Court in Wyoming, is an extreme anti-abortion activist with troubling views on the role of religion in public life. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM

From a Roanoke, Va., paper:

"Virginia Tech Professor Theodore Fuller made a compelling case regarding the negative way history is likely to judge the presidency of George W. Bush ("History will judge Bush harshly," Jan. 30). Consensus is building that the Bush tenure will rank among the worst ever.

Counting the failures has become its own cottage industry. On my desk is a "George W. Bush Countdown Calendar," with each day until his term is over graced with another blunder, misstep, gaffe, inanity or lie -- the abuse du jour.

Fuller's list includes the failure to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion, failure to reform Social Security, to maintain the strength of the dollar, to protect the prestige of America in the world.

To these I add: Failure to adequately regulate the financial industry to prevent the subprime crisis that seems destined to hurl our nation into recession. Failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Failure to provide a health care system that works for all Americans. Failure to reverse the widening gap between rich and poor. Failure to stem the influence of corporate wealth and power over our nation, its government and its citizens. Failure to adequately fund and provide a secure future for entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. Failure to reduce our burgeoning trade deficit. Failure to improve the fuel economy of our nation's transportation network. Failure to maintain and rebuild our national infrastructure.

Repairing the carnage will prove a daunting task for the next administration.

..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:17 PM

WASHINGTON — The Army is accustomed to protecting classified information. But when it comes to the planning for the Iraq war, even an unclassified assessment can acquire the status of a state secret.

That is what happened to a detailed study of the planning for postwar Iraq prepared for the Army by the RAND Corporation, a federally financed center that conducts research for the military.

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called "Rebuilding Iraq." RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study's wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

The study chided President Bush — and by implication Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser when the war was planned — as having failed to resolve differences among rival agencies. "Throughout the planning process, tensions between the Defense Department and the State Department were never mediated by the president or his staff," it said.

The Defense Department led by Donald H. Rumsfeld was given the lead in overseeing the postwar period in Iraq despite its "lack of capacity for civilian reconstruction planning and execution."

The State Department led by Colin L. Powell produced a voluminous study on the future of Iraq that identified important issues but was of "uneven quality" and "did not constitute an actionable plan."

Gen. Tommy R. Franks, whose Central Command oversaw the military operation in Iraq, had a "fundamental misunderstanding" of what the military needed to do to secure postwar Iraq, the study said.

The regulations that govern the Army's relations with the Arroyo Center, the division of RAND that does research for the Army, stipulate that Army officials are to review reports in a timely fashion to ensure that classified information is not released. But the rules also note that the officials are not to "censor" analysis or prevent the dissemination of material critical of the Army.

The report on rebuilding Iraq was part of a seven-volume series by RAND on the lessons learned from the war. Asked why the report has not been published, Timothy Muchmore, a civilian Army official, said it had ventured too far from issues that directly involve the Army.

"After carefully reviewing the findings and recommendations of the thorough RAND assessment, the Army determined that the analysts had in some cases taken a broader perspective on the early planning and operational phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom than desired or chartered by the Army," Mr. Muchmore said in a statement. "Some of the RAND findings and recommendations were determined to be outside the purview of the Army and therefore of limited value in informing Army policies, programs and priorities."

---

If the Army's policy is to tough out criticism rather than suppress it; and RAND's policy is to publish their research; then it seems likely that the policy of suppressing the information must have come from someone above the Army, no??? Who could that be???



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:02 PM

The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European
Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for
transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights
from Europe to America by US airlines.

The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a
travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels
described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west
Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments
balk at Washington's requirements.

According to a US document being circulated for signature in European
capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air
passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or
retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.

And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose
a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all
travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before
booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.

The data from the US's new electronic transport authorisation system
is to be combined with extensive personal passenger details already
being provided by EU countries to the US for the "profiling" of
potential terrorists and assessment of other security risks.

Washington is also asking European airlines to provide personal data
on non-travellers - for example family members - who are allowed
beyond departure barriers to help elderly, young or ill passengers to
board aircraft flying to America, a demand the airlines reject as
"absurd". ...

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/usa.theairlineindustry/print

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:28 PM

By MADDY SAUER
Feb. 12, 2008
Font Size
   
E-mail
Print
Share
A Houston, Texas woman, who says she was gang-raped by her co-workers at a Halliburton/KBR camp in Baghdad, says 38 women have come forward through her foundation to report their own tragic stories to her, but that many cannot speak publicly due to arbitration agreements in their employment contracts.

Photos
Halliburton/KBR Employees: Company Covered Up Sex Assault and HarassmentJamie Leigh Jones is testifying on Capitol Hill this afternoon. She says she and other women are being forced to argue their cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape before secretive arbitration panels rather than in open court before a judge and jury.

Jones returned from Iraq following her rape in 2005. She was the subject of an exclusive ABC News report in December which led to congressional hearings.


After months of waiting for criminal charges to be filed, Jones decided to file suit against Halliburton and KBR.

KBR has moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom, as provided under the terms of her original employment contract.

Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, says it is improperly named in the suit and referred calls to KBR.

In arbitration, there is no public record or transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones' claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator hired by the corporation would decide Jones' case.

In fact, Tracy Barker, who says she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, also recently tried to file suit against the companies. She was forced into arbitration last month.

Jones will tell Congress today that she was not aware that when she signed her employment contract, she was effectively signing away her right to bring a lawsuit.

(ABC News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:20 PM

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.


I bet GWB really believes this.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:36 PM

"The USPTO is desperate to enact severe disincentives for appeals, which are on the rise due to increasingly unreasonable rejections by examiners, and will mushroom in number if and when the two-continuation limit takes effect.

Last Summer USPTO Director Dudas published new Draconian appeal brief rules, i.e. rules that impose incredible formal requirements on briefs filed before the USPTO Board of Appeals.   The actual effective date of the new appeal brief rules is very difficult, if not, impossible to calculate.

Patent lawyers often find out after the fact that propsed rules have been made final on a certain day. This has to due with the complexities of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) under which the executive branch has rule making authority in areas permitted by statute.

Unlike the illegal continuation limits, I don't see any legal impediments to the USPTO Director's enacting of the new Draconian appeal brief rules. They make the writing of the brief much more complex and require all sorts of admissions against interest which the USPTO will almost certainly use against the Appellants in regard to obviousness rejections.

Technically any case that has been twice rejected can be appealed, whether or not there has been a final rejection.

Therefore, the reason for this e-mail is to alert you to the fact that I could provide you with a list of current cases ...to appeal at this time, while we are still under the less stringent brief requirements.

On the other hand, the client has no outstanding office actions (i.e. those that have not yet been responded to) you may choose to play out the string, and not file any pre-emptive appeals.

The USPTO is getting so anti-patent that it is getting much more difficult to obtain U.S. patents, particularly ones with broad claims. "

(Letter from a veteran Patent Attorney)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:09 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House voted Thursday to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House lawyer Harriet Miers in contempt in its probe of the 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys.


Former White House counsel Harriet Miers refused to appear at a hearing into the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The House voted 223-23 to hold the two Bush aides in contempt of Congress.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the move "a partisan, futile act" that would not be enforced by the Justice Department.

And the chamber's Republican minority staged a walkout before the vote, demanding that Democratic leaders vote instead on a revision of federal surveillance laws.

"We will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security," Minority Leader John Boehner said to jeers from Democrats.

But Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, said Congress has to uphold its authority against a White House that is refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation.

And Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Congress has a right to hear from White House officials about the shakeup, which the Justice Department struggled to explain after it became public.

"There was plenty of evidence in our report that showed and suggested there had been many lines crossed between appropriateness and inappropriateness, legality and illegality, and perhaps constitutional violations as well," Conyers said.

Three Republicans who did not take part in the walkout -- including current presidential hopeful Ron Paul of Texas -- supported the resolution, while one Democrat, Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, opposed it.

The White House has insisted the firings were legal. But Democrats said the central questions behind the dismissals -- who decided the prosecutors should be ousted, and why -- remain unanswered.

Miers and Bolten had refused to testify in the investigation, which stemmed from the Justice Department's dismissals of federal prosecutors in eight cities.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM

Administration shuts down "best-of-web" economicindicators.gov
Wed, 2008-02-13 21:29 Ü(From a list correspondent)

http://freegovinfo.info/node/1627

Forbes has awarded EconomicIndicators.gov one of its 3Best of the Web2
awards. As Forbes explains, the government site provides an invaluable
service to the public for accessing U.S. economic data:

    This site is maintained by the Economics and Statistics Administration
and combines data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, like GDP and
net imports and exports, and the Census Bureau, like retail sales and
durable goods shipments. The site simply links to the relevant department1s
Web site. This might not seem like a big deal, but doing it yourself -- say,
trying to find retail sales data on the Census Bureau1s site -- is such an
exercise in futility that it will convince you why this portal is necessary.

Yet the Bush administration has decided to shut down this site because of
"budgetary constraints," effective March 1.

Here's a cross-section of the data available:

Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services | Advance Report on
Durable Goods | Construction Put in Place | Corporate Profits | Current
Account Balance (International Transactions) | Gross Domestic Product |
Housing Vacancies and Homeownership | Manufacturer's Shipments, Inventories,
and Orders | Manufacturing and Trade: Inventories and Orders | Manufacturing
and Trade: Inventories and Sales | Monthly Wholesale Trade | New Residential
Construction | New Residential Sales | Personal Income and Outlays |
Quarterly Financial Report | Quarterly Services | Retail E-Commerce Sales |
U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services | U.S. International
Transactions |

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:57 PM

From John Grisham, pot-boiler writer par excellence:

"Grisham, who turned 53 on February 8 and still has the lanky look of an athlete who once chased a baseball career, is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton and says the Democrats have been outmaneuvered by the Republicans.

"I think what the Republicans have done in past elections is brilliant. Because, they've convinced a lot of people to vote for them against their own economic self-interest, and they've done that by skillfully manipulating a handful of social issues, primarily abortion and gay rights and sometimes gun control," he says. "And the Republicans have used those to scare a lot of people into voting for Republican candidates. It's skillful manipulation."

Grisham, who lives in the Charlottesville, Virginia, area, is so addicted to following the presidential race that he jokes he might need rehab.

"My wife and I went out to dinner a couple of weeks ago, and we actually called somebody to find out if they had any results from the Nevada caucuses," he says, chortling almost sheepishly. "And I said this ought to tell us something: 'You know, we're in this thing way too deep.' "...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:47 AM

Bush Turns US Soldiers into Murderers
Afghanistan | Iraq | War
by Robert Parry | February 13, 2008 - 9:22am
   
By forcing repeat combat assignments to Iraq and Afghanistan Ð and by winking at torture and indiscriminate killings Ð George W. Bush is degrading the reputation of the U.S. military, turning enlisted soldiers and intelligence officers into murderers and sadists. ...

Full editorial can be read here...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:52 AM

"...Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend...YouÕre a fascist Ñ get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November?

Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room No. 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. ÒMy thought was,Ó Mr. Klein told us last November, ÒGeorge OrwellÕs Ô1984.Õ And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine.Ó

And if thereÕs one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is Ñ you are Ñ a liar."

Keuth Olberman. Full article here on MSNBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM

This month, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the E.P.A. had once again ignored the law by failing to require deep and timely reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Like most clean air cases, this one was mind-numbingly complex. The gist of it was that the E.P.A. Ñ seeking as usual to please industry Ñ had approved a weak set of regulations that would let many plants off the hook for emissions reductions that would be required under any honest reading of the law.

The D.C. Circuit, by no means a radical group of judges, has become so exasperated that it has taken to quoting Lewis Carroll. In 2006, in a reference to ÒThrough the Looking Glass,Ó the court said that the E.P.A.Õs reading of the law would make sense Òonly in a Humpty Dumpty world.Ó This month, invoking ÒAlice in Wonderland,Ó the court said the agencyÕs reasoning recalled Òthe logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting the E.P.A.Õs desires for the plain textÓ of the law....

(NYT Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:49 AM

"President BushÕs mismanagement reaches far beyond Iraq. He has torn up international treaties, bullied and alienated old friends, and enabled old and new enemies. Before Americans choose a president they will need to know how he or she plans to rebuild AmericaÕs military strength and its moral standing and address a host of difficult challenges around the world.

Here is our list of questions. It is by no means comprehensive...." (Click to see the whole essay, a good and interesting survey of important issues in the next Administration). (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:15 PM

Barbara Boxer gave a heart-felt speech in defense of privacy to the Senate in relationship to the FISA bill. A good read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 01:12 AM

The sentencing of a California defense contractor closes another chapter in the long-running corruption case surrounding former Republican congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Brent R. Wilkes was convicted of showering Cunningham with more than $700,000 in perks -- including $500,000 for a mortgage, $100,000 for a yacht he never purchased, submachine-gun shooting lessons and the services of two prostitutes during a stay at a Hawaiian resort. A federal judge yesterday gave Wilkes 12 years in prison for bribery, conspiracy and fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 01:14 AM

The House has approved contempt citations against two White House aides over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys. The citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers came on a 223 to 32 vote. Most House Republicans walked off the floor in protest and refused to cast a final vote. The White House, which has refused to allow testimony from West Wing aides, condemned the House vote.

The contempt citations followed allegations that the Bush administration was injecting politics into the Justice Department by dismissing nine federal prosecutors in 2006, a controversy detailed in a number of Post stories by reporter Dan Eggen and others. (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

Against all odds, there is still hope that Congress will produce a halfway decent farm bill, one that increases spending for underfunded programs like food stamps and conservation while decreasing subsidies to rich farmers who have never had it so good. The reason for hope is President Bush, who has been on the right side of the farm issue from the beginning and is threatening to veto any measure that resembles the stinkers produced by the House and Senate last year.

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

Go to The Board » Some legislators are now scrambling for a better version. Tinkering around the edges will not do it.

Mr. Bush has two sound objections. First, the House and Senate bills, each costing about $280 billion over five years, are way over budget and include an array of gimmicky tax increases to make up the shortfall.

Even worse, the bills perpetuate an unfair, wasteful program of price supports and direct payments. Half the subsidies would go to farmers in just seven states producing a handful of crops — corn, cotton, rice, soybeans and wheat; two-thirds of the nation's farmers would not benefit at all. Mr. Bush has complained in particular about provisions that allow subsidies to flow to farm families making as much as $2 million a year.

---

Don't say I never included anything positive in this thread!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:46 AM

February 21, 2008, 3:02 pm
Bush's Popularity: A (Really) New Low?
By The Editorial Board of the NY Times

The American Research Group, a well-known polling organization, released a pretty surprising poll yesterday putting President Bush's approval rating at a new low: just 19 percent.
According to the poll, only 19 percent of the 1,100 people surveyed by telephone approved of the way Mr. Bush is handling his job as president, while 77 percent disapprove.
That is a sharp drop from a month ago, when ARG reported that 34 percent of those surveyed approved, and below the 25 percent approval rating ARG reported last October. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 10:37 PM

The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address. It's the latest move in a larger struggle within the military over the value -- and hazards -- of the sites. At least one senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so "utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream."

Until recently, each major command of the Air Force had some control over what sites their troops could visit, the Air Force Times reports. Then the Air Force Network Operations Center, under the service's new "Cyber Command," took over.
AFNOC has imposed bans on all sites with "blog" in their URLs, thus cutting off any sites hosted by Blogspot. Other blogs, and sites in general, are blocked based on content reviews performed at the base, command and AFNOC level ...
The idea isn't to keep airmen in the dark -- they can still access news sources that are "primary, official-use sources," said Maj. Henry Schott, A5 for Air Force Network Operations. "Basically ... if it's a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it's fairly cut and dry that that's a good source, an authorized source," he said ...

AFNOC blocks sites by using Blue Coat software, which categorizes sites based on their content and allows users to block sub-categories as they choose.
"Often, we block first and then review exceptions," said Tech. Sgt. Christopher DeWitt, a Cyber Command spokesman.

As a result, airmen posting online have cited instances of seemingly innocuous sites -- such as educational databases and some work-related sites -- getting wrapped up in broad proxy filters.

"A couple of years back, I fought this issue concerning the Counterterrorism Blog," one Air Force officer tells Danger Room. "An AF [Air Force] professional education course website recommended it as a great source for daily worldwide CT [counterterrorism] news. However it had been banned, because it called itself a blog. And as we all know, all blogs are bad!"

(Wired.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:17 PM

Until four months ago, Col. Morris D. Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guant‡namo Bay and the most colorful champion of the Bush administrationÕs military commission system. He once said sympathy for detainees was nauseating and compared putting them on trial to dragging ÒDracula out into the sunlight.Ó

Then in October he had a dispute with his boss, a general. Ever since, he has been one of those critics who will not go away: a former top insider, with broad shoulders and a well-pressed uniform, willing to turn on the system he helped run.

Still in the military, he has irritated the administration, saying in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

Now, Colonel Davis has taken his most provocative step, completing his transformation from Guant‡namoÕs chief prosecutor to its new chief critic. He has agreed to testify at Guant‡namo on behalf of one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Colonel Davis, a career military lawyer nearing retirement at 49, said that he would never argue that Mr. Hamdan was innocent, but that he was ready to try to put the commission system itself on trial by questioning its fairness. He said that there Òis a potential for rigged outcomesÓ and that he had Òsignificant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings.Ó

ÒIÕm in a unique position where I can raise the flag and aggravate the Pentagon and try to get this fixed,Ó he said, acknowledging that he is enjoying some aspects of his new role. He was replaced as chief Guant‡namo prosecutor after he stepped down but is still a senior legal official for the Air Force.

NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

Bush Aide Resigns After Admitting Plagiarism
New York Times - 6 hours ago
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON - A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 08 - 08:47 PM

Will Police from Brattleboro, Vt., Arrest Bush and Cheney?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 12:51 PM

The Senate now has a chance to redeem itself. Last week, the House approved a new $17 billion package of credits, spread over 10 years, to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and to promote energy-efficient buildings and appliances.

As before, the House insisted that the credits be paid for by terminating an equivalent $17 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for oil and gas companies. And right on schedule, Senate Republicans began complaining that increasing industry's taxes would discourage investment in domestic oil and gas production.

What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the world's oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly drill its way to energy independence.

It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.

If those arguments aren't enough, we offer the Senate some words from President Bush. In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Mr. Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels.

Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."

The question for Mr. Bush and the Senate is clear: If that was true at $55 a barrel, why isn't it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?

(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:48 AM

On border policy:

"The evidence of this neurosis is visible at the border with Mexico, where the Department of Homeland Security has been rushing to reinforce an ineffective system of fencing and sensors, trucks and boots on the ground. The mission, imposed upon it by Congress after a wearying stalemate on immigration reform, is a mandate to do the impossible, at record speed and at record expense.

This commitment to enforcement alone, without fixing legal immigration, was always Plan B. Even President Bush, the master of the botched federal initiative, predicted it would fail. He is looking unusually prescient.

In Arizona, a 28-mile pilot project to build a "virtual fence" of sensors and cameras has fallen short of expectations. The problem, according to the Government Accountability Office, was too much haste and too little consultation with the Border Patrol. The main contractor, Boeing, rushed into the project with the wrong software. Its cameras couldn't focus on targets, and systems were confounded by innocuous things like rain. The Bush administration has confused things further by saying the system is working as planned — but won't be expanded.

That is not necessarily good news along remote border areas in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, where there is a lot of desert and mountains and where the alternative — pouring billions into building a real fence — is viewed as simply insane. No amount of fencing would seriously deter illegal crossers, border-town officials insist, and the effort actually makes things worse: You have to build roads to build the fence, and the new roads connect with old ones and vastly increase their usefulness to smugglers in cars and trucks. Mayor Ray Borane of Douglas, Ariz., said that people on the Mexican side have cut through his section of the fence with torches, welding on doors with their own locks, going in and out at will. "They cut holes in the thing like you wouldn't believe," he said."

On climate change:

The Bush administration has now provided the rationale for its lamentable decision to deny California permission to develop its own stricter rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The explanation was full of holes, but it was not a total setback for those who want urgent action on global warming.
The essence of the administration's reasoning was that California had failed to demonstrate "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances justifying stricter rules. To make that case, Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, was forced to argue that climate change gravely endangered not only California but the entire country. As hard as it is to believe, this was the first time that any senior administration official had explicitly conceded that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Even more startling for an administration that has spent seven years in denial, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," that man-made emissions are largely responsible and that the consequences could be devastating — more wildfires, more droughts, rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more outbreaks of insect-borne diseases.

Given all that, one would assume that Mr. Johnson is at last ready to champion a national program of controls on greenhouse gas emissions, something the administration has long resisted. At the very least, he would now seem obliged to begin regulating greenhouse gases, at least from vehicles. The Supreme Court in effect ordered the E.P.A. to do just that last April, when it declared carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulatory control. Nearly a year has gone by, and Mr. Johnson has not announced any new regulations

---

IF they can't deal with people, and they can't deal with the environment, what the hell good are they?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:52 AM

This NEw York Times editorial analyzes the real cost of the Iraq invasion as above two trillion dollars>: $2,000,000,000. And it discusses some of what we could have done for that cost. and the nightmare quality of what we bought instead. Even a young mother knows better than to take a psychotic tantrum-prone child into a china shop.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM

EPA unions slam EPA chief Johnson
They withdraw from council over policy issues like Calif. warming ruling
msnbc.com

updated 2:05 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 3, 2008
WASHINGTON - Unionized EPA workers are withdrawing from a cooperation agreement with the political appointees who supervise them over controversies including the agency's refusal to let California regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

Nineteen union local presidents representing more than 10,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees signed a letter to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson last Friday accusing him of "abuses of our good nature and trust."

---

POsted by John H on a new thread, but I could not avoid including it here for continuity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 07:37 PM

ÒI appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who were trying to defeat us in Iraq.ÓÐ George W. Bush to Lt. General Ray Odierno in the White House yesterday."

Bush to a U.S. General, yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:10 PM

A Detailed Analysis of W's Accomplishments, In PIctures.

;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:43 AM

(AP) President George W. Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it."

The bill he rejected provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and has the interrogation requirement as one provision. It cleared the House of Representatives in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.

---

No comment could do this justice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM

n the first insider account of Pentagon decision-making on Iraq, one of the key architects of the war blasts former secretary of state Colin Powell, the CIA, retired Gen. Tommy R. Franks and former Iraq occupation chief L. Paul Bremer for mishandling the run-up to the invasion and the subsequent occupation of the country.

Douglas J. Feith, in a massive score-settling work, portrays an intelligence community and a State Department that repeatedly undermined plans he developed as undersecretary of defense for policy and conspired to undercut President Bush's policies.

Among the disclosures made by Feith in "War and Decision," scheduled for release next month by HarperCollins, is Bush's declaration, at a Dec. 18, 2002, National Security Council meeting, that "war is inevitable." The statement came weeks before U.N. weapons inspectors reported their initial findings on Iraq and months before Bush delivered an ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Feith, who says he took notes at the meeting, registered it as a "momentous comment." ...

---

Excerpted from WaPo. It is significant, I think, that Bush was telling te NSC that was was "inevitable" in December 2002. i October 2002:, Bush said Iraq had a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. But according to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, the intelligence community had not reached such a conclusion, and CIA director George Tenet said a few weeks ago that the intelligence analysts had possessed "no specific information" on bioweapons stockpiles. UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.

Given that the question was so much in dialogue, why did he say "inevitable"?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:42 PM

WASHINGTON -- A senior House Democrat has called for a wide-ranging federal investigation into Blackwater Worldwide, alleging that the private security contractor violated tax and labor laws by classifying its guards as independent contractors rather than company employees.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said the charges are "completely without merit."

"Blackwater's classification of its personnel is accurate, and Blackwater has always been forthcoming about this aspect of its business with its customer, the U.S. government," she said in an e-mailed statement on Monday.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says Blackwater's claims on its business status "appear dubious."

In letters sent Monday, Waxman asked the Internal Revenue Service and the Labor Department to investigate whether Blackwater defrauded the government of tax revenue and violated labor laws. Waxman also asked the Small Business Administration to determine whether Blackwater violated federal regulations by claiming it was eligible for small business preferences.

"The implications of Blackwater's actions are significant," wrote Waxman, D-Calif., in a memorandum to his colleagues on the panel. "Committee staff have estimated that Blackwater has avoided paying or withholding up to $50 million in federal taxes by treating its guards as independent contractors rather than employees."

Also, Waxman wrote, Blackwater's claim as a small business has earned it more than $144 million in contracts, despite being one of the largest private military contractors and receiving nearly $1.25 billion in federal business since 2000. ...

(AP--March 10 2008)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

An interesting analysis of the implications of Bill Foster's takeover of Hastert's Illinois seat in Congress from the WaPo blog department.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 02:55 PM

Suit Escalates Battle Between Branches
Escalating the years-long battle between the branches over the scope of executive power, the House Judiciary Committee filed suit today in federal court to force two White House officials to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

The lawsuit could prove to be a key test of the scope of executive privilege, and of Congress' ability to make sure its subpoenas and contempt citations carry weight. The legislative and executive branches have fought on a variety of fronts since President Bush took office, with the administration arguing that long-eroded executive powers must be strengthened and members of Congress -- mostly Democrats -- complaining that their ability to conduct oversight has been weakened.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the House General Counsel on behalf of the Judiciary panel, which issued contempt citations last year against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The full House approved the citations last month.

Bolten and Miers have both refused to cooperate with the committee's investigation of the prosecutor firings and other allegations of politicization at the Justice Department. The Bush administration has cited executive privilege in its decision not to make Bolten and Miers available for sworn testimony, though it has offered to let the two speak to the committee as long as their statements are not under oath and not transcribed. House Democrats have refused to take that deal.

... (WaPo 3-10-08)