BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:36 PM

To the extent the national debate on 9/11 has not been overwhelmed by the war in Iraq, it has focused on

What is staggering is that officials from neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations seem to have searched their souls for lessons learned.

ways to improve surveillance and tighten security Ñ that is, on the symptoms, not the causes, of the cancer.

The debate should center on how the sole superpower is to relate to the rest of the world in the post-Cold War era, and how it can ensure its own security and international security as well.

For bin Laden, the aim is to provoke a clash of civilizations. By emphasizing military tactics over political strategy, the United States has stepped into the trap he so cunningly set.

(Excerpted from a new book by R. Gutman called "How We Missed the Story" (on Afghanistan), by The Globalist.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:40 AM

Washington Post:

Pawns in the Jungles of Colombia
__

Monday, June 2, 2008; Page A13

Though it may be losing the battle in Congress over free trade with Colombia, the Bush administration is close to recording a major success in Colombia itself. Thanks in part to billions of dollars in U.S. aid and training for the Colombian army, the FARC terrorist group -- which has ravaged Colombia's countryside for four decades -- is close to collapse. Since March it has lost three of its top seven commanders, including legendary leader Manuel Marulanda. Laptops containing its most sensitive secrets have been seized by the Colombian government, and foot soldiers are deserting in droves.

Yet this achievement has come at painful costs -- some of which are shamefully little known to Americans. That point was brought home to me recently by Luis Eladio Pérez, a spirited survivor of Colombia's war against the FARC who has made the rescue of three of its American victims a personal cause.

American victims? Don't be surprised if you have never heard of Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell; The Post has published only three substantial stories about them in the past five years. All three are U.S. citizens who were working for Pentagon contractor Northrop Grumman when their surveillance plane crashed in a remote Colombian jungle on Feb. 13, 2003. Since then, they have been hostages of the FARC, confined with chains and forced to endure a nightmarish life of isolation, disease and brutality.


The State Department and U.S. Southern Command routinely say that obtaining the men's release is a top priority. In practice not much has been done over the years, largely because any action would be difficult or contrary to larger U.S. interests. The Americans are among the most prized of the more than 700 hostages held by the FARC; they are heavily guarded and nearly impossible to find in Colombia's vast, triple-canopy jungle.

Even worse, from the perspective of the captives, their government and media rarely even speak about them. It's not just The Post: Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have visited Colombia in the past year, but neither mentioned Gonsalves, Howes and Stansell in their prepared public statements.

Pérez, a former Colombian senator, could not help but feel the men's distress. At the time Bush visited, Pérez was chained by the neck to Howe. Taken hostage himself in June 2001, Pérez lived with the Americans from late 2003 to late 2004, and then again from October 2006 until his release in February. The 55-year-old politician was freed in a deal orchestrated by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and appears to be in remarkably good health now. But he is anguished about those he left behind. "It hurts me to be here enjoying coffee and knowing that they are there in the jungle chained to each other," Pérez told me. "I'm not happy to think of them rotting. I haven't stopped one day trying to help them."

Pérez came to Washington in part because the men gave him letters addressed to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the presidential candidates and The Post, among others. FARC guards confiscated the letters, so Pérez is trying to deliver their messages himself. "They are asking the country to please not abandon them," he said. "They are saying that they love their country, they love the flag, that they are rotting in the jungle and please do something for them."

What could be done? Pérez wishes that Bush would consider the FARC's demand that two of its members imprisoned in the United States -- including one sentenced in January to 60 years for conspiring to hold the Americans hostage -- be exchanged for the three men. He points out that Colombian President Álvaro Uribe has expressed a willingness to exchange FARC prisoners for hostages and that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has promised to accept FARC detainees temporarily in France if it will lead to the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian presidential candidate who holds French citizenship.

Such suggestions get a cold reception in Washington, and for good reason. Among other things, the release of convicted FARC terrorists would undermine what has been a successful extradition program between Colombia and the United States and give a political boost to a crumbling movement. The implosion of the FARC has been a huge setback to Chávez, who was trying to rehabilitate it and use it as a vehicle to export his "Bolivarian revolution" to Colombia.

Therein may lie the Americans' best hope. Pérez confirms that the FARC "is looking for a political solution" in conjunction with Chávez. He's hoping its leaders can be convinced that such an end must begin with a unilateral release of the remaining hostages. "The FARC must make a decision," Pérez said. If Betancourt or other hostages die, he added, "it will be the end of the FARC." That would be a triumph for Colombia and for the Bush administration -- but not much consolation for three American families.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:45 AM

Will the Real Scott Please Stand Up?

Scott McClellan at a White House briefing in February 2006. (By Ron Edmonds -- Associated Press)
By Trent D. Duffy
Monday, June 2, 2008; Page A13

Dear Scott,

Since you're not answering my e-mails anymore, I'm writing to pose a few questions that haven't been asked on your truth, honesty and candor tour:


· Was it the truth or a lie when you told me, during a series of personal discussions in your West Wing office in late 2005 and early 2006 (at the apex of what you now call your period of "disillusionment" and "dismay"), that you were happy in your job and proud to serve President Bush and that you had no intention of leaving soon? What about in April 2006, when rumors swirled about a change at the podium, and you again told me you wanted to stay?


· Was it the truth or a lie when you told me around Christmas that the excerpts released by your publisher were being "taken out of context" and that your book wasn't going to be a hatchet job?


· Was it the truth or a lie when you assured your former deputies that you wanted our "full participation" in the book?


· Was it the truth or a lie when, after countless briefings, you complained that the White House press corps was too tough, unfair, over the top and didn't get it?


· And, finally, you like Barack Obama's message and don't know if you're a Republican?

Please forgive me, Scott, if this sounds personal, but you've just filleted me and everyone who worked with you, for you and for George W. Bush for being propagandists, manipulators and lemmings. That isn't exactly a bank shot. Since you have set the standard that it's honorable -- indeed, that it's in the public interest -- to harshly critique one's former boss in public, allow me to refresh your memory if some of the above doesn't come quickly to mind.

Your recent assertion that you were becoming "disillusioned" and "dismayed" in the 10 months before your April 2006 departure is amazing. It does provide you with a neat excuse for suggesting that you left the White House on principle. But I'm having trouble believing it, as is most everyone who worked closely with you at the White House and in the press corps during this time. Yes, I know you were troubled over the Valerie Plame case, but you told me repeatedly you were gleeful about your job.

Remember?

You hired me as your deputy in October 2003 and said more than once that the typical tenure of a White House press secretary before burnout was about two years. After two years went by, we were about halfway into what you now call your period of disillusionment.

As Christmas approached, your mood was as festive as the White House eggnog. Seeing your delight, I suspected you might be having second thoughts about serving only two years or so. So I asked you. You said you weren't going anywhere, you loved the job, you were feeling good. Now, you say you were actually suffering through a gut-wrenching ordeal and were looking for the exits.

When the first "teaser" excerpts of your book hit the press in December, my phone lighted up with calls from reporters. Before responding, I called you; you said the publisher had taken liberties, you didn't mean to attack the president and to point reporters to your 2006 interview with Larry King as your genuine take on things. You told me that your book was still about the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington and didn't breathe a hint about Iraq or Hurricane Katrina. This was long after you were outside the White House bubble, amigo.


You also assured me, when we've talked the past two years, that you wanted your deputies to review the book and share our thoughts. Thinking you actually meant what you said, I reached out to you two months ago to take you up on your offer. Radio silence. Why didn't you keep your promise to me and the other professionals who gave years of their lives working for you?

The press was easy on us? How many times did you race up the ramp from the briefing room to your office after a raucous media cross-examination to complain how the press was unfair, naive, too tough and way too "liberal." Would any in the White House press corps agree they were softies?

All that aside, the revelations that you are "intrigued by Senator Obama's message" and that you don't know if you are a Republican anymore make me wonder if you ever had any convictions. If you were just drinking the Kool-Aid at the White House, have you now switched flavors with your newfound friends?

Perhaps you have had an epiphany. Maybe it is better to appease terrorists and let them fight us here instead of taking them on overseas. Maybe we should return our public education system to factories of mediocrity run by teachers unions instead of demanding and delivering educational excellence for our children. Maybe we should let the government ration health care and get between us and our doctors. And maybe we should raise taxes, punish individual enterprise and destroy the incentive for hard work to pay for more government programs.

Think about it. You may not be able to now, since you have conceded your inability to think clearly and independently inside a bubble atmosphere, be it at the White House or while on a media-frenzy book tour.

But do it anyway. On your own, without a publisher around. And let me know what you figure out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:51 AM

Washington Post:

Parroting the Democrats

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, June 2, 2008; Page A13

In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of the book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

Although the media response has dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. On July 14, 2003, one day before McClellan took a press secretary's job for which many colleagues felt he was unqualified, I wrote a column asserting that while at the CIA Plame had suggested her Democratic partisan husband, retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, for a sensitive intelligence mission. That story would make McClellan's three years at the briefing room podium a misery, leading to his dismissal and now his bitter retort.

In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan, that Bush, Vice President Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Wilson as a war critic. The way that McClellan handles the leak leads former colleagues to suggest he could not have written this book by himself.


On Page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until Page 306 of the 323-page book -- and then only in passing. Armitage, who was antiwar and anti-Cheney, does not fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When, after two years, Armitage publicly admitted that he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.

While at the White House podium, McClellan never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits the fact that Armitage identified Mrs. Wilson to The Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.

McClellan writes that Rove told him the following about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week that he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove testified that he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."

As to whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony, McClellan writes, "I don't know." He ignores the fact that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered by it. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover had been blown long below the leak.

A partisan Democratic mantra began earlier in the book. McClellan writes that George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign "acquiesced to certain advisers, including Roger Ailes and the late Lee Atwater," who opposed Bush's "civility and decency." (McClellan, then 20 years old, played no part in that campaign.) He contends that thanks to Rove in 2002, "the first cracks appeared in the facade of bipartisan comity."

McClellan's fellow Bush aides do not remember him ever saying anything like that. At senior staff meetings discussing policy, they recall, he was silent. His robotic performances from the White House podium seemed only to disgorge what he had been told, and "What Happened" has the similar feel of someone else's hand.

The book so mimics the Democratic line that Ari Fleischer, McClellan's predecessor as press secretary, asked him last week whether he had a ghostwriter. "No," Fleischer told me McClellan replied, "but my editor tweaked it." (McClellan did not return my call.)

The bland book proposal that McClellan's agent unsuccessfully hawked to publishers early in 2007 is not the volume now in bookstores. How and why McClellan changed is a story so far untold.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:45 PM

must be nice to retire and finally be free to speak your mind. Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the man who led American ground forces in Iraq from 2003-2004, has released a new bookÐ titled Wiser in Battle: A SoldierÕs Story Ð that takes aim at the Bush administration with some of the strongest criticism to date from a former Iraq commander.

An excerpt from NPR:

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I watched helplessly as the Bush administration led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions. It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a neoconservative ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service.

ItÕs gonna be hard to accuse General Sanchez of hating the troops.

Hopefully the media will give this book the attention it deserves, even in the wake of the bombshell McClellan book.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:54 AM

"It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a(n) ... ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service."



And based on the past several Democratic administrations, you expect this to change FOR THE BETTER in the future?

I just hope you are willing to hold the NEXT president to the standards you are willing to apply to Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 07:06 AM

Washington Post:

Ruling Against Type
As two decisions show, 'conservative' and 'liberal' don't mean everything at the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008; Page A14

TWO SUPREME Court decisions handed down yesterday point to the difficulty of predicting outcomes based on political leanings.

The justice who wrote a four-member plurality opinion in one case concluded that defendants were entitled to leniency; as a result, the lengthy money laundering sentences of two men who ran an illegal gambling operation in Indiana were thrown out. The justice writing in the second case concluded that the money laundering statute had been improperly used to convict a man trying to cross from the United States into Mexico with $81,000 hidden under the floorboards of a car. Both cases were defeats for the government.

What gives? Has there been a liberal coup on the court? Not quite. Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, authored the decision in United States v. Santos in the case of the gambling duo; Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, penned the decision in Cuellar v. United States involving the cash-carrying driver. Both justices reached "liberal" results using arguably "conservative" approaches.

In Santos, the justices were asked to decide the meaning of "proceeds." The government argued that it should be read as "receipts" from a transaction -- a definition that gave it wide latitude in applying the law. Justice Scalia concluded that because Congress failed to define the word -- and because "proceeds" could be read either as receipts or, more narrowly, as "profits" -- that the "rule of lenity" mandated that it be interpreted as "profits," which is more favorable for defendants. The opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, as well as Justice Thomas.

In Cuellar, Justice Thomas wrote for a unanimous court that the fact that Humberto Fidel Regalado Cuellar was hiding a large amount of cash in a secret compartment did not prove that he broke the money laundering law, particularly the provision that prohibits transporting illicitly obtained funds out of the United States in a scheme "designed" to "conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control" of the funds. Justice Thomas and the rest of the court interpreted the text of the statute literally and concluded that the government had failed to establish Mr. Cuellar's actions were "designed" to hide the money's source or ownership.

Apart from making certain money laundering prosecutions more difficult for the government, these two cases remind that the perceived political leanings of justices are not perfectly reliable predictors of how they will vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:09 PM

Admiral: Bush doesn't want war with IranStory

Former Central Command chief William Fallon denies president sought third war

Fallon: Concern for confidence in chain of command led to resignation

"There are many other ways to solve problems" besides war, he says

Fallon: Best course in Iraq is to maintain confidence in Gen. David Petraeus

   
(CNN) -- Retired Adm. William Fallon resigned in March as leader of the U.S. military's Central Command after reportedly clashing with President Bush.

Retired Adm. William Fallon told CNN he resigned to maintain confidence in the military chain of command.

During an interview Tuesday on CNN's American Morning," Fallon denied a magazine article's assertion that he had been forced to resign over his opposition to a possible war with Iran.

CNN's Kyra Phillips asked Fallon about his resignation and about U.S. policy regarding Iraq and Iran.

Kyra Phillips: How were you informed that this was it? Who called you?

Fallon: The story is -- the facts are that the situation was one that was very uncomfortable for me and, I'm sure, for the president. One of the most important things in the military is confidence in the chain of command. And the situation that developed was one of uncertainty and a feeling that maybe that I was disloyal to the president and that I might be trying to countermand his orders, the policies of the country. ... The fact that people might be concerned that I was not appropriately doing what I was supposed to do and following orders bothered me, and my sense was that the right thing to do was to offer my resignation.

Phillips: Do you feel you were pushed out?

Fallon: What was important was not me. It wasn't some discussion about where I was with issues. It was the fact that we have a war in progress. We had a couple of hundred thousand people whose lives were at stake out in Iraq and Afghanistan and we needed to be focused on that and not a discussion on me or what I might have said or thought or someone perceived I said. That's the motivation.

Phillips: [Esquire magazine writer] Tom Barnett made it appear that you were the only man standing between the president and a war with Iran. Is that true?

Fallon: I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran. The situation with Iran is very complex. People sometimes portray it or try to portray it in very simplistic terms -- we're against Iran, we want to go to war with Iran, we want to be close to them. ... The reality is in international politics that [there are] many aspects to many of these situations, and I believe in our relationship with Iran we need to be strong and firm and convey the principles on which this country stands and upon which our policies are based. At the same time demonstrate a willingness and openness to engage in dialogue because there are certainly things we can find in common.

Phillips: Would have you negotiated with Iran?

Fallon: It's not my position to negotiate with Iran. I was the military commander in the Middle East. I had responsibility for our people and their safety and well-being. It's the role of the diplomats to do the negotiation.

Phillips: So when talk of the third war came out, a war with Iran, the president didn't say to you, "This is what I want to do," and did you stand up and say, "No, sir. Bad move"?

Fallon: It's probably not appropriate to try to characterize it in that way. Again, don't believe for a second that the president really wants to go to war with Iran. We have a lot of things going on, and there are many other ways to solve problems. I was very open and candid in my advice. I'm not shy. I will tell people, the leaders, what I think and offer my opinions on Iran and other things, and continue to do that.

Phillips: Do you think that cost you your job?

Fallon: No, I don't believe so at all. It's a confidence issue of do people really believe the chain of command is working for them or do we have doubts, and if the doubts focus attention away from what the priority issues ought to be, then we've got to make a change.

Phillips: We talk about your no-nonsense talk and the fact that you had no problems standing up to the president. Your critics say that Admiral Fallon is a difficult man to get along with. Are you?

Fallon: You probably could ask my wife about that. She would have a few things to say.

I think that what's really important here is that when I was asked to take this job about a year and a half ago, I believe it was because we were facing some very difficult days in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the region. I had some experience in dealing with international problems. I certainly had a lot of combat experience, and I was brought in in an attempt to make things better. That's what I went about doing.

Again, there are things that are important and other things in life that are less so. A lot of the issues that became points of discussion to me were not really important items. The important items were the people, what they're doing, how to get this job done, how to get the war ended and get our people home.

Phillips: Hillary Clinton [and] Barack Obama talk about pulling troops out by next year. John McCain says, no, we've got to stay the course. What is the best course for Iraq right now?

Fallon: I believe the best course is to retain the high confidence we have in General Dave Petraeus and his team out there. Dave has done a magnificent job in leading our people in that country.

Again, this situation is quite complex -- many angles. There's a very, very important military role here in providing stability and security in this country, but that's not going to be successful, as we know, without lots of other people playing a hand.

The political side of things in Iraq has got to move forward. That appears to be improving. People have to have confidence in their futures. They want to have stability. They would like to be able to raise their families in peace. They would like to have a job. They would like to look to tomorrow as better than today.

It takes more than the military, but the military is essential to provide stability and security. The idea we would walk away from Iraq strikes me as not appropriate. We all want to bring our troops home. We want to have the majority of our people back and we want the war ended.

Given where we are today, the progress that they've made particularly in the last couple months, I think it's very, very heartening to see what's really happened here.

The right course of action is to continue to work with the Iraqis and let them take over the majority of the tasks for ensuring security for the country and have our people come out on a timetable that's appropriate to conditions on the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:24 PM

""It became painfully obvious that the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a(n) ... ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience. Some senior military leaders did not challenge civilian decision makers at the appropriate times, and the courageous few who did take a stand were subsequently forced out of the service."


................


"Phillips: Hillary Clinton [and] Barack Obama talk about pulling troops out by next year. John McCain says, no, we've got to stay the course. What is the best course for Iraq right now?

Fallon: I believe the best course is to retain the high confidence we have in General Dave Petraeus and his team out there. Dave has done a magnificent job in leading our people in that country.

Again, this situation is quite complex -- many angles. There's a very, very important military role here in providing stability and security in this country, but that's not going to be successful, as we know, without lots of other people playing a hand.

The political side of things in Iraq has got to move forward. That appears to be improving. People have to have confidence in their futures. They want to have stability. They would like to be able to raise their families in peace. They would like to have a job. They would like to look to tomorrow as better than today.

It takes more than the military, but the military is essential to provide stability and security. The idea we would walk away from Iraq strikes me as not appropriate. We all want to bring our troops home. We want to have the majority of our people back and we want the war ended. "


..........

So, who is it listening to our military leaders?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:52 PM

What is your point, exactly, Bruce? Hard to make it out here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:00 PM

That both the Dem candidates are already putting forth policy without regard for the advice of the military commanders. Whereas McCain is saying to stay the course and follow the advice of the military.

"The idea we would walk away from Iraq strikes me as not appropriate."

"instead on a(n) ... ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience."

But of course you won't apply the same standards you put on Bush to YOUR candidates.

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

I suspect htere is a world of difference int he two situations, amigo. Starting a war where none exists, and failing to listen to your military experts on plans needed, number of troops required, proabble entanglements...a real piece ofidiocy.

Inheriting a quagmire and deciding it is not working for the country -- I woudl think it would require more attention to State than Defense. It is not the case that we are losing out militarily. It is the case that we seem to be stuck using the wrong solution for the problem. And probably, given Bush's capacity for logic, the wrong problem, at that. I don't think "Communication is preferable to warfighting" needs to be run passed the military as a general national policy.

A
A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:03 PM

Amos,

We can argue about the first part of your post ( and have) but as to the second...

My point was that the Dems have made a military TACTICAL decision, requiring specific withdrawals on a timetable, regardless of the facts on the ground. THAT is what the military is saying.

"the executive branch of our government did not trust its military. It relied instead on a(n) ... ideology developed by men and women with little, if any, military experience"

For MILITARY decisions, the Democrats have been, and seem to be trying to be far worse than Bush in terms of directing tactical operations for purely political motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 09:53 AM

The New York Times remarks:

"The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change.
Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders. And its strategy has been far too successful. Seven years later, Congress is only beginning to confront the challenge of global warming.

The last week has brought further confirmation of the administration's cynicism. An internal investigation by NASA's inspector general concluded that political appointees in the agency's public affairs office had tried to restrict reporters' access to its leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. He has warned about climate change for 20 years and has openly criticized the administration's refusal to tackle the issue head-on.

More broadly, the investigation said that politics played a heavy role in the office and that it had presented information about global warming "in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate-change science made available to the general public."

Meanwhile, the administration finally agreed, under duress, to release a Congressionally mandated report on the effects of climate change on various regions of the United States. Some of the report's predictions, like the inevitable loss of coastal areas to rising seas, were not new. Others were, including warnings of a potential increase in various food- and water-borne viruses.

What was most noteworthy about the latter report was that it made it to the light of day. A 1990 law requires the president to give Congress every four years its best assessment of the likely effects of climate change. The last such assessment was undertaken by President Clinton and published in 2000. Mr. Bush not only missed the 2004 deadline but allowed the entire information-gathering process to wither. Only a court order handed down last August in response to a lawsuit by public interest groups forced him to deliver this month.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:12 AM

WASHINGTON — In a report long delayed by partisan squabbling, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of taking the country to war in Iraq by exaggerating evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, the committee's Democratic chairman, said in a statement accompanying the 171-page report.

The committee's report cited some instances in which public statements by senior administration officials were not supported by the intelligence available at the time, such as suggestions that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda were operating in a kind of partnership, that the Baghdad regime had provided the terrorist network with weapons training, and that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers had met an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague in 2001.

But the report found that on several key issues, including Iraq's alleged nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other top officials before the war were generally "substantiated" by the best estimates of the intelligence agencies, though the statements did not always reflect the agencies' uncertainty about the evidence. All the weapons claims were disproved after invading troops found no unconventional arsenal and little effort to build one.

Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from some of its findings and attached a detailed minority report that listed pre-war statements by Mr. Rockefeller and other Democrats describing the threat posed by Iraq.

"The report released today was a waste of committee time and resources that should have been spent overseeing the intelligence community," said the minority report, signed by Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the committee's top Republican, and three Republican colleagues.

A second committee report, also made public on Thursday, detailed a series of clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in Rome and Paris in 2001 and 2003. It accused Steven Hadley, now the national security advisor, and Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, of failing to properly inform the intelligence agencies and the State Department about the meetings.

The two reports are the final parts of the committee's so-called "phase two" investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq and related issues. The first phase of the inquiry, completed in July 2004, identified grave faults in the intelligence agencies' collection and analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:00 AM

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his top advisers knowingly overstated the threat Iraq posed to the United States in the lead up to the war, according to a report released today by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    The report, which ends a long congressional inquiry into prewar intelligence failures, pitted the statements of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Cabinet officials against information provided by intelligence agencies.

    "Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced," said committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va. "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

    The report amounts to the most direct rebuke to date of the Bush administration's use of intelligence to build support for the Iraq war. But the document, which catalogs hundreds of statements by administration officials, stops short of calling for any further inquiry or punishment.

    The report and Rockefeller's statements enraged key Republicans, including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who called it "a partisan effort" to score points in an election year. The committee also released a report on covert meetings held in Rome between Defense officials and Iranians dissidents. That report concludes the Department of Defense withheld vital information from the rest of the intelligence community.

    Hatch called the two reports "a pathetic end of a desperate search to provide any basis for the bumper sticker 'Bush Lied, People Died.'"

    Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, R-Miss., said Democratic committee members "cherry picked" intelligence and failed to examine their own pre-war statements that overstated the case for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:10 AM

I seem to recall Bush being criticised for the Air Force actions mentioned here- So it is only fair to give his administration credit for dealing with the problem.

And note under what administration the problem started...




Gates ousts Air Force leaders in historic shake-up

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates ousted the Air Force's top military and civilian leaders Thursday, holding them to account in a historic Pentagon shake-up after embarrassing nuclear mix-ups.

Gates announced at a news conference that he had accepted the resignations of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne — a highly unusual double firing.

Gates said his decision was based mainly on the damning conclusions of an internal report on the mistaken shipment to Taiwan of four Air Force electrical fuses for ballistic missile warheads. And he linked the underlying causes of that slip-up to another startling incident: the flight last August of a B-52 bomber that was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

The report drew the stunning conclusion that the Air Force's nuclear standards have been in a long decline, a "problem that has been identified but not effectively addressed for over a decade."

Gates said an internal investigation found a common theme in the B-52 and Taiwan incidents: "a decline in the Air Force's nuclear mission focus and performance" and a failure by Air Force leaders to respond effectively.

In a reflection of his concern about the state of nuclear security, Gates said he had asked a former defense secretary, James Schlesinger, to lead a task force that will recommend ways to ensure that the highest levels of accountability and control are maintained in Air Force handling of nuclear weapons.

In somber tones, Gates told reporters his decision to remove Wynne and Moseley was based on the findings of an investigation of the Taiwan debacle by Adm. Kirkland Donald. The admiral found a "lack of a critical self-assessment culture" in the Air Force nuclear program, making it unlikely that weaknesses in the way critical materials such as nuclear weapons are handled could be corrected, Gates said.

Gates said Donald concluded that many of the problems that led to the B-52 and the Taiwan sale incidents "have been known or should have been known."

The Donald report is classified; Gates provided an oral summary.

"The Taiwan incident clearly was the trigger," Gates said when asked whether Moseley and Wynne would have retained their positions in the absence of the mistaken shipment of fuses. He also said that Donald found a "lack of effective Air Force leadership oversight" of its nuclear mission.

The investigation found a declining trend in Air Force nuclear expertise — not the first time that has been raised as a problem, Gates said — and a drifting of the Air Force's focus away from its nuclear mission, which includes stewardship of the land-based missile component of the nation's nuclear arsenal, as well as missiles and bombs assigned for nuclear missions aboard B-52 and B-2 long-range bombers.

Gates also announced that "a substantial number" of Air Force general officers and colonels were identified in the Donald report as potentially subject to disciplinary measures that range from removal from command to letters of reprimand. He said he would direct the yet-to-be-named successors to Wynne and Moseley to evaluate those identified culprits and decide what disciplinary actions are warranted — "or whether they can be part of the solution" to the problems found by Donald.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said President Bush knew about the resignations but that the White House had "not played any role" in the shake-up.

Early reaction from Capitol Hill was favorable to drastic action.

"Secretary Gates' focus on accountability is essential and had been absent from the office of the secretary of defense for too long," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The safety and security of America' nuclear weapons must receive the highest priority, just as it must in other countries."

Gates said he would make recommendations to Bush shortly on a new Air Force chief of staff and civilian secretary. Gates has settled on candidates for both jobs but has not yet formally recommended them, one official said.

Gen. Duncan J. McNabb is the current Air Force vice chief of staff.

Moseley, who commanded coalition air forces during the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003, became Air Force chief in September 2005; Wynne, a former General Dynamics executive, took office in November 2005.

Wynne is the second civilian chief of a military service to be forced out by Gates. In March 2007 the defense secretary pushed out Francis Harvey, the Army secretary, because Gates was dissatisfied with Harvey's handling of revelations of inadequate housing conditions and bureaucratic delays for troops recovering from war wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Wynne and Moseley issued their own written statements.

"As the Air Force's senior uniformed leader, I take full responsibility for events which have hurt the Air Force's reputation or raised a question of every airman's commitment to our core values," Moseley said.

Wynne said he "read with regret" the findings of the Donald report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 09:52 AM

The New York Times discusses the revelations in the lately released Senate report on the abuse of intelligence in the ramp-up to the Iraq war.

The full report itself is available here at http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2b.pdf


"...The report said Mr. Bush was justified in saying that intelligence analysts believed Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But even then, he and his aides glossed over inconvenient facts — that the only new data on biological weapons came from a dubious source code-named Curveball and proved to be false.

Yet Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney persisted in talking as if there were ironclad proof of Iraq's weapons and plans for global mayhem.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use them against our friends, against our allies and against us," Mr. Cheney said on Aug. 29, 2002.

Actually, there was plenty of doubt — at the time — about that second point. According to the Senate report, there was no evidence that Mr. Hussein intended to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, and the intelligence community never said there was.

The committee's dissenting Republicans attempted to have this entire section of the report deleted — along with a conclusion that the administration misrepresented the intelligence when it warned of a risk that Mr. Hussein could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. They said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney never used the word "intent" and were merely trying to suggest that Iraq "could" do those terrible things.

It's hard to imagine that anyone drew that distinction after hearing Mr. Bush declare that "Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind." Or when he said: "Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally."

The Senate report shows that the intelligence Mr. Bush had did not support those statements — or Mr. Rumsfeld's that "every month that goes by, his W.M.D. programs are progressing, and he moves closer to his goal of possessing the capability to strike our population, and our allies, and hold them hostage to blackmail."...
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:28 AM

Two years ago, I randomly sampled the administrationÕs speeches on Iraq and reached almost identical conclusions to the ones reached by the Senate Intelligence Committee and your editorial. ItÕs all there in my 2006 book, ÒDenial and Deception: A Study of the Bush AdministrationÕs Rhetorical Case for Invading Iraq.Ó

The only difference is that I analyzed hundreds of speeches and public pronouncements, not just five major speeches, as in the Senate committee report. What surfaced was a clear pattern of denial and deception among top White House officials before, during and after the initial invasion of Iraq.

Especially disturbing to me was the fact that President Bush and his pals knew, or should have known, that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons and no ties to Al Qaeda, and posed little threat to the United States.

The latest revelations are nothing new Ñ they simply highlight what the administration has been denying all along.

Alan Kennedy-Shaffer
Mechanicsburg, Pa., June 6, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 12:07 PM

Since you can repeat articles on the same subject, here is another...



Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 12:27 PM

Bush Is a Lame Duck. Bush-Bashing in Europe Is, Too.

By James Forsyth
Sunday, June 8, 2008; Page B01

LONDON


W hen President Bush came to Britain on a state visit in November 2003, more than 100,000 people turned out to protest against him -- the largest ever weekday rally in London. But when the president comes to town this week, we'll be talking closer to 100 protesters than 100,000. Newspapers won't be running multiple pages of open letters to Bush from the great and the good. The television schedules will go undisturbed.

It will probably be the same on the other stops of what could be Bush's last European tour as president. He will, of course, receive a warm reception in the chancelleries and palaces of Europe: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown are all firm believers in the Atlantic alliance. But this shouldn't be seen as evidence that Europe has finally reconciled itself to the man. Nor should the absence of large-scale anti-Bush rallies be taken as a sign of approval. All this shows is that Bush-hatred, like the president himself, has become a lame duck.

The gigantic protests that used to accompany Bush's visits to Europe were a backhanded compliment -- the tribute that impotent rage pays to power. Their sheer scale testified to his status as the most powerful man on Earth. Their likely absence this week will suggest that this aura is fading fast. Bush might reflect that, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the one thing worse than being protested against is not being protested against.


Brown's two visits to the United States since taking over from Tony Blair a year ago are indicative of Bush's rapidly declining relevance in the European public's mind. When Brown paid his first visit last July, he was so keen to demonstrate that he was not "Bush's poodle" (as Blair was unkindly and unfairly dubbed) that he kept his suit on despite the heat and the relaxed atmosphere at Camp David. He was determined to show that the trip was all work and no play. He even publicly stated that "We have had full and frank discussions" -- not-so-subtle code for a bloody great row -- to ram home the point to the British public.

But when Brown returned to Washington this April, he stood next to Bush and declared that the "world owes President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude for leading the world in our determination to root out terrorism." There was no outcry back home. Here in Britain, our real interest was in Brown's meetings at the British Embassy with Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. These got front-page treatment and analysis from that British media favorite, the "body language expert."

The primaries -- especially the historic, extended Democratic contest, which British news outlets covered exhaustively -- are not the sole reason the fire has gone out of European Bush-hatred. One of the main sparks fueling it was a deep frustration that Americans couldn't see what many Europeans considered obvious: that Bush is a moron. (Bush might have reciprocated by wondering what the mot juste was for people who consider Michael Moore an intellectual lodestar.) Some Europeans thought that if they turned out in large enough numbers, the Yanks would finally "get it"; others just wanted an excuse to scream and shout. But now that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing, that particular irritation has waned.

Another equally important factor is that U.S. foreign policy has been far less radical during Bush's second term. No countries have been invaded, and the administration has spent much more time trying to work through international institutions. Depressingly, good news from Iraq is taken as bad news by some rabid European anti-Americans, people who take a certain satisfaction from the difficulties the United States has encountered there, in hopes that they will teach the "ignorant Americans" a lesson. The European media have largely lost interest in Iraq since the U.S. military "surge" started showing such striking results.

Ironically, the widely loathed Bush will actually leave his successor a good legacy when it comes to Europe. The next president will receive a significant boost from simply not being Bush. The departing president will be the scapegoat, carrying away America's sins in Europe's eyes in much the same way that the exit of the reliably prickly Jacques Chirac helped redeem France in Washington's view. Chirac's departure paved the way for the pro-American Sarkozy to seduce Washington even faster than he did Carla Bruni. The next U.S. president will not even have to make the first call to European suitors. Before he is inaugurated, the presidents, chancellors and prime ministers of Europe will be asking for a date. Being the first to be photographed with the 44th president would be both a diplomatic and political coup for all these leaders. We got a flavor of the competition to come when McCain came to London in March, and Brown and Conservative Party leader David Cameron were desperately eager to one-up each other in their photo-ops with the presumptive Republican nominee.

The new president will also have the opportunity for a lot of "quick wins" with Europe. Both McCain and Obama would probably close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, ban torture and accept the need for concerted international action against global warming. Under this cover, many Europeans will slide back into the pro-American fold. And if Obama is the next president, he'll flip all the soft anti-Americans in Europe.

Bush might have had a particularly rough time on the European front -- he was dubbed the "Toxic Texan" from day one -- but he is far from the first U.S. president to be on the receiving end of this kind of abuse. Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all had a taste of it. Despite this, it is easy to imagine the 44th president having a prolonged European honeymoon.

And even after the initial burst of goodwill has passed, the next president will have an easier relationship with Europe than Bush ever did. In years to come, it will be convenient to blame all the turbulence in the trans-Atlantic relationship these past few years on the departed leaders of the time -- Bush, Chirac and former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who reneged on a promise to Bush not to make his opposition to the Iraq war a big political issue back home. In truth, they all deserve some of the blame.

But there were structural reasons why things reached such a low ebb. Throughout the Cold War, the United States had protected Europe from the Soviet threat. But the threat that America rightly wanted to respond to after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was one that many Europeans thought didn't affect them. Or, to be more accurate, they feared that the real threat was not al-Qaeda terrorism but the U.S. response to it. To Americans, the Islamist threat came from outside; to many Europeans, it was already inside their borders, in the unintegrated immigrant ghettos that dot so many European cities, and the danger came from anything that might further alienate already disenchanted Muslims.

Now, though, Europe is beginning to realize that the inspiration for the Islamists inside its borders comes from outside, from those who preach jihadism and death to America. At the same time, the United States has developed a more rounded approach to the problem, mixing hard and soft power more effectively. This has left Europe and the United States closer together in their threat perceptions. In addition, Europe is now more alarmed at the rise of Russia and China than it had previously been. Russia's bullying of its neighbors in its "near abroad," combined with the economic challenge from Chinese exports and the political discomfort over Chinese human rights abuses (which have received renewed attention because of the Beijing Olympics), have made a multipolar world a far less appealing prospect than it seemed in 2003. Europe is now more inclined, to adapt the old English rhyme, to stay close to Uncle Sam for fear of something worse.

Bush's visit to Europe is part of that ritual of a presidency's final year: the valedictory world tour. But he is coming to a continent that has already, mentally, moved on. There will be no tearful European goodbyes on this tour. But at least there won't be a need for tear gas, either.

[e-mail]


James Forsyth covers politics for the British magazine the Spectator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 12:33 PM

Citing History, Bush Suggests His Policies Will One Day Be Vindicated

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A03

Meet George W. Bush, time traveler.

He's in Poland in 1939 as Nazi tanks advance on Warsaw, then flying with his Navy-pilot father to battle imperial Japan. He's alongside Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, William McKinley on his deathbed and Franklin D. Roosevelt on D-Day. He lingers with Harry S. Truman, another U.S. president deeply unpopular in his time.

President Bush leaps forward as well, envisioning a distant future in which Iraq is a tranquil democracy, Palestinians live peaceably alongside Israelis and terrorism is a tactic of the past.

"Imagine if a president had stood before the first graduating class of this academy five decades ago and told the Cadet Wing that by the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union would be no more, communism would stand discredited and the vast majority of the world's nations would be democracies," Bush urged graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs nearly two weeks ago.

As the door begins to close on his tenure, Bush is increasingly drawing on selected events of the past to argue that history will vindicate him on Iraq, terrorism, trade and other controversial issues.


Historical analogies have become a staple of Bush speeches and interviews this year, whether he is addressing regional leaders in Egypt or talking to workers at an office park in suburban St. Louis. Bush will continue this historical focus in a visit to Europe this week, where he will commemorate the Berlin Airlift in Germany and deliver a speech in Paris marking the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.

White House aides say Bush, who majored in history at Yale, likes to emphasize historical comparisons because they are easy for the public to understand and illustrate in dramatic fashion how differently future generations may come to view him.

Unfortunately for the president, many historians have already reached a conclusion. In an informal survey of scholars this spring, just two out of 109 historians said Bush would be judged a success; a majority deemed him the "worst president ever."

"It's all he has left," said Millsaps College history professor Robert S. McElvaine, who conducted the survey for the History News Network of George Mason University. "When your approval ratings are down around 20 to 28 percent and the candidate of your own party is trying to hide from being seen with you, history is your only hope."

Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, who wrote a widely cited Rolling Stone essay about Bush in 2006 titled "The Worst President in History?," said last week that the president's historical arguments can be effective because they are difficult to disprove. "By just saying, 'In the long run this is going to look great,' it makes it very hard to respond to," he said.

White House officials dispute any link between Bush's recent emphasis on history and his disapproval rating, which is now the highest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s. Current and former aides note that Bush is a longtime history buff who, in the middle of his presidency, met regularly with historians and other intellectuals to discuss predecessors including Washington and Nixon.

"His interest in history predated his low approval ratings," said Peter H. Wehner, the former White House aide who arranged those meetings. "It's not like he's grabbing for history; it's been a constant theme."


Earlier in his presidency, Bush shrugged off questions about his long-term legacy. When Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward asked him in December 2003 how history would judge the Iraq war, Bush responded: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

Yet the recent pattern is clear. In May alone, Bush employed broad historical references in about a dozen speeches and interviews, looking back to the middle of the 20th century and forward to the middle of the 21st. He has focused on similar topics during private GOP fundraisers, according to White House aides. "People can understand it, and people can then understand when the president talks about 60 years from now what we could be enjoying," said press secretary Dana Perino.

A week before his address at the Air Force Academy, Bush told paratroopers at Fort Bragg, N.C., that "when the history books are written . . . they will show that freedom prevailed." And during his May trip to the Middle East, Bush told Arab leaders: "Just imagine what this region could look like in 60 years."

Presidential counselor Ed Gillespie said that many of Bush's recent remarks have been tied to specific events, such as the 60th anniversary of Israel, and that there is no "retrospective effort" afoot at the White House. "It's only natural that you would tap into the common history and experiences of our country to derive lessons," he said.


Vice President Cheney has also argued that history will vindicate Bush. Speaking at a Washington luncheon last week, Cheney recalled that former president Gerald R. Ford was "attacked from every conceivable angle" for pardoning Richard M. Nixon, but he said that "the consensus now is that Gerald Ford did the right thing."

Former Bush political adviser Karl Rove wrote in National Review last year that the president will be viewed as "a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century." Rove ticked off successes such as the remaking of humanitarian aid efforts in Africa and the transformation of the political complexion of the federal judiciary.

One of Bush's lengthiest recent discussions about his legacy occurred in an unlikely venue on May 2, when he took questions from employees at a technology firm near St. Louis. Bush said that he "never wanted to be a war president" and that "sometimes you get dealt a hand you didn't expect." He added: "The question is, how do you play it? And here's how I'm playing it."

He talked about the World War II service of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, and how the elder Bush fought against a nation, Japan, that is now a key U.S. ally. Referring to the 1940s, President Bush said: "If you'd have thought an American president would stand up and say, 'My close buddy in dealing with the threats to our countries would be the prime minister of Japan,' they'd say, 'Man, you're nuts, hopelessly idealistic.' . . . I have found that to be one of the ironic twists of history."

Yet even as he sought to highlight similarities between past and current conflicts, Bush also stressed the differences. "This is a different kind of war, and it's hard for some Americans to get their hands around it," he said. ". . . World War II, there was Germany and Japan and Italy. The Cold War, a big standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. There's no nation involved in this war."

Many historians accuse Bush of cherry-picking history to bolster his arguments, in what the late author David Halberstam last year called a "history rummage sale."

One controversial example emerged during a speech at the Israeli parliament on May 15, when Bush compared talking with "terrorists and radicals," including Iran, to the appeasement of Nazis before World War II.

The reference was widely seen as an attack on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- who has said that if elected president, he would talk with Iran's leaders -- although the White House said that was not Bush's intent. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, seized on Bush's words to attack Obama.

The argument was muddied by subsequent events, however, including news that Israel has been talking indirectly since 2007 with Syria, which the United States has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The comparison was also undermined by the Bush administration's negotiations with states such as North Korea.

Some historians are particularly critical of Bush's frequent references to Truman, who had an even lower approval rating than Bush amid opposition to the Korean War. They say Truman's place in history is elevated by his roles in leading the victory in World War II, creating institutions such as the United Nations and implementing the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe.

"The only connection between Harry Truman and George Bush is that they left office with low opinion numbers," said historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University. "That's a very thin reed."

There are dissenters who argue that liberal scholars have let their politics influence their views and that it is too early to render a verdict on Bush. "We're still arguing about Grant, for goodness' sake," said Vincent J. Cannato, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "If all historians are thinking one thing, you have to think something's wrong."

Most agree, however, that Iraq will be central to any future assessments. In his critical book about his time as Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan recounts a conversation in 2003 when "the story line was first emerging among the media that the outcome in Iraq would determine his legacy more than anything else."


"I asked Bush about this," McClellan writes. "He quickly and confidently replied, No. The war on terror will determine my legacy and how Iraq fits into that will determine my legacy.' "

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

It is possible that years from now, when the Iraqis learnt o manage themselves and figure out how to build their own democracy consistent withtheir own needs, not those of the US, that they will be grateful to W for breaking in and tearing out the previous structure willy nilly, killing thousands of their relatives (or ancestors, depending on how far intot he future we are looking)and turning the reconsteruction of the country over to US military contractors.

But I don't think that perspective will be possible for another ten years.


A

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

Europe breathes a sigh of relief as Bush bids farewell

Ian Traynor Brussels
June 10, 2008

FROM a castle in Slovenia to one in Windsor, from the Elysee Palace to the Vatican, George Bush races through Europe this week to bid farewell to US allies whose loyalty has been tested during his past eight years in the White House.

With Europe fascinated by the unstoppable rise of Barack Obama, President Bush will get short shrift from pro-American European leaders keen to put the strains and disputes behind them and look forward to next year's new US administration, whether Senator Obama beats John McCain or not.

Mr Bush will be hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — all solidly pro-US, unlike the hostile Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac, who bedevilled Mr Bush's first term.

While the leaders will be generous and polite towards a US president who has plumbed unprecedented depths of unpopularity in Europe and America, there is no doubt the overall sense will be one of "good riddance".

Europe's social democrats presaged Mr Bush's arrival with a declaration stating they were looking forward "to life after Bush". They called for a rejuvenation of the trans-Atlantic relationship and said an Obama victory in November would be the best guarantee of that.

Mr Bush arrives on his valedictory tour today in Slovenia, almost seven years to the day since he set foot in Europe as US president to meet the then new Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. US-Russian relations have deteriorated ever since. The problem of Russia and associated issues such as energy security, potential conflict in Georgia and nuclear proliferation will feature strongly in the talks this week.

The first big business for Mr Bush is a summit today in Slovenia with European Union leaders in which the two sides will debate security measures America is introducing for all travellers to the US from Europe, seen as a threat to civil liberties by many in Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:51 AM

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

Waxman: "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The President's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:29 AM

"While Dick Cheney has been talking tough about Iran's alleged nuclear activities, the vice president has been quietly pursuing nuclear ambitions of his own.

For more than two years, Cheney and a relatively unknown administration official, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell, have been regularly visiting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure agency officials rewrite regulatory policies and bypass public hearings in order to streamline the licensing process for energy companies that have filed applications to build new nuclear power reactors, as well as applications for new nuclear facilities that are expected to be filed by other companies in the months ahead, longtime NRC officials said."

(TPR)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

'The Memory of Bush Will Darken America's Image for Years to Come'


German newspaper commentators have launched a scathing attack on US President George W. Bush's record, saying he embodies "the arrogance of power" and has shattered the world's faith in America.

US President George W. Bush removes an earpiece during Wednesday's news conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg north of Berlin.

The diplomatic fence-mending between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President George W. Bush over the past two years seems to have done nothing to pacify German editorial writers who have seized on the US president's farewell trip to Europe to launch a tirade of criticism of his eight years in power.

The Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, CIA renditions and Bush's record on climate change have tainted not only Bush's image but also that of America for years to come, write Germany's leading newspapers.

The comments coincided with talks between Bush and Merkel at the German government's guest house in Meseberg, 70 kilometers north of Berlin on Wednesday, on the second leg of Bush's week-long tour of Europe which will take him on to Rome, Paris, London and Belfast.

(From Der Spiegel)

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

The future of President Bush's controversial military trial system for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay has been dealt a potentially terminal blow by the US Supreme Court.

In its third rebuke of the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled that the 270 foreign terror suspects have the right under the US Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts on the American mainland.

The 5-4 ruling did not order the military tribunal process to be halted but it could trigger a chaotic rush to civilian courts that in practical terms will leave the question of what to do with men such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the September 11 mastermind, in the hands of the next president.

Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has pledged to close down the site and opposes the military tribunals. John McCain, his Republican opponent, also wants Guantanamo Bay closed. Unlike Mr Obama, however, the Arizona senator supported a law rushed through Congress in 2006 by Mr Bush to resurrect the tribunal system after the Supreme Court last ruled it unconstitutional.

That law, the Military Commissions Act, was passed when Republicans controlled the House and Senate and was the legislation declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court today, because it denies the detainees the right of habeus corpus - an ability to ask a court if one is being held illegally.

The facility currently has 270 detainees - many of whom have been held without charge for over 6 years.

Democrats are now in the supremacy in both chambers and Mr Bush will be hard pressed to get Congress to circumvent the Supreme Court again.

Five alleged plotters of the September 11 attacks, including Mohammed, appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a pre-trial hearing, with prosecutors hoping to start a trial on September 15.

Nearly seven years after Mr Bush set up the tribunals, where he argued the detainees had no rights, not one trial has taken place. A military judge at Guantanamo postponed the trial of Osama bin Laden's one-time driver - which had been due to start last week - pending yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.

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

Der Spiegel examines how speculators dramatically drive up the cost of living. Any connection between this and the Bush Administration is left as an exercise for the student.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:04 PM

Maureen Dowd rides again:

"In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word ÒeliteÓ is not a pejorative here; itÕs a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le CarrŽ novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Newsstands carry a whole magazine devoted to ÒLa rŽvolution OBAMA.Ó The papers are avidly following ObamaÕs post-Hillary quest to Òcherche les femmes,Ó and on Friday, Le Figaro led with the headline that he had widened his lead over his Òrival rŽpublicain.Ó

There was nothing on Le FigaroÕs front page about that other American guy who was over here, munching on langoustes at the ƒlysŽe Palace with Sarko and the seductress Carla (animated and dazzling with a midnight blue dress and a hopelessly long, thin cigarette).

ÒYou kind of wrote my political obituary tonight,Ó W. teased the French president after SarkoÕs toast Friday night, adding that he still has six months left and a lot of work to do.

In Old Europe, theyÕve moved on, assuming that the American president has done all the damage that he can do. The blazing hostility toward W. has faded to indifference and a sort of fatigued perplexity about how les imbeciles de regime cowboy got into office, and how America could have put the world through all this craziness...."

(6-15-08 NY Times column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:06 PM

She goes on in like vein:

"On the illicit rush to war, W. ne regrette rien. He reiterated a rhetorical sop to those who yearn for a scintilla of remorse, telling The Times of London that his gunslinging talk made him seem like a Òguy really anxious for war,Ó and that phrases like Òdead or aliveÓ and Òbring them onÓ Òindicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace.Ó

The Bushes have a hard time with the connective tissue between words and actions. In this case, the words, while dime-store Western, were not the problem. The actions were the problem. W. was really anxious for war. He felt that if he could change Middle East history, he could jump out of his fatherÕs shadow forever.

A Democratic lawmaker who saw the president in the Oval Office recently and urged him to bring the troops home from Iraq quickly recounted that W. got a stony look and replied that 41 had abandoned the Iraqis and thousands got slaughtered. ÒI will never do that to them,Ó 43 said.

Sounds like Oedipal dŽjˆ vu all over again."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:41 PM

Chongo Chimp said today that all primates in the world have been insulted by the many popular pictorial comparisons of George Bush to various chimpanzees that have been seen of recent years in political cartoons and on the Internet.

"That man in no way resembles a Chimpanzee OR a monkey!" thundered Chongo as he addressed an enormous gathering of apes and monkeys at an arena in Denver, Colorado. "He looks more like the Missing Link to me! (This drew much laughter and hooting from the enthusiastic crowd.) "To say that he does resemble Chimps or Monkeys is rank specism, and it's an insult to all self-respecting primates. Furthermore, he is not America's "first chimp in the White House", as some foolish people have been irresponsible enough to label him."

"But I bet you can tell me who IS going to be the first Chimp in the White House..." yelled Chongo. The response was defeaning as 35,000 or more apes and monkeys went into a frenzy, chanting "CHONGO! CHONGO! CHONGO! CHONGO!" over and over again. The chanting went on for a full minute and a half and raised a ruckus that could easily be heard 15 or 20 blocks away.

It looks like the brief scandals of Gorilla Gate and Blonde Circus Dame Gate that had Chongo's campaign hurting badly a few weeks back have now been securely put to rest as apes and monkeys nationwide have put aside their differences and have united in a solid front to make Chongo Chimp president of the United States.

How will this affect Obama's and McCain's chances in November? It's hard to say, but my guess is that they are both far more concerned about it than they are prepared to admit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 01:31 AM

To Little Hawk:      Remember me? I'm from the Hillary thread, who was posting, when you and Guest from Sanity, were posting. Well, we made contact, (he was the composer, if you remember), and he played for us live, online with his web cam, we had our computer hooked through our entertainment center, and through, great speakers. As we listened, tears flowed down our eyes, then he took us all sorts of places in the music. Never heard anything like it before!! He's a friggin' genius!!! About the most beautiful sounds and music, I've (we've) ever heard!! He actually said he was still working on it..UNBELIEVABLE!!! Just Thought I'd tell you. If this ever hit the airwaves....(as it is instantly likable), Lord knows where it will take him, (probably be an influence in music) We could see, 'emotional images(if you will) and it told a complete story, USING NO WORDS! No wonder he was in a music forum, and no wonder now, why he thinks the way he does!!!. I went back and re-read his posts, and some of the stuff he said about creativity, and attitudes, make complete sense. He lives on a higher place..can see why all this political stuff is not his cup of tea!.. ok..Just thought I's let you know!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

"A previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002 questioned the "credibility" and "truthfulness" of an Al Qaeda detainee who became a key source for the Bush administration's claims about links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
The statements of the detainee--a captured terrorist operative named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi--were the principal basis for President Bush's contention in a major pre-Iraq War speech that Saddam's regime had "trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases." The speech was delivered in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, just as Congress was taking up the White House-backed resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq.

But two months before Bush's dramatic assertion, the CIA had raised serious doubts about whether al-Libi might be inventing some of what he was telling his interrogators, according to a 171-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence released last week.

"Questions persist about [al-Libi's] forthrightness and truthfulness," the CIA wrote in the still-classified Aug. 7, 2002, report, which was circulated throughout the U.S. intelligence community. "In some instances, however, he seems to have fabricated information."

The agency found that al-Libi--in an "attempt to exaggerate his importance"--had told interrogators that he was a member of Al Qaeda's "Shura Council," or governing body. But that claim was not corroborated by other intelligence reporting, the CIA analysis concluded in its report, which was titled: "Terrorism: Credibility of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and the Information He has Provided While in Custody."

The CIA analysis on al-LIbi was described by intelligence officials as a document known as a SPWR--"Senior, Publish When Ready" report. Although it has more limited distribution than some other CIA reports, SPWRs are routinely provided to senior policymakers throughout the U.S. government, including officials of the National Security Council at the White House.

The CIA's al-Libi report is one of several new--but so far largely overlooked--disclosures to be found deep in the fine print of the Senate's long-awaited "Phase 2" report on pre-war intelligence. The Senate investigation sought to compare the public statements of top administration officials during the run-up to the Iraq War with the underlying intelligence-community reporting within the government that provided the basis for them. After much partisan squabbling within the panel over the issue, the final report (approved by all seven of the panel's seven Democrats and two of its Republicans) reached a largely unremarkable conclusion: that while most of the Bush administration's claims were "substantiated" by some internal intelligence-community reports, the public statements of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others were selective and failed to convey the considerable doubts, dissents and uncertainties within the community about much of the public case for war. ..."(Newsweek)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:13 AM

Karl Meyer writes in the Times' Op Ed essay Another Bad Day for Baghdad that the Bush administration is repeating a blunder that the British committed in 1930.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 12:31 AM

A timeline to Bush government torture

Newly public evidence sheds greater light on Bush officials' efforts to develop brutal interrogation techniques for the war on terror.

By Mark Benjamin

"For years now, the Bush White House has claimed that the United States does not conduct torture. Prisoner abuse at places like Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it has asserted, was an aberration -- the work of a few "bad apples" on the night shift. When the CIA used "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning), the abuse, according to Bush officials, did not add up to torture....But as more and more documents from inside the Bush government come to light, it is increasingly clear that the administration sought from early on to implement interrogation techniques whose basis was torture. Soon after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon and the CIA began an orchestrated effort to tap expertise from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape school, for use in the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The U.S. military's SERE training is designed to inoculate elite soldiers, sailors and airmen to torture, in the event of their capture, by an enemy that would violate the Geneva Conventions. Those service members are subjected to forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and, yes, in some cases, waterboarding...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:48 AM

"As W. told The Observer: "It's convenient to say, you know, 'warmonger,' 'religious zealot,' 'poodle' — I mean, these are just words that people love to toss around foolishly."

Poppy Bush was often compared to Bertie Wooster, and W. seems to have found his own stiff-backed Jeeves. Mr. Brown agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan, put more sanctions on Iran and decide on Iraq troop withdrawals based on conditions on the ground.

Quentin Letts pointed out in The Daily Mail that when W. touched Gordon, the prime minister would "recoil like a novice nun at first and later smile in terror," and when W. said he had no problem with Brownie on Iraq, "You could almost see Mr. Brown thinking: 'Oh, Gawd! There go another few thousand votes.' "

Asked by The Observer reporter about W.M.D. in Iraq, W. replied: "Still looking for them," sparking a strange moment of levity. Mr. Bush continued: "We didn't realize, nor did anybody else, that Saddam Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass destruction. It may have been, however, that in his mind all this was just a bluff."

Yeah, who could have ever guessed that a wily, deceitful and debilitated Arab dictator might huff and puff, not wanting rivals in the neighborhood to know the weapons cupboard was bare? Maybe some of those psychologists specializing in boastful, malignant narcissists and Middle East cultural experts working in our $40 billion-a-year intelligence units should have been able to figure it out?"


(MAureen Dowd, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:20 AM

"The Bush Administration didn't get it so wrong because of Curveball, however much of a liar he may have been, but because it didn't seem to matter to the warmongers from Bush on down whether they got it right or wrong at all. There were ample warnings questioning Curveball's credibility, as well as the credibility of other such sources, but the warmongers believed what they wanted to believe, so rooted were they in their own fanaticism, and didn't let anything like the truth get in the way. "

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wild-pitch/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:27 AM

"Take the Middle East seriously, because that's the center of - that's the place where people get so despondent and despair that they're willing to come and take lives of U.S. citizens."

-- George W. Bush, asked on Al Arabiya TV what advice he would give the next president

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:36 AM

"...that's the place where people get so despondent and despair that they're willing to come and take lives of U.S. citizens." W

You know, I think the man may not be from Planet Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:51 AM

Not even in this lifetime!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:47 PM

Scott McLellan discusses life on the inside of the Administration, with Jon Stewart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 02:18 AM

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 22, 2008

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was Òaddicted to oil,Ó and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: ÒGet more addicted to oil.Ó

Actually, itÕs more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives canÕt totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

ItÕs as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: ÒCÕmon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, weÕll all go straight. IÕll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.Ó

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal:

ÒI know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past,Ó Mr. Bush said. ÒNow that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.Ó

This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president whoÕs done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there arenÕt 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.

But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasnÕt lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact AmericaÕs energy profile right now Ñ unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow Ñ and create good tech jobs to boot.

That bill is H.R. 6049 Ñ ÒThe Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,Ó which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. ÒAlready clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,Ó said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines Ñ because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans Ñ sorry to say, with the help of John McCain Ñ have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 06:00 AM

I think that this has got it about right:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 08:28 AM

Don't bother, T. Those here will not bother to read anything that does not apriori support what they wish to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM

Bearded Bruce, do you realize how insulting that kind of statement is? Surely you must grant that we - including you - are concerned about our country and its leadership and that we all process information according to our understanding and in our own ways, filtered through our own experiences. There is room for disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 10:58 AM

" do you realize how insulting that kind of statement is? "

Almost as insulting as the daily comments about anyone who does not adhere to the liberal line.



"Surely you must grant that we - including you - are concerned about our country and its leadership and that we all process information according to our understanding and in our own ways, filtered through our own experiences. "

WHEN that is granted to me, I will certainly agree that others are concerned.



"There is room for disagreement."

Not according to the liberal majority here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 11:01 AM

feel free to disagree- As a conservative, I allow ( actually, encourage) others to make up their own minds (based on the facts) instead of following the Party Line.


And feel free to take post 1200.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 11:54 AM

Invading a country for political purpses and running large deficits are not at all conservative, bb... Maybe you think they are but they are not!!! You and the other Bush supporters need to come up with a realistic label... True conservatives nave little use for Bush or his radical policies... And you can take that to the bank...

And please don't think of this as an attack... It isn't... It's not even an opinion... It is an observation... William Buckley was a conservative, bb... You and T are not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 03:16 PM

T's reference is almost pure party line. For example it "covers" the invasion of Iraq by asserting that the CIA like all intell agencies believed in WMD> THere is plenty of evidence that this was not the truth.


A