BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:30 AM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday chided Russia for Cold War-style behavior, saying, "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

---

Gee!! That's a mouthful!! How about unilateral invasion? IS that bullying? Or maybe intimidation? Hmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:40 AM

An editorial comment by Don Hackman:

I learned that in the military trial of bin Laden's driver who was sentenced to time served and to be released in Dec.08, the decision has been overturned by the President of the United States.

The prisoner is now ordered to remain in prison as a criminal combattent.
(Only a pardon by a future President could release him)

If that should be Obama, you can see what Karl Rove would make of that.




How and why did America create SS style torture prisons and a near total disregard for the Constitution, the Geneva Convention and every other pillar of justice in the world?


Answer:

1 The Army traditionally conducted all interrogation in past wars but the Bush administration with its family history deeply entrenched in the CIA gave the interrogation job to the 'Company' and Titan Systems Inc. which was a war profiteering private interprise.

The model of torture they went shopping for turned out to be the North Korean style with the aid of former Korean torture experts.



2 Character and intergrity is the other factor. Both Bush and Cheney are fundamentally cowards evidenced by Bush's retreat on 9-11 and Cheney in mortal fear and terror, warping his life. By the way his undisclosed location is a new multi billion dollar bunker on the grounds of the Wash. DC Naval Observatory. Even Richard Pearle said he could not recognize Dick Cheney due to a dramatic psychological change in the man.
The cowardly fear that these men lived and breathed became mutually reinforcing. Their attempt to appear brave gave way to every base instinct that caused them to abandon the American values the world once lauded. They become as criminally savage as their lawyers claimed they could be and still remain free from prosecution. For these men, appearing powerful became more important than being powerful.



In 2001 I wrote that the first causualty of the invasion would be our becoming like our enemy, which is not only war itself but adopting the 'medevil' barbarity of Arab blood letting. You may know this idea of becoming like your enemy in war, is in the bible.

George and Dick became like the enemy and felt the same toward the American people who could see them to be arrogant foolinsh cowards that succeed in private war profiteering but little else.


They insulated themselves against the extreme criminal culpability of ordering torture with extreme legal advice and the old stand by strategy of using expendible low ranking Americans to take the fall.


Too bad they didn't listen to experience. The Isrealies know that torture does not work. What they have found is that money, power and sex are the best stimulus to get information from indiviuals.




A note to patriots who favored, sacrificed or profited from this WAR...

Respondsibility is considered an honored human value. If you voted for Bush even once, you are respondsible for the sensless torure and murder of men women and children. War is not a sport. In court these war crimes are punishable by death or life imprisonment.

What is your punishment?

I forsee that you will probably continue to lie to yourself for the rest of your days. If you do ever come around, your redemtion will have to come in the form or action and not words such as raising an Iraqi orphan or some other honorable life long deed. Of course doing something honorable is its own reward for everyone.

If you chose to financially profit from this war, your punishment should be the likelyhood of personal tragedy, not because I hold to any ideas of revenge or unforgivness, but simply because you would then be guilty of premeditated murder for money. Afterall when you live by the sword*, it is said you will die from it.

George and Dick will carry their inner cowardice to the grave. Out of a psychological compensation they will continue to brag of their bravado and courage with a profound need to believe their own lies.


*(Rapaire sword sport excluded)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 01:26 PM

Bush was doing his job 3 times better than Congress according to the polls

That assumes that public relations is the only product of either.

In terms of the ground truth, the Senate is doing much less harm than Bush's executive branch. By orders of magnitude.

That ain't much good, but it's a lot less bad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:00 PM

"In 2001 I wrote that the first causualty of the invasion would be our becoming like our enemy, which is not only war itself but adopting the 'medevil' barbarity of Arab blood letting."

How is the pacifist policy working out for the Tibetans?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:12 PM

ABout as well as it did for some Iraqis, I suppose.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM

I learned that in the military trial of bin Laden's driver who was sentenced to time served and to be released in Dec.08, the decision has been overturned by the President of the United States.

The prisoner is now ordered to remain in prison as a criminal combattent.
(Only a pardon by a future President could release him)

It seems as if our Prez has appointed himself, Lord, God & High Executioner. And here I thought we had other branches of government that over ruled the discision making court appointed powers.
I know that the Prez of Pardon but I've never seen or heard that he has the power to overturn & overrule court discisions. I'm not positive but this seems to be unconstitutional, any scholars out there?
And the combative issue, another unconstitutional quirk, I believe???

What the fudge is he doing & what the hell's he thinking or is he? Is he just tossing the law out the window because he's so close to the end & he wants to keep making more messes for the Dem's to clean up so that they can't focus on a clear & 'present' future??

Man is "out of it"

Barry, "good Ribs to bad Rubs"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:12 PM

Not even the 6 military judges (called jurors) were aware that their court was meaningless.

The Patriot act further defines being a military combatent as what the President determines it to be. Therefore, he who is a military combatent is whoever George says he is. This sounds whacky but its the way it is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:39 PM

Obviously the President does not decide this. Is he meeting with each prisoner to decide status?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:47 PM

What is obvious is that you need to check it out for yourself.

here http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/08/13/1/a-conversation-with-author-jane-mayer

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 11:52 AM

"America's back in the cold war and W.'s back on vacation.

Talk about your fearful symmetry.

After eight years, the president's gut remains gullible. He'll go out as he came in — ignoring reality; failing to foresee, prevent or even prepare for disasters; misinterpreting intelligence reports; misreading people; and handling crises in ways that makes them exponentially worse.

He has spent 469 days of his presidency kicking back at his ranch, and 450 days cavorting at Camp David. And there's still time to mountain-bike through another historic disaster.

As Russian troops continued to manhandle parts of Georgia on Friday, President Bush chastised Russian leaders that "bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century" — and then flew off to Crawford.

His words might have carried more weight if he, Cheney and Rummy had not kicked off the 21st century with a ham-fisted display of global bullying and intimidation modeled after Sherman's march through the other Georgia."...

Maureen Dowd, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:09 PM

"Despite his 1999 prediction that Russia and China would be key to security in the world, W. never bothered to study up on them. In 2006, at the Group of Eight summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, a microphone caught some of the inane remarks of W. to the Chinese president, Hu Jintao.

"This is your neighborhood," W. said. "It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home? Eight hours? Me, too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."

President Bush and his Russian "expert" Condi have played it completely wrong with Russia from the start. W. saw a "trustworthy" soul in a razor-eyed K.G.B. agent who has never been a good guy for a single hour. Now the Bush crowd, which can do nothing about it, is blustering about how Russian aggression "must not go unanswered," as Cheney put it. (W.'s other Russian expert, Bob Gates, was, as always, the only voice of realism, noting, "I don't see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation.")

The Bush administration may have a sentimental attachment to Georgia because it sent 2,000 troops to Iraq as part of the fig-leaf Coalition of the Willing, and because Poppy Bush and James Baker were close to Georgia's first president, Eduard Shevardnadze.

But with this country's military and moral force so depleted, the Bushies can hardly tell Russia to stop doing what they themselves did in Iraq: unilaterally invade a country against the will of the world to scare the bejesus out of some leaders in the region they didn't like...."


Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM

To almost quote someone who should know,



"Keep digging, Amos. Dig up all the distortions you can, and make sure to ignore any positives like intelligence, statesmanship, insight, articulateness, leadership. Naw, jes' keep digging."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

positives like intelligence, statesmanship, insight, leadership.

You've got to be kidding BB. There hasn't been a sign of positive or intelligent life sighted at the present administration since they came into office & as far as articulateness, we have a Prez with a vocab max of 600 words if you exclude all the "ums" & huhs". Leadership???? On who's part, pray tell, it's been a rule of constant division, everywhere. Insight! Even the hindsight of this administration is blinded & restricted to tunnel vision our future can't even be considered because there's not 1 who understands the past or the foreign nor is there anyone who cares.

Please, take a look at the state we're in & tell me if the ship's not in the hands of a half ass captain. We're on the rocks & the storm's bearing down on US, fast! And the captain's about to jump ship & leave it all to God! Thanks!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:42 PM

Putting US weapons on the border of Russia and telling them its none of your business, just may have been rude or inelegant.

Russia said they would respond beyond diplomatic means.

They did.

All Bush can do now is posture or make a new Cuban Missle crises.


Better than a Kodak moment...To me this is another Bush Katrina moment

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: olddude
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 11:34 AM

He will go down in History I think as perhaps the worse president we ever had. As far as the Bill of Rights goes - well he certainly got quite of bit of that document thrown out. The one that every american soldier in battle who gave his life willingly to defend. A document that I would willingly give my life for anytime.   I guess a little thing like the oath a President takes "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States" got in the way of his terrorism scares and duct tape. It is going to take a long time for us to recover our credibility if we ever can. So sad. but look at the bright side. Right now there are computers monitoring this thread and everyone who posted to it because they don't need a warrant or judge anymore to justify it. But the oil companies love him and so does his buddies at Haliburton. And the economy, well it is in fine shape for those who are billionairs. Wow what a gift to the american people. The next president no matter who it is will have more than a mess. I don't want the job. I am going to write in Bruce and Ron ... at least I will have good music.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM

Bruce has this thing about flipping polarity on people using their own words. It's probably not intended to be harmful, but he persists even when asked not to. It smacks of an evil psychic judo, playing silly-bugger-mirrors with people's minds, but it saves him the trouble of composing anything genuine.

W's intelligence, Bruce, is of a sort that has no place in the world of decent humans seeking to build a better future, because it is the sort that goes in reverse. It is not that he has none. He could not have accomplished what he has without considerable intelligence. But its deepest underpinnings are inverted, bass-ackward points of departure that color the entire cascade of reason therefrom the shade of spilled sewage.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 03:08 PM

"He could not have accomplished what he has without considerable intelligence."

Amos,

Since you have denied Bush any intelligence for so long that YOU would have problems denying it, all this statement shows is that you really don't even believe what you yourself have been saying for years.

You may choose to agree or disagree with what Bush has done- but you have consistantly tried to both attribute evil intent ( with no evidence) and blame it on ignorance. Your constant attacks on the persons that bring up anything NOT in support of your viewpoint are certainly the indication that you have no reason save bias agaisnst Bush to base your own opinions on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

Quite to the contrary, I have a wide array of facts to base my opinions on, Bruce.

There are several kind of intelligence. When I call Bush a moronic illiterate, I am referring to the kinds he most obviously lacks. Language skills and human compassion, for example. Even Hitler had some pretty wicked sharp wits to get where he got.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 04:17 PM

Amos,

My objection is that you consider "moronic" anything that does not agree with YOUR thoughts on the matter. If you made the attempt to see viewpoints other than your own, you might be able to make far more effective arguements in support of your own viewpoint.

As it stands now, all we can do is to insult you and tell you what an idiot you are for having any viewpoint that we disagree with, if we are to follow your example.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 08:48 AM

One part of Mr. Obama's task will be easy: showing how much damage the Bush administration has done to Americans' lives and their country's reputation.

This administration has the worst job-creation rate in modern history; income growth has been abysmal for most Americans. Whether the problem is lead-tainted toys or predatory credit card companies or irresponsible home mortgage lending by handsomely paid bankers, Americans doubt that their government is able to protect them, or wants to do so.

President Bush's White House has offered no serious answer to the problem of America's energy dependence and no strategy for calming anti-American furies around the world.

...NYT Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 12:18 AM

"Even Hitler had some pretty wicked sharp wits to get where he got."

Obama must have some pretty wicked sharp wits to get where he is at, n'est-ce pas??


I saw the perfect website for Amos.
Let us do the thinking for you with the new, one-of-a kind Candidate Calculator.
This handy dandy little website will organize the political chaos and clear the clouds of confusion from your mind. Let us do the thinking for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 09:29 AM

Thanks, Sawz, but mindless sheeple-think is a specialty I don't qualify for, so you keep it. You've demonstrated over and over how much you love reciting the party line and the mindless talking point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 12:24 PM

"The National Security Archive released a report Friday Aug. 22, 2008 that sheds even more light on the premeditated lying and deception that took the United States to war in Iraq.   The findings are based on new evidence compiled by Dr. John Prados and published by the National Security Archive. See "White Paper" Drafted before NIE even Requested , "Scoop" Independent News, Aug. 24, 2008.

Most notably, Prados shows the depth of the deception perpetrated against citizens and Congress regarding the alleged threat to U.S. security posed by Iraq. It had appeared that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued that doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002. Prados reveals convincing evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper had already been written by July 2002. He shows that it was only slightly altered after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney White paper "justifying" the invasion was developed a full three months in advance of the intelligence data and analysis that should have served as the basis for that justification. The National Security Archive summed it up succinctly:

"The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq,

"The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002." National Security Archive in "Scoop' Independent News, August 24, 2008.

The seemingly endless war in Iraq has become a total disaster on multiple levels for all involved. The awful toll in human deaths and casualties is largely ignored but real nevertheless. Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been lost in battle and tens of thousands injured. In excess of one million Iraqi civilians are dead due to civil strife unleashed by the invasion. The U.S. Treasury is drained and the steep decline in respect for the United States around the world is just beginning to manifest.

The United States political establishment responds with collective denial on a scale that's incomprehensible. In the presidential campaign, the only sustained public commentary on the war comes from the Republican presidential candidate John McCain who makes the bizarre claim that U.S. is "surrendering" with victory in clear sight. McCain touts the surge without noting that 4.0 million Iraqis are "displaced from their homes." Nearly ten percent of Iraq's population is either dead or injured and there are 5.0 million Iraqi orphans.

This pathological view of victory claims the "surge' is a success in the context of a devastated population in an obliterated nation lacking in the most essential supplies and services; a nation where death continues on a shopping spree

The report by Dr. Prados makes it clear that the executive branch was responsible for creating whatever information they found necessary to justify war and they did it by posing security threats from Iraq and demanding that intelligence briefers fill in the details

Summary of Findings by Prados, National Security Archive

"A recently declassified draft of the CIA's October 2002 white paper on Iraqi WMD programs demonstrates that that (the White) paper long pre-dated the compilation of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi capabilities.

"Bush administration and the Tony Blair government began acting in concert to build support for an invasion of Iraq two to three months earlier than previously understood.

..." (OpEd News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 08 - 12:58 PM

Amos you hae a barrel of ink and good sources but jeez Louise, lighten up on poor George.

All his life the only real success he ever achieved resulted from lying and deception along with hiring other people to do his dirty work like term papers and laundry. Even his military service was full of lying and deception.
So please consider that while George may be a mass murderer he is also severely handicapped in multiple ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:28 AM

In The Way of the World, Suskind maintains that these principles remain alive with the American people "as a troubled, and troubling decade nears its end."

But, he argues, as he did in The One Percent Doctrine (2006), the Bush administration threw away the moral compass following the attacks on September 11, 2001. Suskind presents new evidence, "the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings," that the president and vice president knew Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction before they made war on Iraq. Little wonder, then, that the US is now viewed around the world as a might-makes-right bully, accountable to no one, not even its own people.

...Suskind's charge that the White House "concocted" a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001, is more difficult to dismiss. In the letter, "Habbush" indicates that Muhammad Atta had received training at the home of Abu-Nidal in al-Dora. He mentions as well that "a small team from the al-Qaida organization" had arranged for a shipment of unspecified material from Niger to Iraq by way of Libya and Syria. When the letter was leaked in December 2003, reporters connected the dots: from Atta in Iraq to 9/11 and from uranium "yellow cake" to weapons of mass destruction.

A 1991 law, Suskind indicates, makes it illegal for any government official to conduct covert action "intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media." Rob Richer, former head of the CIA's Near East division and deputy director of clandestine operations, told Suskind that the assignment came on "creamy White House stationery." Others indicated that George Tenet, the director of the CIA, sent it to the Iraq Operations Group. Who actually ordered the operation? Suskind doesn't know. ..."

(Jerusalem Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:30 AM

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is raising the stakes in a court fight that could change the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will soon ask a federal appeals court not to force the president's top advisers to comply with congressional subpoenas next month. President Bush argues Congress doesn't have the authority to demand information from his aides.

U.S. District Judge John Bates strongly rejected that stance last month, ordering former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to turn over documents related to the firing of federal prosecutors.

It was a historic loss for the Bush administration, a stinging ruling in the first such case ever to make it to the courts.

The House Judiciary Committee responded swiftly, demanding Miers appear Sept. 11 as it investigates whether federal prosecutors were inappropriately fired as part of a White House effort to politicize the Justice Department.

The Bush administration had already indicated it would appeal but Justice Department lawyers said Wednesday that they will ask the court to step in quickly and temporarily put Miers' appearance on hold while the appeal plays out. It's a risky move for an administration that has spent years trying to strengthen the power of the presidency.

---

THis should really be put on the Fascism thread. As a student of history, Bush knows full well what the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent, and seems anxious to see it fail.

Sic semper tyrannis.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:43 AM

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

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

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

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

No comment could do this justice.

CIA Bans Waterboarding in Terror Interrogations

September 14, 2007 Brian Ross, Richard Esposito & Martha Raddatz

The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex, has been banned by CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, current and former CIA officials tell ABCNews.com.

The officials say Hayden made the decision at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes, and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002...."

What you have presented here, Amos, is a conflation taken totally out of context which is what you constantly accuse others of doing just because they disagree with you. Bush had already banned waterboarding yet your conflation indicates that he vetoed a bill banning water torture. It covered other interrogation techniques and in fact rescinded the rules that our fickle Congress had approved a year prior:

Presidential Radio Address - 8 March 2008

"....The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks. The program helped us stop a plot to strike a U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, and a plot to crash passenger planes into Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London. And it has helped us understand al Qaida's structure and financing and communications and logistics. Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.

The main reason this program has been effective is that it allows the CIA to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision. The bill Congress sent me would deprive the CIA of the authority to use these safe and lawful techniques. Instead, it would restrict the CIA's range of acceptable interrogation methods to those provided in the Army Field Manual. The procedures in this manual were designed for use by soldiers questioning lawful combatants captured on the battlefield. They were not intended for intelligence professionals trained to question hardened terrorists.

Limiting the CIA's interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual would be dangerous because the manual is publicly available and easily accessible on the Internet. Shortly after 9/11, we learned that key al Qaida operatives had been trained to resist the methods outlined in the manual. And this is why we created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al Qaida operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland. The best source of information about terrorist attacks is the terrorists themselves. If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the Field Manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaida terrorists, and that could cost American lives.

The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied. Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists. This would end an effective program that Congress authorized just over a year ago.."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Presidential_Radio_Address_-_8_March_2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM

Excuse, Sawz, but the issue of who ordered torture where and when was not the subject of my previous post--and was not conflated there in any degree with any other thing.

If you look it over you will see my post concerns the right of the Congress of the United States to require members of the executive branch to testify before their investigations, such as Harriet MEiers.

Why you think this is associated with torture is beyond me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:30 AM

WASHINGTON — There are competing theories, among Republicans, about the precise moment that their relationship with George W. Bush began to fray.



Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.
Election Guide | More Politics News
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (65) »
Some, like Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, say it was in August 2005, when Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans and President Bush viewed the devastation from the air-conditioned comfort of Air Force One. "Symbolically it was terrible, and substantively it was terrible; to me it was the turning point," he said.

Others, like Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth, lament the day in 2003 when Mr. Bush signed the Medicare prescription drug benefit into law. "Creation of a new entitlement — this is not what Republicans do," Mr. Toomey said.

Still others, like Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, look to November 2006, when Mr. Bush waited until Republicans were crushed at the ballot box to fire Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. "I'm very fond of him," Ms. Pryce said of the president. "But it's still hard for me to forgive the fact that the day after I almost lost my election, he fired Rumsfeld."

As the party faithful head to Minnesota to nominate Senator John McCain as their candidate for president, many feel deeply conflicted about the man Mr. McCain hopes to succeed. Eight years after he accepted his own nomination at another convention hall in Philadelphia, Mr. Bush leaves behind a party whose members regard him with deep personal affection, even as they blame him for hurting their political prospects and tarnishing the Republican brand.

Full article here in the NYT.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 09:34 AM

Whatever the president's virtues, they remain unappreciated in his own time. To say that Bush is unpopular only begins to capture the historic depths of his estrangement from the American public. He is arguably the most disliked president in seven decades. Sixty-nine percent of Americans disapproved of his performance in office in a Gallup poll in April, the highest negative rate ever recorded for any president since the firm began asking the question in 1938. And while Harry Truman and Richard Nixon at their worst had even fewer supporters — Truman once fell to 22 percent in his job approval rating and Nixon to 24 percent, compared with Bush's low of 28 percent — no president has endured such a prolonged period of public rejection. Bush has not enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans since March 2005, meaning he will go through virtually his entire second term without most of the public behind him.

Bush has been so far down for so long that his aides long ago gave up any hope that the numbers would change while he is still in office. "There's kind of a liberating aspect to it," Dan Bartlett told me over lunch in July, at a homey steak joint in Austin, where he returned after leaving the White House last year. "It's not that you chase polls, but you're cognizant of them. So if you know they're not going to change, you can just do what you think is right."

If anything, it may be that the low numbers have become almost a badge of honor for Bush. Not that he wants to be unpopular, but he sees leadership as a test. "Calcium" is a favorite term he uses with aides to describe the backbone he admires. "He does make a lot of references to Truman as the model of his late presidency, and the Truman model is unrewarded heroism — or 'heroism' is not the right word: unrewarded courage," Michael Gerson, another former senior adviser to the president, told me. "It fits very much his approach and his self-conception. His view of leadership is defined as doing the right thing against pressure." ... (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:42 PM

The first of many revelations to come:

"Preparing for the criticism, Gonzales' legal team fired back with the 12-page memo and a three-page addendum accompanying it. The documents indicate the attorney general was merely forgetful or unaware of the proper way to handle the top secret papers.
Our Erstwhile Attorney General -(heckuva job, Bertie)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:23 AM

In ,a href=http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=54a96b0d367da6ce96eb1401f0e127f76688ddd6>this video-editorial, the facts behind the lethal error of disbandiing the Iraqi army just after the invasion are laid bare. Bremer is revealed as a fabricator and the magnitude of Wolfowitz' arrogance and stupidity are revealed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:09 PM

CORRECTION:

In this video-editorial, the facts behind the lethal error of disbanding the Iraqi army just after the invasion are laid bare. Bremer is revealed as a fabricator and the magnitude of Wolfowitz' arrogance and stupidity are revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 01:51 PM

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 2, 2008; 12:09 PM

Former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales told investigators he did not remember whether he took home notes regarding the government's most sensitive national security programs and did not know they contained classified information despite notations on the papers that they were "eyes only -- top secret," according to a report released this morning.

The Justice Department's inspector general concluded that Gonzales had improperly handled materials about the government's most sensitive national security programs, carrying the notes home in an unlocked briefcase for an "indeterminate" period of time. Gonzales failed to keep them in a safe at his Northern Virginia home because he "could not remember the combination," according to the report.

A National Security Agency official who reviewed the notes told investigators that at least one item in the documents was "zealously protected" by the NSA and that designating the papers as highly classified was "not a close call," the report said.

Improper handling of classified material can result in criminal charges, but prosecutors in the department's National Security Division declined to bring a case after reviewing the allegations and consulting with senior career officials at Justice, according to the report and lawyers involved in the case.


During his government service, Gonzales received at least two briefings on security procedures and signed a nondisclosure form indicating that negligent handling of sensitive information "could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

The notes involve some of the government's most secret initiatives, including a warrantless wiretapping program and other top-secret eavesdropping methods. Investigators did not find any evidence that the information had been shared with or seen by people who lacked the proper clearance to review it, though employees at Justice had "regular" access to some of the materials, the report said.

The investigation initially began after allegations emerged that Gonzales, then the White House counsel, had failed to protect notes that he took during a March 2004 meeting between President Bush and congressional leaders in the White House Situation Room, as a program that allowed authorities to secretly monitor communications for evidence of terrorist plots was set to expire.
...

(WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:56 PM

ill Clinton's pragmatism was probably why so many conservatives hated him -- thinking him to be opportunistic -- and why some committed liberals disdained him as unprincipled. But he can make a fair case that his presidency did much to preserve the economic viability and leadership of America in a changing world.

Clinton's predecessor, George H. W. Bush, was also a pragmatist, always seeking a "prudent course," and wary of giving offense. He, too, would have cancelled the start of the GOP convention but wouldn't have uttered McCain's line about "Republican hats"; too many GOPers might be offended.

Bush's cautious leadership style was on display in his fateful decision not to press on to Baghdad in the 1991 Gulf War. Bush reasoned that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would fracture the unprecedented international alliance behind the war, which he saw as a model for cooperation in the post-Cold War world.

His son, George W., apparently disagreed -- or maybe just wanted to be different from his father. At any rate, George W. Bush's decision-making style is harder to categorize.

For a while after the 9/11 attacks, he appeared to be a charismatic figure, a forceful moral presence in a time of confusion. But that was probably a figment of the national imagination: In their hunger for leadership, Americans felt reassured by rhetoric borrowed from the Cold War.

The later Bush seemed neither charismatic nor pragmatic, but something closer to an ideologue, stubborn in his commitment to a single path. His moral justification for the Iraq war, about furthering the God-given right to freedom and democracy, struck many as an ex post facto justification for a failed policy. But others took it at face value.

Now, those same people may see some of Bush's pride, determination, and righteousness in the upturned faces of John McCain and Barack Obama.

History offers one indisputable lesson, leadership styles aside: Americans should choose their presidents carefully. (Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:44 PM

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.

Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

"[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. "You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."

Congressional Democrats have issued a flurry of subpoenas this year to senior Bush administration aides as part of a broad inquiry into the authorisation of torturous interrogation tactics used at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to subpoenas: former counsel Harriet Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove, and current chief of staff Josh Bolten. The contempt battle is currently before a federal court.
(Guardian.UK)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:04 PM

Thanks Amos for bringing that to light, that made my day. 7 f&%king yrs I've been hoping to hear someone announce that these criminals would have to stand & have their actions be accounted for. I hate to see an impeachment pass before they're out of office, this I hope will make up for some of that. Nancy P will, in my mind, always be remebered for keeping impeachment "off the table"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 08:51 PM

ADMINISTRATION -- WATCHDOG GROUPS WARN THAT GOVERNMENT SECRECY IS ON THE RISE UNDER BUSH: According to a new report from OpenTheGovernment.org, "government secrecy is on the rise by almost every measure," the AP reports today. The report cites 14 different measurements to quantify government secrecy, "including patents hidden from the public, secret court approvals for surveillance in sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations and the expanding use of informal labels to keep documents from being disclosed." The group said the United States is now classifying more records as top secret or confidential, employing fewer workers who make federal documents publicly available. There was also an 80 percent decline over the last decade in the number of pages of records declassified, dropping last year to 37 million pages. The report also notes that federal surveillance activity under the secretive FISA court has risen for the ninth consecutive year, more than double the amount in 2000. The White House's penchant for secrecy is well-documented. In January, Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) ), for example, said the White House had tried to "effectively eliminate" the FOIA office. In the 109th Congress, the Justice Department "squelched efforts" to pass the OPEN Government Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 09:40 AM

Published: September 9, 2008
"President Bush is nothing if not consistent. In a speech on Tuesday, he made it clear that he has no plan at all for ending the war in Iraq and no serious plan for winning the war in Afghanistan.

Mr. Bush wants to have it both ways — claiming success in tamping down violence in Iraq and yet refusing to make the hard choices that would flow from that.

Speaking at the National Defense University, he said he would withdraw only 8,000 more troops from Iraq by the time he leaves office. That would leave 138,000 troops behind — more than were deployed in Iraq before his January 2007 "surge."

All of this seems to be driven more by what is happening in American battleground states than any battleground in Iraq.

While Mr. Bush and his party's nominee, John McCain, both want to stay the course until some undefined "victory" is achieved, American voters have run out of patience. Mr. Bush and his advisers are clearly hoping that this token withdrawal will be enough to keep Iraq out of the news and out of the election debate. (Ironically, Mr. McCain who doesn't want to withdraw any troops at all, had no choice but to declare his support for the president's plan.)

Iraq's leaders have also run out of patience, and they are pushing to have American troops out by 2011. That means the next president — whether it is Mr. McCain or Barack Obama — will have to quickly come up with a plan for a safe and responsible exit. ..." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 10:07 AM

In the aftermath of the US Treasury's decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.

The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. "All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this," he says. "What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

"We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed," Mr Oxley says.

...NYT

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

Our fearless leader, George Bush and his vice president had the brilliant - or as someone has written before, "stupefyingly incompetent" - idea to put our Social Security retirement money into the stock market. Brilliant!

Now oil, gas, energy out of control; food, the basic staff of life, prices going crazy; and guess what? We're going to start raising interest rates. Wow. It sure will be easier now to get and be able to afford a mortgage, won't it?

Of course, the brilliant invasion of Iraq, the one they call Iraqi Freedom, was, almost, the most stupefyingly incompetent idiocy of them all.

I didn't give Dennis Kucinich or Sen. Feingold much thought on their attempts to impeach Bush and Cheney when they first brought their bills up.

I sure wish we had followed through with them against the most incredibly stupid, selfish and criminal presidential thugs our country has ever known.

There are all kinds of natural disasters - earthquakes, floods, hurricanes. So what kind of disaster do we call this administration?

Frank Sears

Buffalo Grove

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:37 PM

"Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November."

They can't do it now?

If Obama and Biden want Bush to be criminally charged, why don't they vote to impeach him now?

Ahhhhhhhh, maybe it is because they are using it as a get elected tool.

Elect me and I might charge them with crimes. Otherwise I am too chickenshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:51 PM

Federal Shortfall To Double This Year
Next President To Inherit Deficit Of $500 Billion

washingtonpost.com



A weak economy and a sharp increase in government spending will drive the federal budget deficit to a near-record $407 billion when the budget year ends later this month, and the next president is likely to face a shortfall in January of well over $500 billion, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

A deficit of that magnitude could severely constrain the next administration's agenda, regardless of whether Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican candidate, or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), his Democratic opponent, wins in November. Each has promised billions in new tax cuts or new spending. The expanding deficit also will increase the national debt and could impair future economic growth, particularly if lawmakers are forced to pay down that debt by raising taxes.

This year's deficit will be more than double last year's $161 billion, and it will rise from 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product to nearly 3 percent. If the next president extends some or all of President Bush's signature tax cuts, as both candidates have promised, annual deficits could balloon to as much as 5 percent of the economy, rivaling the dark fiscal days of the early-1990s and those of the Reagan administration, said Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office.

The budget picture is likely to grow even bleaker once government analysts factor in the anticipated costs of the Treasury Department's decision last weekend to take over struggling mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Orszag declined yesterday to attach a price tag to the takeover, under which Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. has pledged to invest as much as $200 billion to keep the companies solvent. However, Orszag said Paulson's action has bound the government so tightly to the two companies that he will incorporate them directly into the federal budget when he reexamines the nation's fiscal picture in January.

The massive companies, which together hold or guarantee about half the nation's 12 million residential mortgages, claimed more than $1.5 trillion in debt at the end of the second quarter. Because that debt is backed by a nearly equal amount in assets, Orszag said it will not significantly increase the nation's indebtedness.


Orszag said it was also unclear how the takeover will affect the annual budget deficit. Government accounting methods do not reflect the risk inherent in assuming control of billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities in the middle of the worst housing bust since the Great Depression. As a result, budget analysts said it is possible that the takeover could add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit -- or little to nothing.

"One of the ironies of what we're experiencing is the shortcomings in the way in which the federal government currently accounts for credit transactions. When you engage in actions that do contain risk, it can look like there's a profitable opportunity because the system does not reflect the cost of risk," Orszag said.

much of the increase was the result of measures that received strong Republican support: one to return billions of dollars to taxpayers as part of the economic stimulus package and another to increase war funding. Bush signed legislation this summer to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the rest of his presidency, bringing total Iraq spending to more than $650 billion and the total for Afghanistan to nearly $200 billion.

"So they're fully responsible for the increase in the deficit," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "All of this happened on their watch, under their president."

In January, congressional budget analysts had estimated the deficit would be only $219 billion by year's end. By July, however, the White House was predicting that the number would spike to $389 billion because of new spending. Yesterday, the congressional analysts upped it even further, saying the increase over 2007 had been driven equally by two factors.

The weak economy has clobbered corporate profits, halting the growth of tax collections. And spending has jumped sharply, in part because of tax rebates, as well as a hike in expenditures to cover unemployment insurance and deposits of insolvent financial institutions.

This year's deficit will rival the record of $413 billion set in 2004. With the economy expected to remain sluggish for at least the next several months, the Congressional Budget Office projects that next year's deficit will rise to $438 billion. But Orszag said that number could easily climb to $540 billion if Congress acts in the coming months, as expected, to restrain the growth of the alternative minimum tax and to extend a variety of expiring business tax breaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:34 PM

(AP) Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said Wednesday.

The alleged transgressions involve 13 Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with - and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from - oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department's inspector general.

The investigations reveal a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by a small group of individuals "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney.

The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing the oil and gas that energy companies barter to the government instead of making cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such Royalty-in-Kind payments last year. The oil is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's emergency stockpile.

Between 2002 and 2006, nearly a third of the 55-person staff in the Denver office received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies, the investigators found.

Devaney said the former head of the Denver Royalty-in-Kind office, Gregory W. Smith, used illegal drugs and had sex with subordinates. The report said Smith also steered government contracts to a consulting business that was employing him part-time.

Smith, contacted by e-mail by The Associated Press, said he had not seen the report and could not respond. He and nine other employees in the Denver office are mentioned in the reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 06:43 AM

But in frustrating news for the White House, Americans appear to give little credit to President Bush for the lack of a terrorist strike over the last seven years: Only 37 percent believe the president and his policies are the chief reason there has not been a strike on U.S. soil. Overall, he has a 28 percent approval rating, tying his all time low in CNN/ORC polling.

Opinions on the war in Iraq, on the other hand, have changed slightly, with a slight majority (52 percent) now saying that the Iraq war is an essential part of the war on terrorism. That represents a shift from 2006, when a majority of Americans said the war in Iraq was a distraction.

Support for the Iraq war is also up slightly over the last six months — from 30 percent in June to 37 percent now. But as Americans increasingly approve of the war, it becomes less of an important issue in their choice for president — now only 13 percent of registered voters said it was most important to their vote, compared with the 56 percent who named the country's economic woes as their chief concern.

Just over 60 percent of Americans continue to oppose the conflict however, and two-thirds want the next president to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq within a few months of taking office — numbers that appear to put Republican presidential candidate John McCain on the opposite side of most voters on that issue.

"The good news for John McCain is that most Americans think he would be better at handling terrorism than Obama," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "The bad news is that terrorism seems to matter most to the people McCain already has squarely in his camp — Republicans. Just over 20 percent of Republicans say that terrorism is their number-one issue; for Democrats and Independents, that's in single digits."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

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

On 9-11 and McCain


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:51 PM

THe NY Times reports:

WASHINGTON — President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Pakistan's Military Chief Criticizes U.S. Over a Raid (September 11, 2008)
Times Topics: PakistanReaders' Comments
Share your thoughts on this article.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (383) »
The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants' increasingly secure base in Pakistan's tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military's Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan's top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."

........



(So, now what--war with Pakistan? Oy!! Such tsuris!!!)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM

Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron, the ousted chiefs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could collect as much as $24 million in exit pay (up to $9.3 million for Mr. Mudd and at least $14.1 million for Mr. Syron) unless a federal regulator sensibly says no.

Neither should be rewarded any more than they already have been for their failures.

This is the same Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron who presided over the near total wipeout of Fannie and Freddie's shareholders and whose mismanagement of the mortgage-finance companies has led to what could become the biggest federal bailout in American history.

The severance would come on top of $12.4 million in salary, bonuses and stock-option profits that Mr. Mudd has taken home since becoming Fannie's chief executive in 2004, according to Equilar research. Mr. Syron also made out big, collecting $17.1 million since he took charge of Freddie in 2003.

As of late Wednesday, the regulator, James Lockhart of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, had not yet decided on the payments.

The two men do not bear sole responsibility for the costly demise of Fannie and Freddie. Widespread regulatory failure allowed the housing bubble to inflate. And Congress also failed in its duty to oversee the companies.

But shared blame is still blame. And as the chief executives, Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron are much to blame.

We don't minimize the difficulty of their jobs: they had to make profits for their shareholders while also serving the public by providing a steady stream of funds to expand home ownership.

They failed to achieve any prudent balance. Instead, they took risks that boosted near-term profits while feeding the housing bubble that has now burst with such dire consequences for so many Americans.
(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:14 PM

The Bush Administration in the Olde Testament.

Funny, though very grim.


A

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

Facing a new reversal in federal court, the Bush administration is finding its options narrowed in its effort to stop congressional testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Joshua Bolten regarding the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

The administration had asserted a blanket claim of executive privilege in the face of congressional subpoenas, but U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected that claim as unprecedented and, on Tuesday, denied the Justice Department's request for a stay pending an appeal.

Under the ruling, Miers and Bolten now must appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about the White House role in the firings and produce documents sought by the committee.

"The Court will deny the Executive's request for a stay," Bates ruled Tuesday. "Hence, the Executive should respond to the document aspect of the subpoenas by producing non-privileged material and identifying more specifically the materials it is withholding on a claim of executive privilege.

"It is on Ms. Miers's appearance that the dispute principally focuses This decision should not, however, foreclose the parties' continuing attempts to reach a negotiated solution. Both sides indicated that discussions regarding an accommodation have resumed."

Bates's ruling said the White House "has failed to demonstrate that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the absolute immunity issue or that it has even raised a question 'so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful,' as to warrant suspending the effect of the July 31st Order pending appeal."

"The Executive's argument boils down to a claim that a stay is appropriate because the underlying issue is important," Bates wrote. "But that is beside the point and does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Simply calling an issue important -- primarily because it involves the relationship of the political branches -- does not transform the Executive's weak arguments into a likelihood of success or a substantial appellate issue. Hence, the Court concludes that this prong of the stay pending appeal analysis cuts strongly in favor of the Committee."


(Online Journal, AUgust 29 08)