BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 03:57 PM

Washington Post, 4-16-07:

Tenet's Tell-All Is a Slam Dunk to Provoke Invasion's Architects

By Al Kamen
Monday, April 16, 2007; Page A15

"The drums have begun sounding for the long-awaited book by former CIA director George Tenet, in which he gives his take on pre-9/11 days and on Saddam's huge cache of weapons of mass destruction.

And the drums are saying that Tenet is not going to get too many Christmas cards from Vice President Cheney's office after they read "At the Center of the Storm." Folks from down the river at the Pentagon, including former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz-- a guy who's already going through a rough patch -- and former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, might also get some heartburn.

Former secretary of state Colin Powell comes out fine. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was President Bush's key adviser in engineering the Iraq invasion, doesn't come out so fine. Not fine at all.

The White House definitely won't be overjoyed, we're hearing. Tenet even takes some shots at himself and for the first time explains his astute assurance that "it's a slam-dunk case" when Bush asked him how solid the WMD evidence was.

Tenet has never really explained his views on that comment. The 500-page book -- or more likely his "60 Minutes" interview on April 29, the day before the book goes on sale -- will be the first time he goes over that.

Tenet, who ran the CIA from July 1997 to July 2004, did the first of two days of taping last week at Georgetown University, where he's teaching.

..."

---

Do you suppose that civy street is really safe enough to let people breathe a bit and tell the truth? This is hopeful news! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 04:05 PM

Gozalez' credibility takes another uppercut on the chin with testimony from a Justice official who quit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:46 PM

White House Reports Trouble Retrieving Messages
   
By DAVID JOHNSTON New York Times
Published: June 9, 2000

The White House, under pressure to produce thousands of lost e-mail messages sought by Congress, has informed a House committee that it cannot find any backup records for messages sent to or from Vice President Al Gore's office in 1998 and part of 1999.

In a letter on Wednesday to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Steven F. Reich, a White House lawyer, said that because of a problem in the computer system, the White House had no backup tapes for e-mail messages from March 1998 to April 1999.

But a White House spokesman said today that some of the messages might still be found.

Technical consultants have been trying to reconstruct thousands of messages that were subpoenaed in Congressional investigations but were lost, apparently because of malfunctioning computer systems.

White House aides were aware of the problem in mid-1998, but have said they did not realize its scope or significance. Some Congressional investigators have said they suspect that the White House may have used the computer problem as an excuse not to search the e-mail records for evidence.

Today, Congressional investigators said it might never be known whether the vice presidential messages held information that could have served as evidence at a time when the battle to impeach President Clinton was at its height and the Justice Department was investigating possible fund-raising abuses by the Clinton-Gore campaign.

Jim Kennedy, the White House spokesman, said today that the e-mail messages had been lost in a system upgrade and that some might be recovered.

''There are several ways some e-mails may exist, on the computers of individual users, in hard copy or copies sent to other White House users,'' Mr. Kennedy said.

Some employees of Northrop Grumman Corporation, the company that maintained the e-mail system, have said at Congressional hearings that White House aides had told them to say nothing publicly when they discovered that more than two years of e-mail messages were missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:23 PM

Dickey -- one of these days you're gonna have to get over blaming Clinton for the evil empite. It just doesn't work, buddy! It's NOT a causal link, an exoneration, a justification, a rationalization. It in no way lessens, explains, or palliates the evil-doing you are so happily ignoring by your Gang in Washington. Get OVER it, Dude!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:31 PM

Retired General John Sheehan explains his reasoning for regretfully devlining the honor of being Bush's War Czar.

His reasons do not reflect well on the mismanagement in Washington, which is endemic and chronic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:32 PM

That should read "declining", of course. Sorry.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 12:55 AM

Amos:

Your shocking exposes that you post are noting new. You get over it and see if you can find something new.

EG: "Bush quietly authorizes opening of Americans' mail"

This is old news happened decades ago to a much greater degree but you don't want anyone to bring that fact to light lest it diminish the impact of your hate Bush campaign:

"during WWII FDR [on Amos's good presidents list] gave the FBI complete authority to lntercept all transAtlantic cables and a virtual free hand when it came to domestic surveillance, wiretapping and opening mail.

A woman got a commendation and a special medal from the government for finding a bit of microfilm under the stamp of an inocuous domestic letter that sent six German spies to the gallows.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 10:43 AM

I find it hypocritical that President Bush, citing respect for life, has such a moral objection to the use of human embryos (five-day-old blastocysts, or microscopic balls of cells) for scientific and medical research when he had no problem starting and supporting a war that has caused the deaths of thousands and did not voice any objection to the death penalty when 131 prisoners were executed while he was governor of Texas.

I guess that in Mr. Bush's ideological world, protecting laboratory-created cells is far more important than preserving the lives of the people who might be treated for diseases, disorders and trauma as a result of embryonic stem cell research.

Michael Hadjiargyrou

Stony Brook, N.Y., April 13, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

A persuasive defense of Wolfowitz makes a good case that the "scandal" being raised around Riza's raises are not of his doing and not really a matter of public business.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

from the article:

Sliming Wolfowitz
The World Bank president did nothing wrong.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 12:35 PM ET

"We know no spectacle so ridiculous," wrote Macaulay about the vilification of Lord Byron, "as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality." Change the word "ridiculous" to "contemptible," and the words "British public" to "American press," and you have some sense of the eagerness for prurience, the readiness for slander, and the utter want of fact-checking that have characterized Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza as if they were not only the equivalent of Byron seducing his half-sister, but as if they were financing their shameless lasciviousness out of the public purse and the begging bowls of the wretched of the earth.

I ought probably to say at once that I know both Wolfowitz and Riza slightly, and have known the latter for a number of years. Anyone in Washington who cares about democracy in the Muslim world is familiar with her work, at various institutions, in supporting civil-society activists in the Palestinian territories, in Iran, in the Gulf, and elsewhere. The relationship between the two of them is none of my damn business (or yours), but it has always been very discreet, even at times when Wolfowitz, regularly caricatured as a slave of the Israeli lobby, might perhaps have benefited from a strategic leak about his Arab and Muslim companion.

It is scarcely Riza's fault that she was working in a senior position at the World Bank when Wolfowitz was gazetted as its president. And quite frankly, if I were he, or indeed she, I would have challenged anyone to make anything of it. Of very few other people working there could it so obviously be said that she held her post as of right, and on merit. But we all think we know about "the appearance of a conflict of interest," and so I would like you to read what the general counsel to the bank, Robert Danino, wrote to Wolfowitz's lawyers on May 27, 2005. His letter opens like this:

First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member.

Instead of settling the matter, this disclosure and plain offer on Wolfowitz's part has become the source of all his woes. It was decided by the board of the bank and the "ethics committee" that the board established, that for no reason except a private relationship, Riza had to leave her work at the bank. Feminists and opponents of the glass ceiling should begin paying attention here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:23 PM

One of the most fundamental criticisms of George "I know how to lead" Bush was that his administration was completely underprepared for the consequences of overthrowing Hussein's regime. They did not plan to control the army, nor its arms and munitions dumps, nor the public installations, museums, hospitals or schools, water systems or electrical systems. They made no plans to deal effectively with the deep underlying tribal and sectarian schisms that Hussein held togehter sheerly by brutal force.

One of the consequences of this almost criminal negligence in responsible planbning is the plight of thousands of Iraqi refugees troughout the Middle East:

"By Peter Popham in Rome
Published: 18 April 2007
The Independent

The Iraq war was supposed to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, but to date its most palpable result has been to spread Iraqis throughout the world.

UNHCR, the United Nations' refugee agency, believes that up to two million have sought refuge outside the country since the war started, and 1.9 million have been forced to move within Iraq in fear of their lives.

The agency's chief, Antonio Gutteres, appealed for help yesterday at the first conference on the refugee crisis, saying: "It is time that the international community responded with genuine solidarity and aid to displaced Iraqis and to the states housing them."

The flood of refugees has put a huge and growing burden on neighbouring nations, especially Syria and Jordan, which in consequence are making it more and more difficult for Iraqis to enter their countries. Others in the Middle East are battening down the hatches: Kuwait now never admits Iraqis; Saudi Arabia is building a fortified barrier at a cost of $7bn (£3.7bn) to stop people crossing the border; and Egypt is accepting far fewer Iraqis than it used to.

The conference in Geneva is being attended by Iraq, its neighbours and dozens of other concerned countries. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has given delegates examples of the brutal reception awaiting would-be refugees from Iraq within the Middle East.

A Christian man in Baghdad received a death threat and his son was injured by a car bomb, prompting the man to flee to Jordan in June 2006 with his wife and four children. When his wife's father suffered a heart attack, the wife returned with their youngest son to visit him but when she tried to rejoin her family in Jordan, she and her child were refused entry. She tried again, this time by air, but was turned back.

A 40-year-old Sunni woman, whose husband was murdered in front of her, and who was then gang-raped by eight men, flew from Baghdad to Amman, the Jordanian capital, in July 2006. The woman was only allowed to enter Jordan because she persuaded immigration that she was on her way to Morocco.

Even the option of moving to safe regions within Iraq is becoming much harder. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) reported that "about half" of Iraq's central and southern provincesare turning away displaced people unless they can prove they originated in the region.

And increasingly the fate of would-be refugees comes down to religious and/or ethnic affiliation. At the Jordanian border it has become common for officials to ask if the new arrival is Sunni or Shia - and to turn them back if they are the latter. Palestinians have increasing difficulties both in moving around inside Iraq and leaving the country.

Iraqi Christians, members of the oldest Christian communities in the world, are particularly vulnerable because of their religion and because they have no militia to protect them. Christian organisations in the West have done little to help them, according to an Italian film-maker who has documented their plight.

But that failure to act is mirrored in the global community. Jordan and Syria have received about two million Iraqis, Mr Guterres told the conference, "without any meaningful support from outside".

HRW said the countries behind the war had so far failed to respond meaningfully to the crisis. The US is believed to have accepted 420 Iraqi refugees to date, although it promises to take 7,000; Britain has not agreed to accept any."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM

on May 13, 1939, the St. Louis steamed from Hamburg, Germany...
...Most of these Jews refugees would eventually die after Franklin D. Roosevelt [see Amos's good guy list] also rejected them and sent them back to Europe to face the Nazis.

Roosevelt was the leader of a democracy and his rejection of these innocent people was a crime against humanity.

Roosevelt's rejection of the Jewish refugees was the result of his fear that he would antagonize enough hypocrites in this country to cost him the 1940 election.

On June 17, 1939, the St. Louis docked at Antwerp. The end of that journey was the beginning of the Jewish holocaust.

Most of the refugees perished in Nazi labor camps, some fled to Palestine, some went into hiding during the war and then ended up in refugee camps.

Franklin Roosevelt, who turned away the Jewish refugees, has yet to be criticized for this crime against humanity.

Roosevelt's policy on Jewish refugees during WWII has been swept under the rug.

Only a small percent of Americans understand that Roosevelt would not accept the hundred of thousands of Jews who sought refuge before or during the war. If Roosevelt had adopted a policy of accepting the Jews and relocating them in this country, or to another safe haven, instead of turning them away, the Jewish holocaust would not have happened and this country would have benefited by this noble action.

And we would have less reason to criticize the French, who themselves were rounded up and shot if they were found harboring a Jew or any other "undesireable" or "enemy of the state."..."
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/15/224025.xml

"On June 8th, an eleven year old wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt:

Mother of our Country. I am so sad the Jewish people have to suffer so . . .Please let them land in America . . . It hurts me so that I would give them my little bed if it was the last thing I had because I am an American let us Americans not send them back to that slater (sic) house. We have three rooms we do not use. [My] mother would be glad to let someone have them."http://www.ajhs.org/publications/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=303

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

British shed 'war on terror' language

The term is considered too simplistic, and perhaps supportive of jihadist goals.
By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

A new direction? In New York Monday, British MP Hilary Benn criticized the US-coined term, 'war on terror.'

Daniel Berehulak/Getty ImagesLONDON - Britain is rapidly backpedaling on the "war on terror." Not the global effort to subdue jihadists, but the three-word phrase, much used by President Bush, which in the British establishiment now fear is ill-defined, oversimplistic, and excessively martial and Manichaean.

Government ministers were quietly instructed several weeks ago to avoid using the term, but matters were brought into the open Monday when a senior cabinet minister rejected the phrase during a speech in America.

Hilary Benn, the Blair government's international development secretary, told a New York think tank that the concept of a war on terror sends out the wrong message on two levels: It encourages terrorists by dignifying their cause, and it suggests that only military measures could be a useful response.

"In [Britain], we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Mr. Benn told a meeting in New York organized by the Center on International Cooperation.

His remarks may hint at a subtle political shift in Britain as it prepares for Prime Minister Tony Blair to hand over the baton some time this summer. Mr. Blair's close alliance with Mr. Bush has been deeply unpopular in the Labour Party, much of which is appalled at the Iraq campaign. When Blair leaves office, Finance minister Gordon Brown is likely to be crowned his successor, but a lively race for party deputy is shaping up. Benn is one of the leading candidates.

"The more dovish people in the cabinet have probably always been uncomfortable with this" phrase, says Michael Moore, a Liberal Democrat MP, who dislikes the "war on terror" tag. "The 'war on terror' signals to the center-left in Britain an American construct which is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, as though the more we say it the more we will create these kind of enemies." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:47 PM

Amos: As usual you dig up bullshit and try to pass it off as the truth and something new and shocking.

"British MP Hilary Benn criticized the US-coined term, 'war on terror.'"

The term goes at least as far back as 1881 when it was used by your coveted New York Times describe the conflicts between Russian anarchists and European governments. The first government to use the term was Britian

The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders. (See, for example, New York Times, April 2, 1881.) Many of the anarchists described themselves as "terrorists," and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, she threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing, "I am a terrorist, not a killer."

The next time the phrase gained currency was when it was used to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab attacks and revolts, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:13 PM

Dickey:

I don't consider the Christian Science Monitor to be bullshit. Your invective does not strengthen your point.

While the expression has antecedents, of course, the fact is it was not in common parlance at all in modern US conversations until Mister Bush resuscitated it and tried to make a national policy out of it.

The fact that people have tried something before is NOT a rationalization for trying it again. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch-hunts, and the effort to fly using muscle-powered wings are fine examples.

As for your personal invective, here's a joke for you:

"Knock, knock"
"Argo"
"Argo who?"

-----------(Fill in the blank).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:51 PM

Amos: Bullshit is a very mild invective as compared with your "raving destructive psychosis"

Do you deny that FDR did much worse in regard to refusing refugees or would you rather analyze my use of the word bullshit which you innitially used to describe =me as a biggot becasue I posted two contrastng photos of women in Iraq vs women in Iran.

You never answered my question about why it constitued biggotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:13 AM

Oh, bullshit, Dickey. You take one picture of a hanged woman, presumably Iranian, and say it represents the status of women in Iran. That is an attempt at bigotry. I have no idea what you thought you were doing, but it was pure codswallop to make the insinuation.


The fact that you asked a MAN if women were being treated OK in Iran did constitute biggotry.

"Colonel Beauregard, How are the slaves on your plantation being treated?"

"Just fine Suh."

Case closed. BANG !

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM

Whatever are you on about? I asked no man. I went and found counter-examples in photos.

While I don't usually think of the Monitor as BS, I do think your attempt to make one scary picture stand for the fate of "women" in Iran as BS. There is plenty wrong with the fate of women in almost every Muslim country, but a decent respect for the opinions of others requires that you state things clearly, not engage in panic-mongering rhetoric.

As for FDR, you are just throwing red herrings about like a madman. You dragged him into this with your endless effort to prove the past justifies the present, which it does not. Fuck FDR. He did a lot of good things, he did some bad things, and he has been dead for years. Why use him as a foil?

My charge of psychosis may seem a bit heated, I understand. By their fruits, ye shall know them. Lots of blood, spilled guts, lost limbs, ruined minds stemmed from Bush's signature on the rollout from Kuwait to Baghdad.

It was not a well thought-through move. It was childishly, even petulantly done, by a group of poseurs without the competence needed to do it well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:41 PM

And I explained the reason for my use of the term bigotry, several times. Sorry you missed it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM

From The Nation:

"Once upon a time, Republicans believed in diplomacy. They spoke with enemies. Recall Richard Nixon: As President, he negotiated with the Soviets, the Chinese and the North Vietnamese, who were shooting at US troops at the time. Nowadays, the Bush Administration too often dismisses diplomacy and, when it does, is cheered on by neoconservatives and conservatives who misguidedly equate communication with weakness. The recent hullabaloo about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is illustrative. The White House and its allies denounced Pelosi for daring to speak to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, claiming she was undermining US policy. (Curiously, Bush didn't slam three Republican House members who days earlier had conferred with Assad or lambaste GOP Representative Dave Hobson, part of the Pelosi delegation, or GOP Representative Darrell Issa, who met with Assad the day after Pelosi left Damascus.)

Yet Pelosi, who affirmed US policy toward Syria in her conversation with Assad, was merely following the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Republican Secretary of State James Baker, which suggested that to find peace in Iraq it would be wise to try to deal with Iran and Syria. The Administration took a slight step in that direction when US diplomats attended a March security conference in Baghdad with Syrian and Iranian envoys. And for the moment--much to the consternation of conservatives--it is giving diplomacy a chance on North Korea. But when it comes to the big picture, the Administration still prefers bullying and threats of military action to the hard work of talking and negotiating. Iran's defiant announcement that it has begun enriching uranium on an industrial scale shows that this approach hasn't paid off.

Bush and his cowboy allies argue that America must isolate Iran and Syria. But because of Bush's stunning misadventure in Iraq, the United States needs more, not fewer, channels of communication in that region. And with a greater US military presence in the Persian Gulf, the odds of an unintentional clash between Iran and the United States increase. Imagine what might have been triggered--perhaps accidentally--had Iranian military vessels surrounded an American ship instead of a British one. In the British-Iranian face-off, Prime Minister Tony Blair achieved the release of the British hostages without resorting to threats or force. Yet the big-stick crowd in Washington derided Blair. ..Bush does not believe in the power of negotiation and compromise--as evidenced even by his dealings with Congressional Democrats. He recently awarded recess appointments to nominees opposed by legislators, gratuitously poking the Democrats in the eye when he should be working with them, especially to resolve the mess in Iraq. Bush has isolated himself on domestic and foreign matters. We need more diplomacy--at home and abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:07 AM

"We've had a few who came closer than the rest. Despite all the hatred stirred up about him, Clinton seemed to hold to those values, and he was literate, although he played political smokescreens on occasion. I think Ike was a representative despite his soft-spoken undramatic ways. FDR had some of those virtues, as did Washington and Lincoln, despite their shortcomings. Even GHB had many, or at least the ability to camouflage those he lacked. W, in my opinion, does not even do that much, and he is mushy at the very core."

Your claim that some of the hings being done by the Bush administration are unprecedented and wrong are false.

So now it is fuck FDR? When ever something Clinton did is brought up, you groan and say "blame it on Clinton" but you bever hesitate to mention Reagan or HW Bush when it suits you.

Very persuasive and eloquent.

the Bush administration had all eight — an unprecedented number — ousted for political reasons.

Reno's abrupt firing of all [93] the U.S. attorneys had been described as extreme and unprecedented.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:33 AM

Dickey:

The issue around which this thread is built is how the Bush administration is perceived by various viewpoints in the society. What you, or anyone else, thinks about FDR, or Clinton, has very little to do with it. Reagan is demonstrably a direct antecedent to many of the Bush policies, so he may be a bit ore germane to the topic at hand.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:00 PM

April 26 Wed.
Wonderful don't miss it.

http://www.rense.com/general76/moryers.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:10 PM

Amos: Does it matter if the views are right or wrong? Does logic enter into the "truths" you post here?

If you say something is unprecedented when in fact it was preceded, does it matter to you?

Evidently not.

Here is what Amos says. Don't question it. Don't believe what anyone else to the contrary. Just beleive it.

This is a forum isn't it or have you conscripted it as your private broadcasting station? Air Amos?

I will post my opinions here and you post yours plus your inaccurate, illogical opinions dug up from whatever left wing cult sources you can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM

Alberto Gonzales has stated that he strongly believes there has been no wrong doing.
He will vigorously investige himself without any preconceived ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM

Sigh. I'll use my left wing cult sources, you use your right wing cult sources and we can stick out tongues out at each other. Make ya happy?

If you think the charges levied against Bush are unfair, then for Crissakes point out why they seem that way to you. Calling on precedent has nothing to do with it. Except, as you say, to contend against some claim of "unprecedented". Unfortunately you aren't hel[ping me by not citing what I said, as I don't recall it and am not going to go searching.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:59 PM

TIPP CITY, Ohio, April 19 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and fellow Republicans struggled on Thursday with comparisons between the U.S. wars in Iraq and Vietnam as the Senate's top Democrat declared the Iraq lost.

A day after a White House meeting with lawmakers failed to resolve differences over whether to attach a troop withdrawal plan to a war funding bill, Bush and the Democrats continued their feud from afar.

Asked to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that still weighs on the American psyche three decades after it ended, Bush told an Ohio audience a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could lead to chaos and death the same way war broke out between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

"After Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life. My concern is there would be a parallel there," Bush said, adding that "This time around, the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East, they'd follow us here."

Bush says he will veto legislation containing the $100 billion in war funding -- money he requested -- if Democrats persist in plans to attach a troop withdrawal timetable to it.

But in Washington, Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat and leader of the Senate majority, said he had taken a message to Bush in their White House meeting on Wednesday that "this war is lost" and Bush's troop buildup plan "is not accomplishing anything" after insurgent bombs killed nearly 200 people that day in Baghdad

(Reuters)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM

An editorialarticulating several key points of hypocrisy in the Administration as regards real attitudes toward terrorism and toward democratic governments.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:25 AM

To the Editor:

The testimony of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reflects the character of this administration, particularly its leader: incompetent, deceptive, arrogant, shallow, agenda driven, unable to explain decisions except in self-referential terms instead of rational ones.

Our release date is down to 21 months. Can we make it?

John E. Colbert

Chicago, April 20, 2007

•

To the Editor:

It is both embarrassing and frightening to see such a spectacle being performed before the nation and the world by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

He's a political hack, a crony, a "Bushie" without any integrity who is a stranger to the truth. I have no respect for this man, for he has put us all in jeopardy, harmed our judicial system and seems not to comprehend his destructiveness.

Joan Magit

Northridge, Calif., April 20, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Re "A Dozen Questions for Alberto Gonzales" (Op-Ed, April 19):

It is time for President Bush and his administration to start displaying loyalty from the top down, instead of expecting it from the bottom up.

President Bush should display his loyalty to the people of the United States of America, and not the other way around. I say this with all respect as a lifelong Republican.

Molly Sword McDonough

Pennington, N.J., April 19, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 03:26 PM

Amos:

Are you familiar with the same charges made against the Clinton administration regarding US attorney firings?

All thas crap is Dejavue. Email lost on porpose, yada yada yada. None of it is new but you make believe this is some new domension in immorality and abuse of power.

"fly using muscle-powered wings are fine examples."

Are you aware of the Gossamer Albatross?

Evidently Leonardo wasn't so stupid after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 03:54 PM

Dickey:

You just gotta twist things, doncha.

Blaming Clinton does not rectify the current morass. Get off that button, wouldja? Clinton did ten times the god for the country that Bush ever did and only a small fraction of the ill.

The Albatroos, for your information, did not use muscle-powered wings. It used a pedal-powered propellor and fixed wings.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 04:13 PM

Gotta keep bringing up Clinton whenever the Bush administration comes under criticism. It's all the Bush apologists have.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:07 PM

Lee Iacocca blasts Bush & Cheney as "clueless bozos"
by John Aravosis (DC) · 4/21/2007 12:33:00 PM ET

An excerpt from Iacocca's new book:

"...Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have....

Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them-or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy....

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day-and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.

That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq-a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will....

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough?

Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises-the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:38 PM

WOW!! My sentiments exactly!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:05 PM

And Frank Rich of the Times adds:

"PRESIDENT BUSH has skipped the funerals of the troops he sent to Iraq. He took his sweet time to get to Katrina-devastated New Orleans. But last week he raced to Virginia Tech with an alacrity not seen since he hustled from Crawford to Washington to sign a bill interfering in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life medical care. Mr. Bush assumes the role of mourner in chief on a selective basis, and, as usual with the decider, the decisive factor is politics. Let Walter Reed erupt in scandal, and he'll take six weeks to show his face — and on a Friday at that, to hide the story in the Saturday papers. The heinous slaughter in Blacksburg, Va., by contrast, was a rare opportunity for him to ostentatiously feel the pain of families whose suffering cannot be blamed on the administration.

But he couldn't inspire the kind of public acclaim that followed his post-9/11 visit to ground zero or the political comeback that buoyed his predecessor after Oklahoma City. The cancer on the Bush White House, Iraq, is now spreading too fast. The president had barely returned to Washington when the empty hope of the "surge" was hideously mocked by a one-day Baghdad civilian death toll more than five times that of Blacksburg's. McClatchy Newspapers reported that the death rate for American troops over the past six months was at its all-time high for this war.

At home, the president is also hobbled by the Iraq cancer's metastasis — the twin implosions of Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz. Technically, both men have been pilloried for sins unrelated to the war. The attorney general has repeatedly been caught changing his story about the extent of his involvement in purging eight federal prosecutors. The Financial Times caught the former deputy secretary of defense turned World Bank president privately dictating the extravagant terms of a State Department sinecure for a crony (a k a romantic partner) that showers her with more take-home pay than Condoleezza Rice.

Yet each man's latest infractions, however serious, are mere misdemeanors next to their roles in the Iraq war. What's being lost in the Beltway uproar is the extent to which the lying, cronyism and arrogance showcased by the current scandals are of a piece with the lying, cronyism and arrogance that led to all the military funerals that Mr. Bush dares not attend. Having slept through the fraudulent selling of the war, Washington is still having trouble confronting the big picture of the Bush White House. Its dense web of deceit is the deliberate product of its amoral culture, not a haphazard potpourri of individual blunders...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:12 AM

"President Bush is taking every opportunity to rail against the troop withdrawal deadlines in the war-spending bills that Congress is readying for passage. He warns that Congressional attempts to set deadlines will harm the troops in Iraq, because a political fight over timetables will delay money needed for the frontlines.

The assertion is completely contrived. Mr. Bush voiced no such misgivings last year, when the Republican-led Congress took until June to complete a war financing bill. The $103 billion Mr. Bush wants— and Congress is ready to provide — is for spending through the end of September. It's not needed in a lump sum or on any particular date in the near future. In the end, the real obstacle to getting the money promptly to the troops will be the veto that the president has threatened to issue on the final bill.

To further disparage the bills, Mr. Bush also accuses the Democrats of larding them up with "pork." That's just as diversionary as Mr. Bush's attempts to convince Americans that Congress is withholding money from the troops. The bills include roughly $20 billion in extra spending. About a quarter of it, nearly $5 billion, is for health care for veterans and active-duty members of the military and for expanding some military bases while closing others. Billions of dollars more are for other federal responsibilities that have been chronically neglected during the Bush years, including $1.3 billion to pay for post-Katrina levee repairs in Louisiana, $750 million for the state and federal health care partnership that insures poor children and roughly $500 million to help the poor pay for heat in the winter. And on it goes, money for homeland security, wildfire suppression, avian flu preparedness and other national issues.

Relatively little of the extra spending is targeted to lawmakers' home districts — a precondition for labeling something pork. Mr. Bush invariably chooses to mock $25 million allotted for spinach growers in California. But that money is intended to mitigate growers' losses from their voluntary recall of spinach during a bacterial contamination last September, which is the type of emergency that supplemental spending bills are supposed to address. ..."

(Excerpt from NY TImes Editorial, 4-23-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:42 AM

..."The Republicans don't like Harry Reid and his assessment of the war. But too bad. This is not Harry Reid's mess. This military disaster belongs 100% to Bush and the Republican Party. This is their war. If they don't like it being called a failure, or that it is "lost," then they should demonstrate its successes and spare us the incessant partisan rhetoric. Stop regurgitating all this BS about progress and success and show it to us.

Bush and the Republicans, in their supreme arrogance, are choosing to ignore the will of the electorate; choosing to forget that a majority of Americans voted for a change in leadership last November, and that the administration's failed Iraq policy was the primary reason for this changing of the guard. Harry Reid is doing what the American people asked him to do: exercising greater Congressional oversight than when the GOP foxes were the ones guarding the henhouse. Bush and his Iraq War Mob don't get to run amok in Iraq, causing tens of thousands of deaths, and then expect a free pass here at home on the PR front.

What's worse, saying those who are against the Bushies' failed Iraq war are therefore against the troops, is a shameful, despicable political calculation. Sorry George, Sen. Reid and the Democrats just don't believe that the way to support the troops is to send more of them to die in an unjust, miserable failure of a war that you and you alone created. Kudos to Reid for having the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said."...

From < a href=http://www.ostroyreport.blogspot.com/>The Ostrov Report for 4-23-07.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:46 PM

More from Mister Iacocca:

"A Hell of a Mess

So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with
no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running
the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're
losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great
companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas
prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent
energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are
like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which
way. These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all
the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative
communicators? Where are the people of character, courage,
conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker
for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security
than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away
our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge
new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things
that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane
Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating
the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability
for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after
the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping
it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms
happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're
going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about
how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who
would have b elieved that there could ever be a time when "the
Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this
happen-and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for
paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or
managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening.
But these are the crises that are eating away at our country
and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to
sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our
democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being
replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of?
That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give
me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:02 PM

Normally, I don't particularly like to add books on current politics to my library because they tend to be dated, with relatively short-lived relevance, so I try to get them from the library. I'm on the hold list for Iacocca's book. Thirteen people ahead of me. So people are reading it. GOOD!

Hell's bells! It's refreshing to read some the straight, unvarnished (uncastrated) truth from someone like Lee Iacocca! He's 82 years old, otherwise I would say, Let's elect him President!

Oh, wotthehell! Let's elect him anyway and hope that he lives, healthy and alert, well into his mid-nineties and far beyond.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:08 PM

I'd vote for him, but it wouldn't do him any personal favors to send him into that vipers' pit. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 08:18 PM

Democrats Challenge Bush on Iraq Bill
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Monday, April 23, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article











(04-23) 16:13 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
A historic veto showdown assured, Democratic leaders agreed Monday on legislation that requires the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a speech in which he accused the president of living in a state of denial about events in Iraq more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Bush, confident of enough votes to sustain his veto, was unambiguous in his response. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job," he told reporters in the Oval Office as he met with his top Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus.
Taken together, the day's events marked the quickening of a confrontation that has been building since Democrats took control of Congress in January and promised to change policy in a war has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 10:34 PM

A continuation of the article abive which illustrates, much to the chagrin of Amos, that the Clinton administration was hated as much or more that the Bush administration. Amos uses the Bush administration to try to cover up for mush worse abuses of power by past administrations like Clinton and FDR.

Clinton and his followers raked in big bucks from the rich and dumped working people, the poor and grass-roots activists. by Jeff Cohen

      While the Gore-Lieberman defeat in 2000 gave Republicans control of the White House and Congress for the first time in half a century, the Democratic debacle in 1994 was just as momentous. The Gingrich victory was the natural consequence of Clintonism, as the Republicans took over Congress in low-turnout elections with an activist base inspired by a right-wing program.
      The Democratic base, meanwhile, was disoriented and dispirited. They'd just witnessed the Clinton White House steamroll over labor, environmental and consumer rights advocates to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). And they'd seen a president and first lady unwilling to fight for Canadian-style national health insurance - instead offering a proposal supported by big insurers that was so bureaucratic and convoluted it collapsed of its own weight without coming up for a vote.
      Behind the rise of Clintonism has been the Democratic Leadership Council, a Washington outfit of largely Southern Democratic politicians that makes up for its lack of a mass base with a bounty of corporate cash - from a wide array of firms such as ARCO, Chevron, Du Pont, Philip Morris and Merck. It has become the main policy voice of corporate America inside the Democratic Party, supporting "free trade," partial privatization of Social Security, increased military spending and other positions unpopular with rank-and-file Democrats. It was set up to weaken the power of unions, feminists and civil rights activists in Washington.
      Years ago, these folks might have been called "Rockefeller Republicans"; now they dominate the party of working people. Gore was one of the founders of the DLC in the mid-1980s. Joe Lieberman was the group's chairman when he was drafted by Gore last year. Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, was its national chairman when he launched his long-shot bid for the presidency in 1991.
      Even if Clinton were to disappear in disgrace, there would still remain a well-funded and influential DLC. A dinner last month honoring Lieberman and benefiting a DLC-allied political committee, the New Democrats Network, raised $1.2 million dollars from the likes of Aetna, American Airlines, AT&T, Citicorp and GE. When elite media pundits - many of whom cheer the DLC's economic conservatism and social liberalism - discuss Democratic presidential prospects for 2004, they regularly promote DLCers such as Gore, Lieberman and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, the group's new chairman.
      Most Democratic activists and many office-holders vigorously oppose the DLC and its Republican-lite agenda. Some refer to it as "Democrats for the Leisure Class." The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is diametrically opposed to the DLC, has more than 50 members in the U.S. House.
      Progressive, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. recently wrote: "In 1992, a conservative Democrat, Bill Clinton, selected an even more conservative running mate, Al Gore, who in 2000 selected an even more conservative running mate, Joseph Lieberman. By helping to shift the Democratic Party and the country further right, a very conservative George W. Bush could select an ultra-conservative Dick Cheney as his running mate - and win."
      In last year's presidential contest that pitted the DLC ticket of Gore-Lieberman against the GOP, there was no debate on many issues that matter to the Democratic base - from trade, corporate welfare and bloated military spending to criminal justice issues like capital punishment and the counterproductive, racially tinged drug war, which helped boost America's prison population during the Clinton years from 1.4 million to more than 2 million people.
      Many Democrats rebelled against the presidential ticket in 2000 by voting Green for Ralph Nader. Millions more voted Democratic grudgingly to fend off the right wing. Ironically, the best way for progressive activists to fend off right-wingers might be to imitate them. Beginning about 25 years ago, cultural conservatives and the religious right became local Republican activists, immersing themselves in local elections and primary fights. Then, state by state, they took over the Republican Party and energized it for their grassroots agenda of guns, God and tax cuts. Their success within the GOP has reshaped the national debate.
      Progressive activists - for labor, consumer, environmental, women's and civil rights - might similarly enter local and Democratic primary battles to elect their own and defeat candidates anointed by big money and the DLC. Such local activists would find support in Washington from unions and other issues groups, as well as counterweights to the DLC like the Campaign for America's Future and Americans for Democratic Action. If it becomes clear that money has rendered the Democratic Party's structure impenetrable to its own activist base, the resulting exodus to the Green Party or some other third party will dwarf last year's protest vote for Nader.
      Before the pardon furor, Bill Clinton was intent on remaining the leader of the Democratic Party. Toward that end, he installed his personal fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe - a financial executive well-connected to big business - as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Once hailed by media pundits for steering Democrats toward centrism, Clinton is now tarnished by government and media probes; NBC News airs "Clinton Watch" segments on the scandal.
      In theory, Clinton has exited Washington. But the horse he rode in on - money-drenched DLC politics - is still there, alive and kicking.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:39 PM

Jaysus, Dick, take a rest, man. You seem obsessed with brother Bill. :D All this blather doesn't change any of the good he did, and it doesn't change any of the bogus slander the RNC gang dumped on him.

At least he didn't cause thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths by sheer stupidity and cronyism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:09 AM

The rest of the world may miss Bill Clinton, but do Americans? Increasingly, they do. As President Bush's numbers have gone down, Bill Clinton's have gone up -- to the point where a majority of Americans now say they miss him.

From CNN

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:29 AM

The Neocon Paradox

By ROBERT WRIGHT
Published: April 24, 2007 -- NY Times

Neoconservatives have been airing an explanation for the failure of the Iraq war that's so obvious you'll wonder why you didn't think of it yourself: the war wasn't neoconservative enough.

Last week Richard Perle, on "The Charlie Rose Show," echoed what his fellow neocon John Bolton told the BBC last month: We should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis much sooner. Then, presumably, the power of democracy to blossom pronto in even nutrient-depleted soil — the neocon élan vital — would have kicked in.

Nice try, but they're just digging themselves in deeper. They're highlighting a paradox within the neocon game plan that would have doomed this war even if it had been run competently (enough troops, a dollop of postwar planning, etc.).

On the one hand, we were going to bring democracy to Iraq. On the other hand, we were going to use Iraq as a platform for exercising military power. (Days after Baghdad fell, the neocon Weekly Standard festively titled an article "There's No Place Like Iraq ... for U.S. Military Bases.")

But wait. What if the Iraqi people, once empowered by democracy, decided they didn't want their country to be a U.S. aircraft carrier? And isn't that pretty likely? After all, America is bound to use bases on behalf of itself and key allies, and one key ally is Israel. What were the chances this would sit well with an Arab Muslim nation — not with the small ruling class of an authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia (our previous aircraft carrier) but with a whole electorate?

Maybe if we had resolved with miraculous speed the tensions besetting Israel — from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran — U.S. troops could have stayed in the Iraqis' good graces. But neocons weren't exactly pushing for dialogue on those fronts. They were going to let their new aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Iraq, do the talking. And surely Iraq's majority Shiites would applaud the use of their soil to threaten Shiite Iran, right?

Meanwhile, neocons, and the Bush administration broadly, were endorsing the policies of Ariel Sharon, whose assertive policing of the occupied territories was proving counterproductive, helping to radicalize both Palestinian opinion and, via Al Jazeera, Muslim opinion globally.

You can empower people through democracy if you want. You can systematically antagonize them if you want. Doing both at once is ill advised.

Critics murmur that neoconservatism is "all about Israel." I wish! Then the damage might be confined to one region. Alas, the neocon paradox — empower people and enrage them — is global. Neocons want to make China democratic ASAP; meanwhile, they pass the time arousing anti-American Chinese nationalism with vestigial cold war rants. Fortunately, they won fewer intra-administration battles over China than over the Middle East.

Even if neocons weren't bent on spreading democracy, their chronic inflammation of world opinion would be unhealthy, because much of the world is already democratic and more of it will probably become that way.

But leave democracy aside. There's another reason grass-roots opinion matters crucially.

A confluence of technologies, from the Internet to biotechnology, is making it easier and easier for far-flung hatred to assume organized form, intersect with weapons technology and constitute unprecedently potent terrorism. This growing lethality of hatred may be the biggest long-term problem we face.

Here's a response favored by many left-of-center and right-of-center thinkers. Address the "demand side" — the desire to obtain and use nuclear and biological weapons — by reducing the number of people who hate the U.S. and the West. Address the "supply side" by improving arms control.

Neocons take the opposite tack: degrade the arms control infrastructure (the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, etc.) and antagonize the masses. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

Jaysus, Amos, take a rest, man. You seem obsessed with brother Bush.

Amos: 221 posts
Dickey:78 posts

You will no doubt claim I am "twisting" things again but it is simply looking at the facts and applying your own logic to you.

---

"...AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, UN figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Overlap) That's not true. That's not true. And that's not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, and you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer -- $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer -- $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He's got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago.

If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it's because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children. We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapon system and his military statement. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shi'ites.

He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo, and if they're hungry or they are not getting medicine, it is h is own fault.

AMY GOODMAN: The past two UN heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the US policy ... US/UN policy, genocidal. What is your response to that?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They're wrong! They think that we should reward ... Saddam Hussein says, I'm going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then I will stop starving my kids. And so we are supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. That's just not right! I know they ... you know, the truth is a lot of these people want to start doing business with Saddam Hussein again because they want his money. ..."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/22/148258

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

Well, I tole ya he was a smart guy, Dick. ;>)

By the way, it should be noted that your article comes from some years back. It helps to stay clear on what changed when. I think that interview was in 2000.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:38 AM

Just by the way, Dick, since it isn't really on the topic of this thread, but I thought you mighthave also included the folling excerpt from Clinton's discussion with Amy Goodman:

"PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm glad you asked that, and that's the last question I've got time for. I'll be happy to ... answer that. What is the measure of taking the Democratic Party to the right? That we cut the welfare rolls in half? That poverty is at a 20 year low? That child poverty has been cut by a third in our administration? That the incomes of average Americans have gone up 15 percent after inflation? That poverty among seniors has gone below 10 percent for the first time in American history? That we have the lowest African American, the lowest Latino unemployment rate in the history of the country? That we have a 500 percent increase in the number of minority kids taking advanced placement tests?

That the schools in this country, that the test scores among ... since we have required all the schools to have basic standard test scores, among African Americans and other minorities have gone up steadily? Now what (Overlap)

AMY GOODMAN: Can I say that some people ...

...
Under this administration, 43 million more Americans are breathing cleaner air. We have safer drinking water, safer food, cleaner water. We have more land set aside than any administration in history since Theodore Roosevelt. We have cleaned up three times as many toxic waste sites as the previous administrations did in 12 years. And we passed a chemical right-to-know law that is a very tough law. It's the best environmental record in history.

Al Gore's opponent, and one of the two of them are going to be President ... Al Gore's opponent has promised to weaken the clean air standards, and repeal a lot of the land protections. Now, those are the facts. People can say whatever they want to. Those are the facts."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:50 AM

If you will only give the American Enterprise Institute neocon plan for a 1,000 year Reich..no I mean a New American Century a second chance we WILL rule the world.

Timelines equal defeat!

If you listen carefully the neocon plan is honest when they tell us that the war on terrorism is one that will take several generations.

Diplomacy, political solutions and a push for religious tolerence are seemingly not on the table.

There is only one shortcut for the military industrial complex to a decisive war against radical Islam, and those invlove a pre emptive tactical nuclear weapon war of vast proportion.
Instead of using 20 megaton weapons we use thousands of kiloton weapons from Africa to Indonesia.

Short of that, the true war on Terror timeline has guaranteed that our children's children will engage in what will seem like a never ending war.

This is wonderful news for our defense contractors but they fail to see that we will run out of funds long before any winner can be crowned.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM

What makes views popular?

http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.tv/orwellrolls.php

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 04:05 PM

From "The Spoof":

Laura Bush Plans Impeachment Gala
Written by The Noosance
Story written: 24 April 2007

She's looking forward to the festivities In the event that any of the illegalities he has perpetrated are brought to a court of law, a proactive Laura Bush wants to be prepared for her husband's possible impeachment, her press secretary said in confidentiality.

"She is conferring with Washington caterers and party planners, determined to make this the most lavish impeachment gala in American history. Not only will the food and entertainment represent all the states that the ousted President disappointed, Kim Jong Il will be the headliner, doing his Elvis impersonator set."

The press secretary added, "And as a special send-off to her husband, she will have an extravagant, $100,000 peanut butter and jelly station, in honor of the soon-to-be-ex-President's favorite cuisine."

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.