BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 05:26 AM

Since the old thread has bitten the dust, I thought we should continue the theme with a new thread. I still think Bush is rather cute, how about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 05:48 AM

I have found the agenda in writing that John Bolton is to carry out.
At its heart there is extortion which suits John Bolton for the UN job above and beyond other candidates.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst061305.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 05:52 AM

Nice thought

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:01 AM

The 50 Dumbest Things President Bush Said in His First Term
What's the dumbest thing President Bush has ever said?
'My answer is bring them on.' —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.'

'Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'

'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'

'If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.'

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:05 AM

Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you're going to do about it." —George W. Bush, Kirtland, Ohio, April 15, 2005

"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005

"I understand there's a suspicion that we—we're too security-conscience." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:09 AM

Bring them on will eventually become via propoganda as a valient hearalding cry of a great warrior but will resound like Remember the Alamo.

Here is my cinematic take on the supreme teen age immaturity and stupidity of fearless leader...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/winds-of-war1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:19 AM

One that should definitely be in the top ten dumbest answera.

In response to a question from a journalist, "Mr. President, do you really believe the Iraqi insurgents can be defeated?", he replied "They ARE being defeated, thats why they keep on fighting".

Hard to put that one down as a speech impediment, or lack of expertise in public speaking. Comes across more like a brain impediment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:25 AM

good one.

the "We are winnin" picture http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/trainecon.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 11:58 AM

Yo Donuel,
          Have you got any NICE pictures of Mr Bush that I could use as a screensaver?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 12:09 PM

Bush's best

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 02:48 PM

Tell me it ain't so, Joe! No, no, a thousand times no! Amos lost his own personal thread to the gremlins? Shucks shoot, I'll bet Karl Rove ordered it done. Oh well, I'm sure with due diligence, Amos can get it back up to a thousand plus hits before too long. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

If your Bushwhacker wasn't such a moron, it would be alot harder than you imagine.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 04:11 PM

LOL.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bainbo
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 04:49 PM

I don't know. Do you think it bothers the guy that the words Reaganomics, Thatcherite and Blairism have all entered the language to refer to ideologes and economic policies, whereas Bushism is, according to my dictionary (Penguin): "A verbal slip or illogicality uttered by George W Bush, the 43rd president of the United States"?

Or hasn't it registered with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 05:03 PM

Nice (Mr. Bush picture) as in happy and laughing?


http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushlaughsa.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:47 PM

You know, Sttaw Legend, I always wondered where he got all that hot air from. Thanks for the answer.

LOLOL
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 07:45 PM

Cheney calls the Downing St. memos the "so called Downing St. memo.

Do you think the memos will gather momentum against or for the Neo con regieme?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 08:16 PM

Bushism isn't the only one of those terms to an insult.

Blairism. Some Views...

Realists view:
Promising that you'll make everything better, doing very little, and hoping that whenever the people notice, they still hate the opposition.

The Lefts view:
Watered down Thatcherism betraying everything the Labour party has ever meant etc ad infinium

The Rights view:
Watered down Socialism taking the country back to bad old days of the 70's.

All:
Incompetently run, and full of bad ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 04:14 AM

Mudcatism:
Wishy washy ultra left wing views by old hippies with Fisher Price computers in thier retirement homes.

The French view:
Cheese eating surrender monkeys

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:33 PM

Geeze, Joe, do we really need TWO of these threads?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: jaze
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 10:09 PM

Why do you read them, Doug?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 11:49 PM

Hicks adrift in US terror debate: The Age; June 18, 2005

This weekend David Hicks is meeting his American and his new Australian lawyers at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, to prepare his defence against charges by a military commission.... A decision is due at the end of the month on a Federal Court appeal by the Administration against a ruling by a Federal Court judge, who found that the military commissions [at Guantanamo Bay] were unlawful. If the appeal fails, the Administration has signalled that it will take the case to the Supreme Court, which means Hicks could spend another 12 months waiting for his commission hearing.

It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity [said] MICHAEL WIGGINS, deputy associate Attorney-General

But the Guantanamo debate is becoming more and more heated and is part of a wider debate about the war in Iraq and the US war on terror.

In the past fortnight, a number of polls have shown that not only do most Americans now think the war in Iraq was a mistake, but that the war has made America less secure.

Crucially, only 50 per cent of Americans now believe Mr Bush is doing a good job on security.

This week, about 40 Republicans in the House of Representatives joined Democrats to vote down parts of the Patriot Act, which Mr Bush said gave the FBI and other security agencies the powers needed to track and apprehend terrorists.

Michael Wiggins, deputy associate Attorney-General, was asked for how long the detainees at Guantanamo, classified as enemy combatants, but not charged with any specific crimes, could be held.

"As long as we are at war," he said.

Had the Justice Department defined when there is the end of conflict? Democrat senator Joseph Biden asked.

"No sir," Mr Wiggins said.

"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever; forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Senator Biden said.

"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Mr Wiggins said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 07:52 AM

New US move to spoil climate accord; Mark Townsend in New York
Sunday June 19, 2005; The Observer

Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer. These papers - part of the Bush administration's submission to the G8 action plan for Gleneagles next month - show how the United States, over the past two months, has been secretly undermining Tony Blair's proposals to tackle climate change.

The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G8 negotiations. They also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.

The documents show that Washington officials:

· Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a 'serious threat to human health and to ecosystems';

· Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;

· Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.

Among the sentences removed was the following: 'Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.'

Another section erased by the White House adds: 'Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that ... mankind's activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.' The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has dismissed the leaking of draft communiques on the grounds that 'there is everything to play for at Gleneagles.' However, there is no doubt that many UK officials have become exasperated by the Bush administration's refusal to accept the basic principle that climate change is happening now and is due to man's activities.

more here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 09:47 AM

Iraq prewar bombings were illegal

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 10:24 PM

One of the most articulate summaries of the path to our present bogwallow of failed
diplomacy can be found in this essay at Common Dreams.

It is called "The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War". Highly recommended.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:41 PM

The Washington Post makes an analysis of why Bush may be the worst President in history.

A short excerpt:

"Nixon considered himself above the law.

"Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world.

"Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law."

The full story is on this page.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:24 AM

The Times examines more of the same regarding the Bush Administration:

A Gag on Free Speech
   /h3>         


Published: December 15, 2006

The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what's in it to know what's at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint — almost always a serious infringement on free speech — and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.

Justice Department lawyers have issued a grand jury subpoena to the A.C.L.U. demanding that it hand over "any and all copies" of the three-and-a-half-page government document, which was recently leaked to the group. The A.C.L.U. is asking a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to quash the subpoena.

There are at least two serious problems with the government's action. It goes far beyond what the law recognizes as the legitimate purpose of a subpoena. Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the A.C.L.U.'s document for an investigation since it already has its own copy. It is instead trying to confiscate every available copy of the document to keep its contents secret. The A.C.L.U. says it knows of no other case in which a grand jury subpoena has been used this way.

The subpoena is also a prior restraint because the government is trying to stop the A.C.L.U. in advance from speaking about the document's contents. The Supreme Court has held that prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional. The danger is too great that the government will overreach and use them to ban protected speech or interfere with free expression by forcing the media, and other speakers, to wait for their words to be cleared in advance. The correct way to deal with speech is to evaluate its legality after it has occurred.

The Supreme Court affirmed these vital principles in the Pentagon Papers case, when it rejected the Nixon administration's attempts to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing government documents that reflected badly on its prosecution of the Vietnam War. If the Nixon administration had been able to use the technique that the Bush administration is trying now, it could have blocked publication simply by ordering the newspapers to hand over every copy they had of the papers.

If the A.C.L.U.'s description of its secret document is correct, there is no legitimate national defense issue. The document does not contain anything like intelligence sources or troop movements, the group says. It is merely a general statement of policy whose release "might perhaps be mildly embarrassing to the government." ...

(snip)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 09:35 AM

"I am the decider"
"I will not be rushed into a decision on Iraq"
GWB


"The problems in Iraq are clearly because of the media."
Laura Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 11:41 PM

A bold and heartfelt essay by a young Marine can be found on this page.

A short excerpt:

"A Young Marine Speaks Out


by Philip Martin



I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for.

President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's elections...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 12:38 PM

Ms Huffington opines:

"I have no doubt that when Bush presents his "surge" plan, or "New Way Forward," or whatever meaningless term he's going to call it, he'll present it in the most sugar-coated way possible.

Part of what has enabled this disastrous war from the beginning has been the willful delusion about who       George Bush is and how he operates. Harry Reid will go along with my plan if I tell him it's "temporary"? Fine, Harry, "the plan is temporary." But only someone with a surge of insanity would go along with this.

Which is why the public voted the way it did in November and why only 12% of Americans support this "surge." George Bush has no intention of pulling the troops out. The only thing this surge will accomplish is a surge of more death and destruction.

Harry Reid began his segment today by talking about the health of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson. We all of course wish Senator Johnson a speedy recovery, but one of the reasons why his health has been the subject of so much attention is because of the possibility of the Senate going back into Republican hands. If Senator Reid's idea of leadership is to trust       President Bush on yet another last ditch effort --however temporary-- to "fix" Iraq, it apparently doesn't matter which party controls the Senate.

As the old saying goes, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution. Except President Bush's incompetence, willful denial of reality and refusal to listen to the will of the American people. We don't need a surge of those any more than we need a surge of troops in Iraq.

Here's hoping Senator Reid comes to his senses."

Hear, hear...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 02:16 PM

Vt. woman is an unlikely peace activist
12/18/2006, 10:45 a.m. PT
By JOHN CURRAN
The Associated Press   

BENNINGTON, Vt. (AP) — Meet the anti-war movement's newest folk hero: 69-year-old Rosemarie Jackowski, whose arrest during an anti-war protest has made her a cause celebre.

A prosecutor's plan to retry her for blocking traffic while protesting the Iraq war is turning the feisty 4-foot-10 inch former schoolteacher into a darling of the dove crowd.

Bloggers have rallied behind her, peace activists are deluging her with messages of support, and advocates have established a defense fund

Full story on this page.

Courage is a delight to discover, and it appears in the most unusual places. This lady is an example.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 04:12 PM

From the LA Times:

White House accused of censorship


WASHINGTON — A former National Security Council official said Monday that the White House tried to silence his criticism of its Middle East policies by ordering the CIA to censor an op-ed column he wrote.

Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, or NSC, and a former CIA analyst, said the White House told a CIA censor board to excise parts of a 1,000-word commentary on U.S. policy toward Iran that he had offered to the New York Times.

Leverett, who has criticized the administration for failing to deal directly with Tehran, said the board wanted to remove references to prior U.S. contacts with Iran.

Leverett said the events he wrote about were widely known.

He said the agency's action "was fabricated to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach." ...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM

Bush administration threatens writer with imprisonment for exercising basic freedom of opinion and speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGINEWO_2I
don't like bush... go to jail.


Threatens Op Ed author with criminal prosecution...

Oy!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 05:59 PM

Analysis of Bush Admin financial record:

"The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our federal deficits alone now total more than 400% of GDP.

That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare. Sometimes I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn't just pay somebody to come in at 4:30 am Christmas morning to release the report. Additionally, I've yet to read a single account of this report in any of the major news media outlets but that is another matter.

But, hey, I understand. A report this bad requires all the muffling it can get.

In his accompanying statement to the report, David Walker, Comptroller of the US, warmed up his audience by stating that the GAO had found so many significant material deficiencies in the government's accounting systems that the GAO was "unable to express an opinion" on the financial statements. Ha ha! He really knows how to play an audience!

In accounting parlance, that's the same as telling your spouse "Our checkbook is such an out of control mess I can't tell if we're broke or rich!" The next time you have an unexplained rash of checking withdrawals from that fishing trip with your buddies, just tell her that you are "unable to express an opinion" and see how that flies. Let us know how it goes!

Then Walker went on to deliver the really bad news:

Despite improvement in both the fiscal year 2006 reported net operating cost and the cash-based budget deficit, the U.S. government's total reported liabilities, net social insurance commitments, and other fiscal exposures continue to grow and now total approximately $50 trillion, representing approximately four times the Nation's total output (GDP) in fiscal year 2006, up from about $20 trillion, or two times GDP in fiscal year 2000.

As this long-term fiscal imbalance continues to grow, the retirement of the "baby boom" generation is closer to becoming a reality with the first wave of boomers eligible for early retirement under Social Security in 2008.

Given these and other factors, it seems clear that the nation's current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary in order to address the nation's large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance.

Wow! I know David Walker's been vocal lately about his concern over our economic future but it seems almost impossible to ignore the implications of his statements above. From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore…shoot for $100 trillion?"

More at http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2006/1217.html


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:42 AM

Thoughtful remarks from Timothy Garton Ash, writing for The Guardian:

...

Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East

In every vital area, from Afghanistan to Egypt, his policies have made the situation worse than it was before

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian


What an amazing bloody catastrophe. The Bush administration's policy towards the Middle East over the five years since 9/11 is culminating in a multiple train crash. Never in the field of human conflict was so little achieved by so great a country at such vast expense. In every vital area of the wider Middle East, American policy over the last five years has taken a bad situation and made it worse.

If the consequences were not so serious, one would have to laugh at a failure of such heroic proportions - rather in the spirit of Zorba the Greek who, contemplating the splintered ruins of his great project, memorably exclaimed: "Did you ever see a more splendiferous crash?" But the reckless incompetence of Zorba the Bush has resulted in the death, maiming, uprooting or impoverishment of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children - mainly Muslim Arabs but also Christian Lebanese, Israelis and American and British soldiers. By contributing to a broader alienation of Muslims it has also helped to make a world in which, as we walk the streets of London, Madrid, Jerusalem, New York or Sydney, we are all, each and every one of us, less safe. Laugh if you dare.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 02:09 PM

The Times details in this report a case of rampant, heavy-handed censorship of non-classified, publically discussed material regarding the Rubbish administration's relationship with Iran.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 03:02 PM

From OpEd News, a liberal website:

December 29, 2006

Bush's Wonderland and through the Looking Glass of Iraq

by Frank J. Ranelli






Seduced by a powerful cocktail of intoxicating hysteria, America tumbled down the rabbit hole of Bush's Wonderland only to discover the looking glass was a window in reverse with a frightening view.



In 1865, Lewis Carroll authored the famous children's storybook, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. A fairytale laden with satire and allusions, Alice in Wonderland tells the story of a little girl who follows a white rabbit down a hole into a bizarre underworld. Alice emerges into a netherworld beset with anthropomorphic characters that lead her on a series of misadventures in a chaotic society of unruliness, lunacy and utter mayhem. In a distorted and sometimes mockingly perverse way, Carroll endeavors to lampoon his childhood along with the lessons and perils of a careless adolescence in 19th century Britain.

Here in 21st century America, we too, have tumbled down an abysmal hole and materialized in an alternative dream world. For six years, we have been faltering through a mass hallucination of alarm and disbelief, apprehension and discord, addiction and disorder. Our delirium is the somber side-effect of a nation under sedation, induced by a heroin-like injected haze of obfuscation and trepid tentativeness to break free of our "pusher." Ironically, it turns out that in street slang, "white rabbit" is an urban idiom for heroin. A drug marked by paranoia, fear and anxiety.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, America begin to inhale the heavy vapors of Bush's "white rabbit" and we have been "chasing the dragon" ever since. The alleged alleviation, only by way of a Faustian Bargain, was to sell our national soul in exchange for the prevaricated promise that we would be unshackled and set free to awaken from another long, national nightmare. That was never the case. Instead, we were further seduced by a coterie of unsavory characters who suspiciously correlated two arch nemeses together – Saddam and Bin Laden – to formulate a "speedball" cocktail of intoxicating hysteria.

After a patriotic parade of propaganda and deception, the sentinels of our society – Congress – in a frenzy of panic, bequeathed their sole power to declare war to a boorish executive with a galloping case of megalomania and chest-thumping bravado. Thus began, like Alice, our own journey into madness, lawlessness and absolute chaos. We embarked on a war of aggression, under the ruse of seeding democracy and disarming dictators, while munitions manufacturers raked in the revenues and oil barons profited handsomely.

Fortunately, like most addictive drugs, a tolerance factor begins to takes hold. As we yearned and waited for our next fix of the latest formula of Bush's "white rabbit", naively accepting his next white lie, America began to sober up. We awoke from Bush's ghoulish nightmare and hellish war to find not patriots and heroes but pariahs and heretics feeding our addiction and feasting on our own national flesh and blood. "...

Rest of article here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:24 PM

See too: this site.

And listen to the insights under The Unfeeling President.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:41 PM

nane

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 07:41 PM

An excerpt from this charming piece:

"December 26, 2006 at 21:06:43

2006 DISASTER OF THE YEAR / GEORGE W BUSH

by Allen L Roland


" As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron:" H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

You can arguably call George W Bush Moron in Chief or an entitled brat ~ but he has most definitely been the disaster of the year for 2006.

Everything he has touched has become a disaster starting with his illegal war and occupation of Iraq ~ continuing through his promised rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing disintegration of America's moral standing in the world community.

This has to be a reflection on the character of George W Bush himself and how he conducts himself within the oval office.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM

An interesting essay (or rant) from Capitol Hill Blue on the notion that Bush should be stopped before he does more harm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM

From Salon on-line, an essay by Garrison Keillor:

Daddy issues

Our president is resolving unconscious Oedipal obsessions by lashing out at foreign countries -- and it's time his father stepped in.

By Garrison Keillor

Jan. 3, 2007 | As the new Congress convenes this week and Speaker Pelosi ascends to the rostrum, you have to wish them all well. These are the kids who got up in school assembly and spoke on Armistice Day and were captains of teams and organized class projects to do good works, a different breed from us wise guys who lurked in the halls and made fun of them, and in the end you want them and not us running your government. Yes, they had serious brown-nose tendencies and a knack for mouthing pieties, but you could count on them to do what needed doing. They were leaders. They weren't going to swipe the lunch money and buy a keg of suds.

You wonder, however, what this earnest bunch can do when things are so far out of whack as they are in Iraq. The gangland-style execution of Saddam Hussein was visible reality, a token of the blood lust and violence that swirls around Iraq, where our forces are mired, sitting targets, aliens, fighting a colonial war in behalf of a Shiite majority that is as despotic and cruel as what came before, except messier.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the limousines come and go, memorandums are set out on long polished tables, men in crisp white shirts sit at meetings and discuss how to rationalize a war that was conceived by a handful of men in arrogant ignorance and that has descended over the past four years into sheer madness.

Military men know there is no military solution here, and the State Department knows that the policy was driven by domestic politics, but who is going to tell the Current Occupant? He is still talking about victory, or undefeat, like some frat boy on meth who thinks he can step off a roof and not get hurt. The word "surge" keeps cropping up, as if we were fighting the war with electricity and not human beings.


Rational analysis is not the way to approach this administration. Bob Woodward found that out. The Bush who burst into convulsive sobs after winning reelection when his chief of staff Andrew Card said, "You've given your dad a great gift," is so far from the Bush of the photo ops as to invite closer inspection, and for that you don't want David Broder, you need a good novelist.

Here we have a slacker son of a powerful patrician father who resolves unconscious Oedipal issues through inappropriate acting-out in foreign countries. Hello? All the king's task forces can gather together the shards of the policy, number them, arrange them, but it never made sense when it was whole and so it makes even less sense now.

American boys in armored jackets and night scopes patrolling the streets of Baghdad are not going to pacify this country, any more than they will convert it to Methodism. They are there to die so that a man in the White House doesn't have to admit that he, George W. Bush, the decider, the one in the cowboy boots, made grievous mistakes. He approved a series of steps that he himself had not the experience or acumen or simple curiosity to question and which had been dumbed down for his benefit, and then he doggedly stuck by them until his approval ratings sank into the swamp.

He was the Great Denier of 2006, waving the flag, questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared oppose him, until he took a thumpin' and now, we are told, he is reexamining the whole matter. Except he's not. To admit that he did wrong is to admit that he is not the man his daddy is, the one who fought in a war.

Hey, we've all had issues with our dads. But do we need this many people to die so that one dude can look like a leader?

...



A

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

Bush quietly authorizes opening of Americans' mail

By James Gordon Meek

New York Daily News

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.

The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

"Despite the president's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

"The (Bush) signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

---

From the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:41 PM

during WWII FDR 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: 05 Jan 07 - 05:01 PM

"United States Codes
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part 1 – Crimes
Chapter 83 – Postal Service

Section 1702
Obstruction of Correspondence

Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post
office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any
letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or
authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail
carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was
directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into
the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles,
or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more that five years, or both."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 05:03 PM

Bush seems to be above the law in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:02 AM

From Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times, this gem:

"Despite all the talk back in the 2000 campaign about a robustly experienced foreign-policy dream team, it may have been destined that the Bush administration would be asleep in the run-up to the insurgency, just as it was asleep in the run-up to 9/11, to Katrina, to the occupation and to the refugee crisis in Iraq. Either all that was predetermined, or the administration was preternaturally negligent.

Arthur Schopenhauer, the German philosopher who said a man can do what he wants but cannot will what he wants, would have understood W.'s nonsensical urge to Surge.

We don't know if human beings have free will. We just know that human beings in Washington appear not to."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM

"Bush speechwriter David Frum, who wrote a hagiography of Bush in 2003 called "The Right Man," sees the intellectual bankruptcy of proposing a line-item veto yet again. Said Frum on National Review magazine's Web site:

Never mind that the Supreme Court has found the line item veto unconstitutional.

Never mind that after six years of presidentially led overspending, it is a bit implausible for the president to try to present himself as the guardian of the public purse against rapacious congresspersons.

Consider only this: Republicans have been suggesting a federal line item veto as a talisman against big government since the middle 1980s. If twenty years later, the line item veto is the only domestic idea a Republican president has to offer — what more emphatic confession of mental exhaustion can an administration give? And if the administration confesses itself exhausted, why should not the Congress elbow it aside? Somebody has to govern after all. . . .

This president has always preferred to retire early for the night. I fear that the whole domestic policy staff seems now to be following the boss's example, settling in for bedtime two years ahead of schedule."

From a NY Times opinion piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 10:43 AM

The Times (New York) offers some thought in an editorial about "The Imperial Presidncy":

Observing President Bush in action lately, we have to wonder if he actually watched the election returns in November, or if he was just rerunning the 2002 vote on his TiVo.

That year, the White House used the fear of terrorism to scare American voters into cementing the Republican domination of Congress. Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney then embarked on an expansion of presidential power chilling both in its sweep and in the damage it did to the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In 2006, the voters sent Mr. Bush a powerful message that it was time to rein in his imperial ambitions. But we have yet to see any sign that Mr. Bush understands that — or even realizes that the Democrats are now in control of the Congress. Indeed, he seems to have interpreted his party's drubbing as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq and to press ahead undaunted with his assault on civil liberties and the judicial system. Just before the Christmas break, the Justice Department served notice to Senator Patrick Leahy — the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee — that it intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush's inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns. It refused to hand over two documents, including one in which Mr. Bush authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to establish secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties. The other set forth the interrogation methods authorized in these prisons — which we now know ranged from abuse to outright torture.

Also last month, Mr. Bush issued another of his infamous "presidential signing statements," which he has used scores of times to make clear he does not intend to respect the requirements of a particular law — in this case a little-noticed Postal Service bill. The statement suggested that Mr. Bush does not believe the government must obtain a court order before opening Americans' first-class mail. It said the administration had the right to "conduct searches in exigent circumstances," which include not only protecting lives, but also unspecified "foreign intelligence collection."

The law is clear on this. A warrant is required to open Americans' mail under a statute that was passed to stop just this sort of abuse using just this sort of pretext. But then again, the law is also clear on the need to obtain a warrant before intercepting Americans' telephone calls and e-mail. Mr. Bush began openly defying that law after Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on calls and e-mail between the United States and other countries.
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM

How many consecutive quarters of declining readership and revenues will it take before NY Times investors recognize that they are just not out of step with the nation, but with the NY metroplitan region as well. It would be sad to lose a newspaper like the NY Times, but they would only have themselves to blame.

New York Times imposes selective censorship on readers

According to an AP story picked up by the Wall Street Journal today, The New York Times has blocked access to a news story to all British visitors to its Web site. The story, which talks about a recent airline terror plot in England, apparently runs afoul of a UK law that "prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial."

Once information is posted on the Internet it can't effectively be blocked. The Times Web site is also not physically located in Britain, which means it is not technically under the jurisdiction of UK laws. In addition, that same information is already available from other Web sites and has also been published in Britain's Daily Mail. But these facts seem to have escaped the Times editors, who appear anxious to play ball and perform selective censorship of UK readers after being served notice by British government authorities.

It's also interesting to note how the Times repurposed existing techonology as a mechanism for selectively repressing the news in response to government pressure. The Times already uses "geotargeting" technology to place adds on a Web page based on the requesting user's location. It does so by checking the requester's IP address and the location of the ISP that issued it. This is the first time that the Times has used that technology to selectively block access to news content to a geographic subset of its readers, according to the story. So it sets a rather dismal new predecent for selective censorship. I think it also reflects poorly on the editorial judgement of the The Times.

For more, see the WSJ story, New York Times Blocks Web Story (requires WSJ subscription).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:04 AM

This thread is scarcely about fear-mongering misinterpretations of NYT policies, Nameless One.

Stick to the topic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Nameless One
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM

So why does this thread contain propaganda from the NYT?

It is said that the NYT publishes the opinions of its "reporters" as if it is the truth. Do opinions take precedence to facts?

As for fear mongering, do you remember all of the articles that they published about how the Bush administration was recklessly ignoring all of the danger signals about WMD's in Iraq?

That was back when Chalabi was telling Congress, not the administration, exactly what they wanted to hear about Iraq in order to get money from congress.

Some people have very conveniently forgotten those facts in favor of popular opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:01 AM

The current Post report on the unification of Senators in opposition to the Bush plan for more troops is an interesting study in fracas. It can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Nameless one
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:49 AM

The Source of the Trouble

Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller's series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.........

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Nameless One
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM

This is being cut and pasted here because these things disappear often and the link turns worthless.

N.Y. Times Cites Defects in Its Reports on Iraq

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page C01

The New York Times acknowledged today that its coverage of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "was not as rigorous as it should have been" and that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge."

More than a year after Judith Miller and some Times colleagues reported on evidence suggesting that Iraq was hiding such weapons, the paper said in an editors' note: "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

One of Miller's prime sources was Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile whose organization was subsidized by the Pentagon and who "has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper," according to an e-mail she sent to a colleague. U.S.-backed forces raided Chalabi's home in Iraq last week amid allegations that members of his Iraqi National Congress may have been providing sensitive information to Iran.

Dan Okrent, the paper's ombudsman, said last night that "I'm looking into the coverage of WMD" and planned to publish his findings Sunday. Executive Editor Bill Keller said last night he was busy on deadline and could not discuss the situation.

The editors' note did say that "we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information."

While many news organizations reported on WMD claims before the war, few did so as aggressively as the Times. The failure to find such weapons has produced growing calls by critics, led by Slate columnist Jack Shafer, for the Times to own up to past errors.

Miller played an unusually active role while embedded last year with an Army unit searching for weapons of mass destruction, at one point writing to object to a commander's order that the unit withdraw from the field and suggesting she would write about it unfavorably in the Times. The pullback order was later rescinded. The unit "is using Chalabi's intell and document network for its own WMD work," Miller wrote her colleague.

Some of the Times's earlier reporting "depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks," the editors said.

Among the problematic stories cited:

� In October and November 2001, front-page pieces cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret camp where terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. "These accounts have never been independently verified."

� In December 2001, Miller cited an Iraqi defector who said he had worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. While weapons might still be found, "in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers."

� A lead article in September 2002, co-authored by Miller, was headlined "U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts." The story "should have been presented more cautiously," and "misgivings" that surfaced days later "appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view."

� In April 2003, Miller reported that an Iraqi scientist who claimed to have worked in the country's weapons program "has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began," and that the team had found "precursors" of banned toxic agents. But "The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims." Miller had said on PBS that the scientist was not just a "smoking gun" but "a silver bullet."

In a New York Review of Books interview, Miller said her note about Chalabi was exaggerated as part of "an angry e-mail exchange" with colleague John Burns.

In a note to Okrent in March, Keller said he "did not see a prima facie case for recanting or repudiating the stories." He called Miller "a smart, well-sourced, industrious and fearless reporter with a keen instinct for news, and an appetite for dauntingly hard subjects."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:23 PM

An interesting statistic and call for assistance from Canadians:

As U.S. President Bush announced his plans to send more troops to Iraq bloodshed, a surge in the number of calls from American military during the past week has prompted a Canadian war resistance group to ask for help in housing soldiers leaving the U.S. for Canada, Toronto Star reported.

"We have noticed an uptick since the summer, but this is much more intense," said Lee Zaslofsky, who went AWOL in 1970 and, like many during that time, crossed the border into Canada. He became co-ordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign, a Canada-wide organization that supports U.S. soldiers seeking asylum in Canada because they refuse to fight in the war in Iraq.

According the Air Force Times, the Pentagon has registered approximately 8,000 deserters since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. While many of them are living underground in the United States, the War Resisters Support Campaign estimates that there are "as many as 200 or more military personnel in Canada today."

Zaslofsky says the group has received calls from at least 24 concerned U.S. soldiers after U.S. President George W. Bush's call for more troops in Iraq.

The soldiers, he says, include both reserves and those returning from past deployment.

"If you have room where you can house a resister for a few days, a few weeks or longer, please get in touch with us," the group said. The campaign has been running since 2004 and is based in cities across Canada.

(From the Toronto Daily News)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:58 PM

Published on Monday, May 26, 2003 by the Washington Post
Intra-Times Battle Over Iraqi Weapons
by Howard Kurtz


A dustup between two New York Times reporters over a story on an Iraqi exile leader raises some intriguing questions about the paper's coverage of the search for dangerous weapons thought to be hidden by Saddam Hussein.


Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress and Times source. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)
An internal e-mail by Judith Miller, the paper's top reporter on bioterrorism, acknowledges that her main source for such articles has been Ahmad Chalabi, a controversial exile leader who is close to top Pentagon officials. Could Chalabi have been using the Times to build a drumbeat that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction?

The Chalabi connection surfaced when John Burns, the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning Baghdad bureau chief, scolded Miller over her May 1 story on the Iraqi without clearing it with him.

"I am deeply chagrined at your reporting and filing on Chalabi after I had told you on Monday night that we were planning a major piece on him -- and without so much as telling me what you were doing," Burns wrote that day, according to e-mail correspondence obtained by The Washington Post.

"We have a bureau here; I am in charge of that bureau until I leave; I make assignments after considerable thought and discussion, and it was plain to all of us to whom the Chalabi story belonged. If you do this, what is to stop you doing it on any other story of your choosing? And what of the distress it causes the correspondent who is usurped? It is not professional, and not collegial."

Miller replied to Burns: "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years, and have done most of the stories about him for our paper, including the long takeout we recently did on him. He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."

She apologized for any confusion, but noted that the Army unit she was traveling with -- Mobile Exploration Team Alpha -- "is using Chalabi's intell and document network for its own WMD work. . . . Since I'm there every day, talking to him. . . . I thought I might have been included on a decision by you" to have another reporter write about Chalabi.

Reached by phone, Miller said: "I'm not about to comment on any intra-Times communications." Andrew Rosenthal, assistant managing editor for foreign news, said it is "a pretty slippery slope" to publish reporters' private e-mail and "reveal whatever confidential sources they may or may not have."

"Of course we talk to Chalabi," he said. "If you were in Iraq and weren't talking to Chalabi, I'd wonder if you were doing your job."

According to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress was a key source of information about weapons for the Pentagon's own intelligence unit -- information sometimes disputed by the CIA. Chalabi may have been feeding the Times, and other news organizations, the same disputed information.

Miller has drawn criticism, particularly from Slate's Jack Shafer, for her reporting on the hunt for Iraqi weapons while she was embedded with the MET Alpha unit.

In an April 21 front-page story, she reported that a leading Iraqi scientist claimed Iraq had destroyed chemical and biological weapons days before the war began, according to the Alpha team. She said the scientist had "pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried."

Behind that story was an interesting arrangement. Under the terms of her accreditation, Miller wrote, "this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials. Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted."

Since then, no evidence has surfaced to support these claims and the Alpha team is preparing to leave Iraq without having found weapons of mass destruction.

Rosenthal says all embedded reporters agreed to the same restrictions. "We didn't feel this amounted to censorship," he said. "We thought the added burden of the rules was justified by the access we got to what would have been secret operations."

While Miller was not allowed to interview the unnamed scientist on her own, Rosenthal said "she never said she never met him." Army officials "made an argument that his life would be in jeopardy" if he were identified.

Whether or not the unit's initial findings pan out, Rosenthal says, he is "extremely comfortable" with Miller's reporting because "all the information was attributed to MET Alpha, not 'senior U.S. officials' or some other vague formulation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:05 AM

Judith Miller argues that if she was duped by her unnamed sources, so was the Bush administration — and she's not apologizing for believing there were WMDs in Iraq until the president does. "I think I was given information by people who believed the information they were giving the president," she told Bergman. "When the president asked, you know, 'What about this WMD case? Are we sure about this?' [then-CIA director] George Tenet said to him, 'Mr. President, this is a slam dunk.' The people I talked to certainly thought that." Other WMD believers, she said, included the entire U.S. intelligence community as well as French, English, and Israeli agencies.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/03/18_miller.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:16 AM

Old Guy, stop dragging in old news on tangential topics, wouldja? Jeeze Louise, 2003 fer cry-i.

Wake up and smell the hemlock, Dude!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:36 AM

Amos is constantly trying to bury the past.

If history does not mean anything, why are you so anxious for people not to see it?

Wake up an learn from history dude.

Within the press, perhaps the most energetic disseminator of "inactionable intelligence" on Iraq's putative weapons has been the New York Times' Judith Miller. A veteran of the Iraqi WMD beat, Miller has accumulated a bulging clippings file over the years full of splashy, yet often maddeningly unverifiable, exposés alleging various Iraqi arms shenanigans: "Secret Arsenal: The Hunt for Germs of War" (2/26/98); "Defector Describes Iraq's Atom Bomb Push" (8/15/98); "Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms" (12/20/01); "Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say" (1/24/03).

In May, an internal Times email written by Miller found its way to the Washington Post's media columnist (5/26/03). In the message, Miller casually revealed her source for many of these stories: Ahmed Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile leader (and convicted embezzler) who for over a decade had been lobbying Washington to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime: "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years," Miller wrote. "He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper." Chalabi, with his network of defectors and exiles, is known in Washington foreign-policy circles as a primary source for many of the weapons allegations that career CIA analysts greeted with skepticism, but that Pentagon hawks promoted eagerly (UPI, 3/12/03).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:29 PM

I guess if you cannot address the topic you can try to Shanghai it by making it about other things and glutting the thread with that. But it is -- even you will acknowledge -- a destructive impulse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

This does have bearing on the popular views of the bus administration but Amos only wants to promote the negative and cover up anything that is contradictory.

This copupled to a past of following the drumbeat of extremist causes indicates an inability to recognize the truth.

The enitre impeach Bush / Bush lied movement is nothing but Ochlocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:35 PM

I dunno what Ochlocracy is.

One colunist from the Times (once an Ochs-led organization, I guess) feels this way:

"The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president's endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush's own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It's another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn't Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon's abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party's right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon's most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he'd been lied to once too often. If John McCain won't play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he's about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:40 PM

Meanwhile, back in Baghdad:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 11 — Iraq's Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush's proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan.

Iraq's prime minister sent a spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, to address President Bush's latest policy.

The Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference and avoided any public comment. He left the government's response to an official spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, who gave what amounted to a backhanded approval of the troop increase and emphasized that Iraqis, not Americans, would set the future course in the war.

Mr. Dabbagh said that the government's objective was to secure the eventual withdrawal of American troops, and that for that to be possible there had to be security for Iraqis. "If this can be achieved by increasing either Iraqi or multinational forces," he added, "the government, for sure, will not stand against it."

Mr. Dabbagh suggested that much about the Bush plan depended on how circumstances in Iraq would evolve over the coming months — an echo, in its way, of senior Bush administration officials. They have implied that they might halt the month-by-month inflow of additional troops if they think Mr. Maliki is failing to meet the political and military benchmarks Mr. Bush identified as the Iraqi government's part in making the new war plan work.

"The plan can be developed according to the needs," Mr. Dabbagh said. Then he added tartly, "What is suitable for our conditions in Iraq is what we decide, not what others decide for us."

The spokesman's remarks, and a similarly dyspeptic tone that was adopted by Shiite politicians with close ties to Mr. Maliki, pointed to the double-bind Mr. Bush finds himself in. Faced with low levels of public support for his new military push and a Democratic leadership in Congress that has said it will fight him over it, he also confronts the uncomfortable prospect of foot-dragging in Baghdad over the troop increases and the benchmarks he has set for the Iraqis.

(From the Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM

Peter Baker, Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post
Sunday, January 14, 2007

Printable Version
Email This Article
(01-14) 04:00 PST Washington -- The bipartisan opposition to President Bush's troop-increase plan has proved more intense than his advisers had expected and has left them scrambling to find support, but the White House is banking on the assumption that it can execute its "new way forward" in Iraq before Congress can derail it.

The plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq was virtually guaranteed to provoke a furor in Washington, Bush advisers said, but the storm was exacerbated by the slow, leaky way that the White House reached its decision. Aides now harbor no hope of winning over Democrats. Instead, they aim mainly to keep Republicans from abandoning him further.

Bush invited GOP leaders to Camp David this weekend and will argue his case tonight on CBS' "60 Minutes." Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Stephen Hadley will also hit the airwaves today.

"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his radio address Saturday, adding, "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around pulling out troops, an idea Bush flatly rejects.

Hopes for a bipartisan consensus after Democrats captured Congress in the November midterm elections have evaporated, and Bush appears more isolated than ever."

(Washington Post/SFO Chronicle)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM

An interesting analysis of the Bush Admin's too-little-too-late efforts to reverse the fatal bad judgments of Bremer et al., by trying to now hire those who said at the time they were bad ideas, can be found here in the Post.

This is just multiplying one piece of brazen stupidity by another. If Bush and Rumsfeld had put a tenth of the importance on intel and wise application of force that they put on false ideas of loyalty and bizarre visions of the world, they would have been much, much better off. Sadly they were too stupid to know what was important.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:29 PM

The Post also ccomments, inter alia:

"

THE POLITICAL tempest that has greeted President Bush's latest plan for Iraq is largely of the president's making. Mr. Bush could have forged a bipartisan consensus if he had embraced the military strategy laid out by the Iraq Study Group, which was in keeping with proposals by the Iraqi government, U.S. military commanders and leading members of Congress. Instead, he chose to embrace an option -- the dispatch of additional American soldiers to Baghdad and Anbar province -- that has the support of less than 20 percent of Americans and maybe even fewer Iraqis. It's not even clear that the Iraqi government is entirely on board.

We don't think Mr. Bush went out of his way to pick the battle he now has with the new Democratic-controlled Congress. No doubt he has been convinced that the deployment of more troops is the only way to turn the situation in Iraq around. The White House, however, seems to have undervalued the importance of having broad public support before sending more troops into combat, with the inevitable spike in casualties that will cause. The intense criticism that has come from both houses and both parties in Congress is understandable, and justified."

A

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

In the New Zealand Scoop, Martin LeFevre explains why the Bush administration is evil.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:09 AM

Frank Rich of the NY Times, never a great fan of the Bush Admin, offers a scathing survey of the Resident team's history of PR and gesture, and current bunker mentality, in this piece. This is part of the Times Select subscriber material. aN EXCERPT:

..."The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president's endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush's own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It's another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn't Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon's abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party's right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon's most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he'd been lied to once too often. If John McCain won't play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he's about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him. "

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:14 PM

Keith Olberman, never a fan either, offers a scathing counterpoint to Bush's address and surge plan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:07 PM

A brilliant insight into the militarization of the Presidency can be found in this article by Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern.

It speaks to a deep and important memory we should all have on tap of what it is ike to live in a "normal" era when the nation is not militarized.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM

The Administration continues to double back on itself like a snake biting its own tongue. In "The Bait-and-Switch White House" the Times shines some light on the endless, shuffle-footed tap dancing mealymouthed Janus-faced snake-bellied double-tonguing hypocrisy that seems to be endemic in the W universe. Well, that may be unfair. Maybe its just Cheney's part. With Rove and Rumsfield gone, there's hardly any other explanation left!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM

From today's Times, on the Bush economic impact:

"n the State of the Union speech, President Bush said that the budget deficit had been cut in half from 2004 to 2006. Not quite. The deficit declined, but not by half, from $412 billion to $248 billion. If you measure it as a percentage of the economy, Mr. Bush was off by an amount equal to about $15 billion.

Then, Mr. Bush greatly compounded his otherwise modest exaggeration by taking credit for the reduction, when the deficit really fell despite his policies, not because of them. The distinction is crucial, to understand both the current mess — in which debt is mounting just as huge obligations are coming due for Medicare and Social Security — and how best to get out of it.

The drop in the deficit over the past few years was due largely to the cyclical recovery from the earlier recession, and to a boost in revenue when temporary business tax cuts expired after 2004.

Mr. Bush, meanwhile, has pursued a single-minded strategy of spending more while slashing taxes. That is the opposite of deficit reduction; it has made the budget hole deeper than it would have been. Still, Mr. Bush wants you to believe that tax cuts caused the economic recovery, and thus the budget improvement. If you follow that logic, the key to continued improvement would be continued tax cuts, and that is just what Mr. Bush called for last week. He conjured a bright future in which the deficit disappears after he leaves office, without anyone ever having to raise taxes.

That was the speech, and then there is reality, which came knocking within days when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its annual 10-year budget outlook. The outlook is for a cumulative deficit of $2.9 trillion to $3.4 trillion — about $300 billion a year — if, as Mr. Bush wishes, the tax cuts are extended beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010 and tax relief continues for Americans wrongly afflicted by the alternative minimum tax. In arriving at its estimate, the budget agency also assumed that costs for the war in Iraq would start going down next year, an assumption that, if proved wrong, would result in even higher deficits." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:38 PM

The Australian "theage.com.au" opines:

"

Bush's popularity hits new low

US President George Bush's popularity fell to a new low following his state of the nation speech this week, Newsweek has reported in its latest poll.

With two years left in the White House, only 30 per cent of the 1003 people polled said they approved of Bush's job performance, down from a high of 83 per cent approval at the beginning of 2002.

The poll was taken after Bush's annual State of the Union address delivered Tuesday, in which he announced a new Iraq strategy and major initiatives to improve health insurance coverage and to reduce US dependence on foreign oil.

A hefty 71 per cent of those surveyed said Bush would not have enough support over the next two years to "make a difference" in carrying out his decisions, compared with just 21 per cent who said he did.

The poll, which came days after several more politicians made moves to join the 2008 presidential race, including Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, also tested registered voters on possible matchups in the November 2008 election. ..."

---

As anyone who has followed my threads on the subject over the last seven years knows, I have resisted this man and his policies from the first, and I am glad to see the majority of American citizens swinging around to my point of view. I don't suppose this will be a permanent condition, but it does relieve some of the insult from 2000 when so many were mass-herded into voting for him on the thrust of sheer panic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:06 AM

From today's Op Ed in the NY Times, James Bedford writes:

"LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney's office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.

But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.

The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...."

---

A friend remarked recently that some senior executives get to their high positions by creating a mess so hard to confront that they themselves become indispensable as the only ones who can be stuck in front of it. Even though they created it in the first place.

This rings a faint bell, somehow...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:08 AM

A few remarks from Americans on the Vice issue:

"To the Editor:

Regarding Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney said the biggest threat is that Americans may not "have the stomach for the fight." One has to wonder if he feels that the failure in Vietnam was merely a result of the American people's not having "the stomach" for 10 years of combat and 58,000 American dead.

In classic Republicanspeak, Mr. Cheney obfuscates the premise of why we are at war and narrows the argument to a misplaced matter of courage.

The nauseating irony of someone who did not have the "stomach" to go to war himself accusing the rest of the country of the same failing serves to reveal the extent to which this conflict is without true rationale.

Pier Giacalone
Ridgewood, Queens, Jan. 27, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Your editorial asks a good question: "Does the vice president simply feel free to cut the ground out from under Mr. Bush?"

It helps to remember that in 2000, after heading up the search for a running mate, Dick Cheney looked in the mirror and picked himself. Why would a self-selected vice president on a ticket that lost the popular vote defer to the popular will or even the judgment of his president?

Robert Stein
Weston, Conn., Jan. 27, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Vice President Dick Cheney defends a war that he started without Iraqi provocation and that continues without the possibility of American victory not because he is "delusional," as Maureen Dowd says ("Daffy Does Doom," column, Jan. 27), but because the war itself serves his interests and the interests of his constituents.

Dick Cheney has spent his life working for military suppliers, American energy corporations and the Republican Party. The war has earned billions of dollars for his former employer, Halliburton, disrupted the supplies of foreign oil and allowed his party to rise to unprecedented power.

During this time the power of the executive branch of government grew, and Mr. Cheney, at the center, exercised more influence over the nation than any vice president in United States history.

This is not "perversity." It is the work of a mercilessly effective politician.

Gabriel Brownstein
Brooklyn, Jan. 27, 2007

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM

Four steps towards calming the chaos in Iraq

By Zbigniew Brzezinsky

Published: February 1 2007 21:16 | Last updated: February 1 2007 21:16
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/03dd3a7a-b230-11db-a79f-0000779e2340.html>
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/03dd3a7a-b230-11db-a79f-0000779e2340.html

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central
realities: the war in Iraq is a historic, strategic and moral
calamity; and only a strategy that is historically relevant rather
than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the framework for a
tolerable resolution of both the war and intensifying regional tensions.

If the US stays bogged down in Iraq, the final destination on this
downhill track is likely to be head-on conflict with Iran and with
the broader world of Islam. A plausible scenario for a military
collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet US benchmarks;
followed by US accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure;
then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed
on Iran. This could culminate in "defensive" US military action
against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a deepening quagmire
eventually encompassing Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a
protracted war is already being articulated. Initially justified by
false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the war is
now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our
time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that
Nazism was based on the military power of the most industrially
advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilise not
only the resources of the Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal
through its Marxist doctrine. To argue that America is already at war
in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the
epicentre, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is obvious by now that the US national interest calls for a
significant change of direction. There is a consensus in favour of
change: US public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that
a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-
Palestinian accommodation is essential to the needed policy
alteration. It is noteworthy that a number of leading Republicans
have voiced profound reservations regarding the administration's
policy. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the late
President Gerald Ford, former secretary of state James Baker, former
national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading
Republican senators: John Warner, Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith among
others.

The quest for a political solution to the growing chaos in Iraq
should involve four steps.

First, the US should reaffirm unambiguously its determination to
leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. Such a declaration
is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring
American imperial hegemony. That perception should be discredited at
the highest level, perhaps by a joint resolution in the Congress.

Second, the US should announce it is undertaking talks with all Iraqi
leaders – including those who do not reside in the fortress area in
Baghdad known as the "Green Zone" – jointly to set and announce
a deadline for full US military disengagement. In the meantime, the
US should avoid escalation.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 11:50 AM

Bush going to squeeze $70 billion out of Medicare saying entitlement program spending is growing faster then the economy and therefore cannot be sustained. But he can spend $270 billion on this war until late 2008.

Now which spending produces less results, entitlements or the war? Hmmmmm...tough one...let's see...spending money so elderly folks can get the medicines and treatments they need OR pouring more money down the Iraq sieve with absolutely nothing to show for it except massive fraud and corruption, upswings in violence, more dead soldiers, more destroyed equipment, far weaker military, deteriorating security.

I give, dammit!! I just can't decide which spending needs to be desperately revamped before disaster occurs. Help me out, folks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070204/pl_nm/bush_budget_dc_7

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Cruiser
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

The Worst President in History?
One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

Rolling Stone Article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:42 PM

Co-Dependent Congress Must Wake Up: The President Needs a Straight-Jacket and a Padded Cell
by DAVE LINDORFF

Full article here from the Baltimore Chronicle.

Co-dependency is a condition where people associated with a sick person enable that person to ruin not only their own lives, but the lives of others, because of an inability to confront the sick person. It happens in families, and it is happening today to the American nation.

It's time to simply admit the obvious: The president of the United States is crazy as a loon, and the Congress and the media are functioning as co-dependents as he runs the country off a cliff.
Bush says in his latest press conference that he is "certain" that Iran is providing "technically sophisticated" roadside bomb weapons to Iraqi insurgent forces to help them to kill Americans.

He probably is "certain." But nobody else of consequence in the government is, and the evidence to support his claim is simply not there. Shaped charges are not sophisticated. They can be made in a garage. The technology was invented in 1888 by a Navy engineer. It was widely used in World War I and II, as well as in Vietnam, and was even provided by the British to the IRA in a botched sting operation that led to its being disseminated around the world to every conceivable resistance and terror organization. Instructions on how to make these weapons are available on the web. A high school student could do it in shop if the teacher wasn't looking.

On top of that, the people who are primarily responsible for killing Americans in Iraq are Sunnis, who are certainly not the beneficiaries of Iranian government assistance, since Sunnis are killing Shias, who are the ones that Iran is close to.

None of this matters to Bush.

Why? Because he's crazy. Reality and Bush's psyche are wholly different worlds, people.

When you have a person who's off his nut in a position of authority, whether it is in your house, in your office, driving a car or running your country, you need to do something to prevent them from causing harm. It won't do to say, "It's too much trouble to confront him," or "He'll get angry if I challenge him."

This seems to be the attitude in Congress and the media. The Democrats, who could put the president in a richly deserved straightjacket, are afraid to take that step. The media are afraid the president and his crazy backers would howl if they pointed out how nutty he has become...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:48 PM

HE knows perfectly well who he serves. The haves and the have mores.

He is not certifiable. He lives in an age where much of the Constitution has been rendered non binding. He lives in an age where the Congress tries to pass non binding resoutions.

He lives in an age where he calls himself the decider and the voice of the people he calls noise.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 12:33 AM

David Swanson writes:

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#48101


That was close. You can see how Young could have made the mistake. Here's what Lincoln actually said:


"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose – and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."


Lincoln wrote these words while America was at war with Mexico, under the presidency of James Polk, and while Lincoln was a member of Congress. But Lincoln did more than talk about the fraud that had been used to launch that illegal and imperialistic war. He introduced a resolution demanding that Polk provide proof. Polk claimed to have launched that war only after American blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln's resolution required Polk to identify the spot where that blood had been shed.


"Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly," Lincoln said of the wartime President. "Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation."


When President Polk did not answer, Lincoln and John Quincy Adams sought a formal investigation of the president's pre-war intelligence claims, and of his use of secret funds to launch his fraudulent and illegal war. Under this pressure, Polk announced that he would not seek reelection. Lincoln, Adams, and their allies in Congress then passed a resolution honoring the service of Major General Zachary Taylor "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."


President Polk's descendant William Polk has, by the way, authored a book with former Senator George McGovern outlining a plan to end the Iraq War. There's improvement of a sort that some prominent families can't compare to! ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 10:37 AM

Todays Times opines:

..."In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.

The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus — is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage that last fall's law — and this week's ruling — have done to this basic freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military tribunals that the Bush Administration established to try the Guantánamo detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an "enemy combatant." This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees' claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under which Congress can suspend habeas to "cases of Rebellion or invasion," which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said, the act's alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it before this term ends.

Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.

The Bush administration's assault on civil liberties does not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.

.."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:27 AM

The NY Times wonders why so many stellar US Attorneys are being fired without genuine grounds:


In many Justice Departments, her record would have won her awards, and perhaps a promotion to a top post in Washington. In the Bush Justice Department, it got her fired.


Ms. Lam is one of at least seven United States attorneys fired recently under questionable circumstances. The Justice Department is claiming that Ms. Lam and other well-regarded prosecutors like John McKay of Seattle, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — who all received strong job evaluations — performed inadequately.

It is hard to call what's happening anything other than a political purge. And it's another shameful example of how in the Bush administration, everything — from rebuilding a hurricane-ravaged city to allocating homeland security dollars to invading Iraq — is sacrificed to partisan politics and winning elections.

---

THis looks like pure smelly political manuvering.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

I spoke to a financial expert yesterday who remarked that the DAILY burden of servicing the United States' debt was FIVE BILLION dollars a day; and that this figure was up from two billion/day at the start of the first Bush administration.

That includes no principal reduction, just service on the debt.

That means if we were to get OUT of that debt, we could spend a billion dollars a day on resolving national energy resources, another billion a day on caring for and educating our young, another on supporting healthcare for individuals in need, and still put two billion a day in the bank as savings against future need. Every day.

Wouldn't we like to see the nation out of debt to the world?


We might even become the Land of the Free.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:18 PM

John B. Taylor, former Under Secretary of the Treasury, argues that in currency management, at least, the Bush administration did something very right.

He argues the case well. Full article here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:05 AM

Thanks to Lincoln D. Chafee, the former Republican senator from Rhode Island, for reminding us that fault for the catastrophe in Iraq is shared by a complaisant Senate, which, far from performing its constitutional duty, abdicated that responsibility at one of the most crucial moments in our nation's history.

As the 2008 election approaches, we must also not forget that many of the senators voting in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq harbored presidential ambitions (John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain) and were plainly influenced by a fear that such ambitions might be thwarted if they voted against the resolution and the war later turned out to be a success.

Now that the war is revealed for the unmitigated disaster that should have been predicted, these same senators perform all manner of linguistic contortions to justify their vote.

Our nation owes a debt of gratitude to those senators who, courageously and eloquently, spoke in opposition to this illegal and immoral war. Conversely, history will not be kind to those 77 senators who voted "yea" that fateful evening.

Joseph J. Saltarelli
New York, March 1, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

The Times discusses more old-boy slime from the Bush Attorneys General -- the firing of state US Atty's who don't trumpet at the right spots in the script.


"...United States attorneys, the highest federal prosecutors at the state level, must be insulated from politics. Their decisions about whether to indict can ruin lives, and change the outcome of elections. To ensure their independence, United States attorneys are almost never removed during the term of the president who appointed them.

The Bush administration ignored this tradition, and trampled on prosecutorial independence, by firing eight United States attorneys in rapid succession, including one, Carol Lam of San Diego, who had put a powerful Republican congressman in jail. Mr. Iglesias, who was the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, says two members of Congress called him last October and urged him to pursue corruption charges against a prominent Democrat before the November election. He did not. He was dismissed.

Most of the fired United States attorneys' performance evaluations praise them for the quality of their work, and for following the priorities set in Washington. These do not appear to be the evaluations of people who were fired for poor performance.

A House subcommittee has subpoenaed several of the fired United States attorneys to testify next week. The Senate is doing its own investigation. They should question the fired prosecutors, as well as top members of the Justice Department, to find out how these dismissals came about. They should also investigate Mr. Iglesias's allegations about the two members of Congress, who may have violated Congressional rules, and even criminal law.

Mr. Gonzales should also begin his own inquiry. Mr. Iglesias has raised a serious question about politicization of the Justice Department. That, and not public relations, should be the attorney general's primary concern."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

The Times offers a list of things that must be done to repair the chaos if the Bush administration:

"Editorial
The Must-Do List
E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Save
Share

Published: March 4, 2007
The Bush administration's assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America's global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.

It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.

Today we're offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems."..

The list includes:

Restore Habeas Corpus
Stop Illegal Spying
Ban Torture, Really
Close the C.I.A. Prisons
Account for 'Ghost Prisoners'
Ban Extraordinary Rendition
Tighten the Definition of Combatant
Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
Ban Tainted Evidence
Ban Secret Evidence
Better Define 'Classified' Evidence
Respect the Right to Counsel

I find it execrable that the reform of our economic whirlwind of addiction to fiat-funding, unstable currency, and insane debt-management policies are not included.

See the full article here. It may be restricted to TimesSelect viewers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 12:37 AM

I take it that Amos doesn't like George Bush and reads a lot of stuff by other lefties who hate him as well?

Well, I like George Bush. He's a decent man who has been unfairly maligned by the media and the Clintonized Democrat party. I also liked him as Governor of Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:55 AM

< a href=http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists>Paul Krugman discusses the Bush administrations complicity in the abysmal decline of health care for veterans, such as at Walter Reed hospital.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

Comparative Advantage
How economist Paul Krugman became the most important political columnist in America.

By Nicholas Confessore

Krugman has also discovered that when you're the center of attention and you make a mistake, people notice. The most serious error was in a column written last July about Bush's dealings with the Texas Rangers, of which he became a part-owner in 1989. It's well known that Bush put $606,000 into the syndicate that bought the Rangers in 1989, about 2 percent of the total cost. When the deal was initialized that same year and Bush became the team's general manager, the syndicate awarded their well-connected partner an additional 10 percent stake, gratis. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush earned $14.9 million on his original investment. But Krugman went further, charging that Bush's extra return was "a 12-million dollar gift" to "a sitting governor," when in fact the gift had been awarded years before Bush's election as governor in 1994. Krugman later admitted the error--on his Web site, but not in the Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:21 PM

Gee, you're scraping that ole barrel pretty hard. Wish someone would make me a little 10 million dollar prezzie before I got elected Governor.

If some kind Elf could put a /a at the end of the word "discusses" in the previous reference to Krugman's column, I'd be grateful.

Your definition of decency is interesting fumblefingers.

Not a word I would apply to the man, personally.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:57 PM

Amos "Not a word I would apply to the man, personally."

In view of your previous 51 entries, I don't expect you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:54 AM

"From the perspective of history, when people look back, they will wonder how the country could have gone so wrong in its struggle against an inimical ideology. And they will conclude that the wrong leaders were in power to understand and defeat this ideology; instead, those leaders advanced their own power in the guise of safeguarding the country's security while curtailing citizens' liberties.

At that future time, the people will still be struggling to undo what has been done to those liberties and their reputation.

Your list of what needs to be corrected outlines what they will understand has happened and what they know will be needed to restore their liberties and their reputation. Unfortunately, unlike liberties, reputation, once compromised, is never really restored. "

(correspondent to the NY Times)

Yonkers, March 4, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:31 AM

A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and a hatred for George W Bush.

What else could one ask for?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:57 AM

One could ask, my feather-headed friend, for an honest, forthright President who lived within and under the law, sought prosperity, avoided violence except as a last resort, lead by example rather than by decree, protected and defended the Constitution rather than an elite base, and considered truth to be senior to political slickness. One could ask for a leader who did well in some field of endeavour more elevated that cocktails and backslapping. One could ask for a leader who knew something about the culture in which he lead and knew what its true potential for greatness was, and why. One could ask for a leader who understood the corrosive influence of massive debit-spending on the morale and economy of the nation. One could ask for a man who knew the English language better than the average long-haul trucker. One who knew how to negotiate from strength of wisdom, rather than bullying by force of arms and who used courage instead of beetle-browed obstinacy to accomplish things.

A

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

"I haven't kept count, but it seems to me that the number of times I've seen President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney give speeches about the Iraq war using smiling soldiers as their backdrops have been, well, countless. You'd think that an administration that has been so quick to exploit soldiers as props — whether it was to declare "Mission Accomplished" on an naval vessel or to silence critics by saying their words might endanger soldiers in battle — would have been equally quick to spare no expense in caring for those injured in the fight. ..."

Thomas Friedman, commenting on the abysmal care of veterans under Bush's war Presidency.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

So Amos, my idealsitic, bristly friend, who would that president be?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

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.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

And that was 100.


A

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

Amos:

You approve of FDR but when Bush does those same things you call him names.

How come you have a double standard?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:00 AM

I have different standards for different situations. Bush and FDR did not "do the same things", by a long shot.

The differences are so obvious, clear and crucial it would be next to moronic to think of them as "just the same".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:24 AM

Neglect, incompetence, indifference, lies.

(Fron the NY Times columns of MArch 8, 2007)

Why in the world is anyone surprised that the Bush administration has not been taking good care of wounded and disabled American troops?

Real-life human needs have never been a priority of this administration. The evidence is everywhere — from the mind-bending encounter with the apocalypse in Baghdad, to the ruined residential neighborhoods in New Orleans, to the anxious families in homes across America who are offering tearful goodbyes to loved ones heading off to yet another pointless tour in Iraq.

The trial and conviction of Scooter Libby opened the window wide on the twisted values and priorities of the hawkish operation in the vice president's office. No worry about the troops there.

And President Bush has always given the impression that he is more interested in riding his bicycle at the ranch in Texas than in taking care of his life and death responsibilities around the world.

That whistling sound you hear is the wind blowing across the emptiness of the administration's moral landscape. ...

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

And on a lighter note, from another column in the same paper, by David Brooks:

"...Today, the White House staff is less disciplined but more attractive. There is no party line in private conversations. The trick now is to figure out what administration policy really is, because you can now talk to three different people and get three different versions on any topic. There's more conversation and more modesty. The vice president has less gravitational pull, and there has been a talent upgrade in post after post: Josh Bolten as chief of staff, Henry Paulson at Treasury. If Bob Gates had been the first defense secretary, the world would be a much better place today.

The administration has also lost its transformational mind-set. After cruel experience, there's a greater tendency to match ends to means, and to actually think about executing a policy before you embark upon it. There's much more tolerance for serious freethinkers — the Johns Hopkins scholar Eliot Cohen was just hired at State.

In short, this administration's capacities have waxed as its power has waned. And you can't help but feel that today's White House would have been much better at handling the first stages of the war on terror. But that's the perpetual tragedy of life: the owl of Minerva flies at dusk. Wisdom comes from suffering and error, and when the passions die down and observation begins. "

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

Amos:

FDR signed Executive Order 9066 which incarcerated 110,000 Japanese Americans, 68,000 of the ctizens, solely on a racial basis. They had no writ of habeas corpus as described in the constitution. What were the charges? Where were thier lawyers? How many of them had a trial or hearing?

I think this is outside of your discription of a desirable president:
"forthright President who lived within and under the law, lead by example rather than by decree, protected and defended the Constitution rather than an elite base"

But you are right that Bush did not round up 110,000 people living in the US based on their race and put them in detention camps.

Do you think he should have?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

He actually did implement some roundups. Who knows exactly why.

The differences escape you?

Why would I assert there should be parallels when I am making the point that there were differences in response to your assertion they were "doing the same things", which I find quite ...um... undiscriminating as a statement.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

Amos:

The fact that FDR did defy the constitution by rounding up 110,000 people Nazi style and the fact that GWB didn't is a striking difference.

Just who did GWB round up?

Now explain how FDR protected and defended the Constitution as per your requirements for a "good" president please.

You might want to explain away Abe Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:44 PM

You can do your own homework, amigo.

You're still ignoring the differences and using them to create impassioned but inaccurate rhetoric.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM

Amos: You are big on assertions but small on defending those assertions.

So you are admitting that Lincoln FDR and GWB all suspended Habeas Corpus in defiance of the constitution?

You accuse others of using rhetoric but What do you call this?

"At its heart there is extortion which suits John Bolton for the UN job"

"discussed material regarding the Rubbish administration's relationship with Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:30 PM

I don't think those are my lines, Dickey.

And if you don't like my point of view, feel free to ignore it.

Having one act in common with prior Presidents, in a very different context, does not make W comparable, or his situation comparable to them.

Bush started a war. Lincoln and FDR had a war thrust upon them. For Bush;s situation to have been comparable he would have had to invade Saudi Arabia, which would have been even stupider, I guess. If he had even bothered to manage the war in Afghanistan competently, with some resultant measurable impact on bin Laden's Al Qeda, it might have been, at least, conscionable after the 9-11 catastrophe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM

Amos You are right about one of those lines not being yours but

"Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 02:09 PM

The Times details in this report a case of rampant, heavy-handed censorship of non-classified, publically discussed material regarding the Rubbish administration's relationship with Iran."

Yes Amos, there are always minute details that you can weasel out with.

How about this fact: during WWII FDR 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: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

Well, there is universal American guilt for what FDR did to the Japanese Americans... You won't find anyone who says "Yeah, them Japs was out to get us... That's why they immigrated here and set up all these small businesses so they would be in a position to invade us from our rear flank..."

How friggin' stupid... Yeah, we all know that was a bad time for American history... I don't think there is anyone with an I.Q. greater than that of a box of animal crakers who would think different...

But here we are going on 6 years since 9/11 and we have folks locked up who we don't have a clue if they were bad guys 'er not-so-bad guys and we have had opportunities to take a deep breath and say, "Hey, maybe these folks deserve judical review to see if they are bad guys" but we haven't done that...

A chickensh*t Republican Congress sent a bill to a Chickenhawk president that says, "Hey, screw them folks. We don't care if they are guilty or not..." and the chickenhawk president signed it into law, thus violatin' some, ahhhhh, is it 600 years of accepted legal principle that an imprisoned individual had the right to know why he was being held???

Exactly what am I missing here???

Yeah, the US has made ammends foer the internment of Japanese Americans but here we are in a much less engaged situations with folks of Isalmic Faith and we still have our feet on the throats of folks who may or maynot have been America's enemies yet we don't allow judical review...

And the way it is with the so-called War on Terrorism having no end-game in a position to keep these folks until they die, regardless of innocence or guilt???

This is not my grandaddies America and I, for one, will be glad when we have real men, not chickenhawk/chickensh*t punks running out great country and where international law means something...

Oh, Jan. '09 can't come fast enough... These autocrat/nazis are stinkin' up the joint...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM

Bobert:

When I use the word Nazi to describe what FDR (on Amos's approved list of presidents above) did, I am told that I am using "impassioned but inaccurate rhetoric"

I am not saying what FDR did was right but it was a hell of a lot worse that what Bush did. FDR did not even get congressional approval. He lied his ass of to the American people about not getting into the war because the peace mongers said we had no business getting into it while secretly helping with the war effort. If the US had gotten involved sooner, it would have been over sooner and lives would have been saved.

People that go around claiming that this president has done something terrible that none of the other great presidents did or would have done are dead wrong. They lack perspective.

Now were those "Japs" that you refered to captured on the battlefield?

I too am waiting for 09 to see what Obama or more likely Hillary is going to do besides flap their jaws and talk about how horrible things are like the democratic congress is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:18 PM

Context is important Dickey. You don't get accurate meaning by taking things out of context. This thread is about W's Administration, not whether FDR was right or not.

A major industrialized nation -- in fact several of them -- were massed against the US and FDR. A known enemy with an industrial base. Al Qeda is less than a nation, a different kind of enemy altogether. If Bush had focused on how to deal with THAT enemy, he would not have been spending a trillion dollars in Iraq. The whole chain of events from 9-11 on has been one bad judgement and mismanaged program on top of another. As a result of his decision to make a sandbox out of Iraq, several thousand more men are dead than might otherwise have been. Well, maybe...who knows. Point is, it was a bad call on his part, blinded by power and greedy advisors and a lack of clear insight.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:46 PM

Reality check.

This in no way excuses the wholesale round-up of Japanese in the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor, but there were aspects of it that many of those hell-bent-on finding fault with FDR are disinclined to take into consideration. And I might point out that trying to characterize the round-up and detention as "Nazi style" is way over the top:   there was no slave labor, no gas chambers, and no mass exterminations. And provision was made for the continued schooling of the children. It was most certainly a violation of civil rights, but it was not an entirely unmixed curse. The major reason given was to forestall potential sabotage or other activity by Japanese living in the United States who may have remained loyal to Japan. But an additional reason was given:   the protection of the Japanese themselves. Those who were in detention may not have appreciated this much, but it was not without a certain merit. I was a kid at the time, but I was very aware that feelings ran high, there was a lot of anger, and there were plenty of people who had a tendency to act before they thought.

Case in point:   during the Sixties, I met a woman about my age named May Yee. She was a school kid during the war, just as I was. But her school experience was not quite as placid as mine. She told me that her memory of World War II was punctuated by the number of times that kids would walk up to her on the street, on the playground, or in the school halls, say "Take THIS, you lousy Jap!" and punch her in the face.

Small misconception, however. She wasn't Japanese. She was Chinese. The shape of your eyes was enough to get people to gang up and beat the crap out of you.

Since this attitude was pandemic, I've often wondered what might have happened to a lot of Japanese had they not been stashed away—safely—in detention camps.

My father told me that the same kind of collective hatred was felt toward anyone with a Germanic sounding name (which included a number of Austrians, Scandinavians, and Swiss) during Warld War I. A lot of Schmidts and Gottfrieds became Smiths and Godfreys back then as a matter of personal safety.

Don Firth

P. S. There may be a few signs that the world is improving a bit. There is a mosque in Seattle a few blocks to the east of the Northgate shopping mall. Following on the heels of the attack on the World Trade Center, there was a great deal of understandable fear on the part of those who worshipped at this mosque. But they were relieved, and extremely appreciative, when a number of Christian churches and a synagogue or two in the area sent some of the more able-bodied members of their congregations—in force—to patrol the area around the mosque and protect it. Good precaution. Several attempts at vandalism and arson simply died before they got started.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:18 PM

So in other words Amos, you define what people can say on this thread. No one can have any objections to what you say or make any comparisons or tell you that you are wrong.

You complain about the president. I ask you who would be a good president. You mentioned Lincoln and FDR. When I compare their actions to Bush you tell me it is about Bush, not them.

My freedom of speech is subjugated by your freedom of speech. Correct?

Well I am still going to say what I want to say but I am not going to indulge in the name calling you seem to feel is necessary to prove your point.

The USA was attacked on American soil and American lives were lost. Whomever or whatever attacked us, whether they had an industrial base or not, still deserved a counter attack. They got it.

Whether you believe invading Iraq was justified or not, the Clinton administration thought so and that was inherited by the Bush administration. Actually Clinton, whom you said "seemed to hold to those values" did attack Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs.

Notice the the Muslims in America were not rounded up and put into interment camps and held indefinitely with no charges without the approval of congress.

Enemy combatants were captured on the battlefield and held indefinitely until it could be determined if they were a threat, with the approval of congress.

Overseas communications and mail from certain sources are being monitored in an effort to detect terrorist activities. I would be pissed off if this were not being done as it was done during WW2 and right after WW2 up to the present time using UKUSA and ECHELON.

It is true things have not gone well but when was the last war the went well? Maybe it was Lincon's civil war or Wilson's WW1 or FDR's WW2 or Trueman's Korean war or Johnson's Vietnam war or Clinton's invasion of Somalia.

It is your namecalling, impassioned and incorrect rhetoric that exposes the incorrectness of your position.

You appear to be an idealist to me, destined to complain no matter what.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:16 AM

This would all be well and good, Dickey, except that you have asserted the gloss of things without regard for their substance. For example, you lightly gloss over the inhumane violations of the Geneva Convention as thought it were actually necessary to set aside the normal protections of human rights. It was not necessary and I am sure that the years those men spent in their rendition centers or Guantanamo were not spent in the difficult task of ascertaining their status--I think tha is a fairy tale.

The only counter-attack against those who launched 9-11 that seems to have come anywhere close is the botched offensive at Bora Bora, where the Conglomerate forces allowed (apparently--this is all information at a distance) the head of Al queda to escape. Our offensive against Al Queda has been seriously compromised by the half-wit decision to invade a foreign country for other reasons on a "preventivce" basis, an immoral proposition in my opinion.

As for my trying to control the conversation, I was simply pointing out what this thread is about, which is not FDR. Say what you like, old fruit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

Tell me about the Geneva convention in regards to the Japanese interment.

The Geneva convention was for how a country with a military would treat prisioners of war another country with a military.

al-Qaeda is not a military force, no uniforms or rankings, they do not have a country and they don't give a hoot about how they treat American prisoners and never signed anything but the signs they hang around the neck of cililian prisoners while the behead them on videotape.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:01 AM

As I see it Al Queda has done very well by our Village Idiot. They weren't really hurt, actually they're probably doing very well. They spent very little in their quest to harm the US & forced us to spend ourselves into what may be bankruptcy, turned our hand in the invasion of 2 nations, one who's leader they disliked, so they are now thanking us for the vacumm we've created for them & the foothold that they now hold there. We've lost many of our rights & freedoms in our battle, which is now (the battle) not even with them. We've probably made them far more wealthy that they had been prior to 9/11 (stock) & richer in recruits too. The nation is now divided over many issues. Our economy has been ripped apart & our way of life has been changed forever. This you can thank the Bush network for. All because of the way they chose to knee-jerk react to a horrid situation. We have shown the world how nasty we can be to others & towards our own, the rest of the world looks on us with disgust. We heed the will, the ways, the worries & the wisdom of none, including our own & we show that we can go to hell by ourselves we don't need any nation to help us do it. Just show us a gang of thugs & we'll handle the rest. THAT'S ALL IT TOOK! ONE GANG!

I don't care about what FDR or Linclon or Bill Clinton did. None were ever so stupid to land us in a mess so tragic as this. Habe the Corpse was never hung by the neck until dead before, domistic spying was never law before, maybe done against the law, 40 years ago many of us fought for our civil rights & it was a long time coming, what a swift goodbye. Torture, rendition, by passing the UN, the Geneva Conventions, the "Go It Alone" & danm all who aren't with US, all this because we couldn't figure out a better way to find a gang of thugs in a desert & deal with them in a proper manner. We had to blame the world & tear it apart in our haste to lay waste to what wasn't even there in the first place.

How stupid does all this make US? Has any other nation anywhere ever been so foolish? Attack 2 nations because of a gang of thugs attacked US! Spend our grandchildren's legacy & dowery over a handful of fanatics! Anyone supporting this kind of thought or rational has clearly been blindsided! Was all this worth it? Did we get our man, I mean the real man behind the start of all this? No we didn't & if we did he's old, probably nearing the end of his sickly life anyway. Would it heal 3 nations if we had him & shot him? There will be no satisfaction, NEVER, there may be no recovery either & if so we won't see it in this generation! Can there be justification for what we've gone & done to ourselves? NO! They didn't do this, they only only attacked some buildings & killed a lot of innocent people, we did the rest to ourselves. There were better ways, we just didn't have the time to look for them. The trust from the Viet Nam War still hasn't returned when do you think we will see trust in this government again? NOT IN THIS LIFE TIME! Did we win yet? Mission Abort!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:06 AM

"...In fact, it's becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

For now, the nation's focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he "would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons." But it's already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn't use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.

In the last few days we've also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: "In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished."

Fortunately, Mr. Rove's smear-and-fear tactics fell short last November. I say fortunately, because without Democrats in control of Congress, able to hold hearings and issue subpoenas, the prosecutor purge would probably have become yet another suppressed Bush-era scandal — a huge abuse of power that somehow never became front-page news.

Before the midterm election, I wrote that what the election was really about could be summed up in two words: subpoena power. Well, the Democrats now have that power, and the hearings on the prosecutor purge look like the shape of things to come.

In the months ahead, we'll hear a lot about what's really been going on these past six years. And I predict that we'll learn about abuses of power that would have made Richard Nixon green with envy. "

Paul Krugman, NY Times Op-Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

More on the Republic manner of doing business in managing the nation:

"Americans often suspect that their political leaders are arrogant and out of touch. But even then it is nearly impossible to fathom what self-delusion could have convinced Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico that he had a right to call a federal prosecutor at home and question him about a politically sensitive investigation.

That disturbing tale is one of several revealed this week in Congressional hearings called to look into the firing of eight United States attorneys. The hearings left little doubt that the Bush administration had all eight — an unprecedented number — ousted for political reasons. But it points to even wider abuse; prosecutors suggest that three Republican members of Congress may have tried to pressure the attorneys into doing their political bidding.

It already seemed clear that the Bush administration's purge had trampled on prosecutorial independence. Now Congress and the Justice Department need to investigate possible ethics violations, and perhaps illegality. Two of the fired prosecutors testified that they had been dismissed after resisting what they suspected were importunings to use their offices to help Republicans win elections. A third described what may have been a threat of retaliation if he talked publicly about his firing.

David Iglesias, who was removed as the United States attorney in Albuquerque, said that he was first contacted before last fall's election by Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico. Ms. Wilson, who was in a tough re-election fight, asked about sealed indictments — criminal charges that are not public.

Two weeks later, he said, he got a call from Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, asking whether he intended to indict Democrats before the election in a high-profile corruption case. When Mr. Iglesias said no, he said, Mr. Domenici replied that he was very sorry to hear it, and the line went dead. Mr. Iglesias said he'd felt "sick." Within six weeks, he was fired. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Domenici both deny that they had tried to exert pressure.

John McKay of Seattle testified that the chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington, called to ask whether he intended to investigate the 2004 governor's race, which a Democrat won after two recounts. Mr. McKay says that when he went to the White House later to discuss a possible judicial nomination (which he did not get), he was told of concerns about how he'd handled the election. H. E. Cummins, a fired prosecutor from Arkansas, said that a Justice Department official, in what appeared to be a warning, said that if he kept talking about his firing, the department would release negative information about him."

---

So now we have adulterated the separation of church and state AND corroded the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches of government.

I wonder what else they can find to break in the noble prusuit of the Imperialist Mandate?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:59 PM

In campaigning for the presidency in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt promised the American public that a balanced budget would be maintained. In fact, during all his years in the White House, prior to our buildup for World War II, a balanced budget was uppermost in his mind. Philosophically, he was against the government's going further into debt -- but, in order to support his many relief programs, his advisors felt that it was necessary to spend more. As program after program was passed -- programs that would cost taxpayers billions of dollars -- the choices were increased taxes or government borrowing. So, to give the American people a "New Deal," a budget deficit was needed.

When he first took over the presidency, Roosevelt had the backing of many segments of society -- not only the general public but bankers and businessmen. The depression affected everyone. Business was hurt badly; government borrowing was far more acceptable to the business community than higher taxes. Such was the attitude until 1936, when bankers and businessmen began to change their views. As recovery began to take effect, the deficit was not considered necessary. Even though he did not favor greater debt, Roosevelt had his priorities. Convinced that deficits were temporary and not a permanent fact of fiscal life, he was exultant about the pump-priming consequences of spending. In his budget message of 1936 he stated:

    Our policy is succeeding. The figures prove it Secure in the knowledge that steadily decreasing deficits will turn in time into steadily increasing surpluses, and that it is the deficit of today which is making possible the surplus of tomorrow, let us pursue the course we have mapped.

As unemployment decreased during those early years of pump-priming, there seemed to be some grounds for President Roosevelt's optimism. Then, one year after his second inauguration, unemployment began to rise. Why, in spite of this pump priming, was there a recession within a depression? The pump was not running; prosperity generated by deficits had not survived the withdrawal of the stimulus. Were deficits to become a permanent part of government policy?

Looking back upon those deficit days of the New Deal, it is well to note that the average yearly federal budget deficit was about three billion dollars, out of an entire federal budget of six to nine billion dollars. The federal government was borrowing a larger portion of its operating expenses in the 30s than it is today.

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us19.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM

Yeah. I understand some of the medieval barons overspent their budgets too. Terrible things were done during the Crusades, also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: jeffp
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:53 PM

It ain't Bush's fault after all. It's Johannes's. Just watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704 (video)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:45 PM

But Amos, FDR is on your good guys list.

Now if Bush would only overspend by 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire federal budget, he could be on your good guys list too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

You see Amos, Here is a chart that shows the federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP. The gray block on the left is WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

I see, Dickey, and thanks for the link. Seems to me that squirming out of things must run in the same genes that makes people vote for dipwads. You would like to propose that FR's situation is "just like" Bush's, which is pure fantasy and conflation of dissimilarities on your part. This escapade of Mister Bush's has cost the US taxpayer one trillion dollars, approximately. Bush had a choice in dealing with the aftermath of 9-11. His nation was attacked by thugs, evidently, if messianic thugs. FDR's was attacked by two industrialized nation. I suspect your graph is badly distorted. I wonder where those numbers come from. But even if it is correct, it does reflect the fiscal management or the situation of the two men.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:21 PM

You are right Amos what FDR did was much worse, So is he off of your good guy list now.

A trillion dollars does not buy what it used to and the total GDP is much higher than it was during WW2. A 1940 dollar is worth $.05 so that puts things into perspective, that is for people who want to see things in perspective.

If you take the number of Americans that died in WW2 as a percentage of the population and compare that to the percentage of Americans that have died so far in Iraq, how does it compare? I get .34% compared to .00001%

And another one of your drumbeats is about the approval rating of GWB. How does that compare with Truman's approval rating during the Korean war? 25%. Gerald Ford dropped to 39% How does that compare with Bush's current 35%?

I thought Liberal thinkers could see the big picture, things in perspective as opposed to a narrow minded focus and fixations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM

You have missed the "big picture" yourself. For FDR, war was inevitable, forced on him by the insanity of others. For Bush, war was a willful step, taken in a hasty gluttonous anxiety fed by the proddings of fat, meat-minded men. Willful entry into a state of war, not as a last resort but as an act of intended choice, is about as bad a misstep in statesmanship as anyone in this nation's history has made. But you keep slinging the two about in meaningless comparisons as if their situations were comparable. You miss the big factor that makes all the difference. Bush had a choice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:15 AM

ASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI is guilty of "serious misuse" of the power to secretly obtain private information under the Patriot Act, a government audit said Friday.

The Justice Department's inspector general looked at the FBI's use of national security letters, in which agents demand personal and business information about individuals -- such as financial, phone, and Internet records -- without court orders.

The audit found the letters were issued without proper authority, cited incorrect statutes or obtained information they weren't supposed to.

As many as 22 percent of national security letters were not recorded, the audit said.

"We concluded that many of the problems we identified constituted serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in the report.

The audit said there were no indications that the FBI's use of the letters "constituted criminal misconduct."

The audit sparked a new stage in the ongoing battle over the Patriot Act, which was put into place after the September 11 attacks. Critics have slammed some of its provisions for intruding on civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to "act immediately to repeal these dangerous Patriot Act provisions."

The FBI has made as many as 56,000 requests a year for information using the letters since the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001, the audit found.

A single letter can contain multiple information requests, and multiple letters may target one individual.

The audit found that in 2004 and 2005, more than half of the targets of the national security letters were U.S. citizens.

---

There -- don't you feel safer?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Barry
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Be careful Amos, love. FDR is gonna get pulled out of that black hat again like a rabbit in rebuttal. Not that FDR has anything in common here but he just keeps popping up as an example. Go figure. WWII has got nothing in common with our present day situation. Each day it seems as if (ok maybe each week) we take one more step back into the dark ages, (not the middle ages, we are now past that) & we had come such a long way, baby (sarcasm) since WWII, not that far from Viet Nam though. It's enough to make a grown man or woman cry. The firing of the 8 AG's is only symtomatic of an administration gone beserk. This in itself is tragic that an effort like this would or could be even attempted never mind excuted. But this is just one example of many that keeps getting repeated & defended that at present it's becoming overwhelming to just keep track of these blows upon our justice system never mind trying to right the wrongs & to attempt bring those responsible to justice. At this rate with the barrage of assults & the steamrolling over of our rights we'll (we the people) will have nothing left & nothing left to fight with.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:09 AM

Dickey lost the script long ago. You start spouting facts and he gets all messed up right quick. He is a diehard Bush fan, and he lives in a world where right is determined by his politics, not his brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:43 AM

The Times' Krugman adds:

"In fact, it's becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

For now, the nation's focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he "would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons." But it's already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn't use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.

In the last few days we've also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn't go along with the Bush administration's politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:48 AM

From an essay by the founder of the Crossroads Baptist Church of Pensacola, FL:

"...One juror, Denis Collins, asked, "What is he [Libby] doing here? Where's [Karl] Rove? Where are these other guys?" Several jurors publicly questioned why Vice President Cheney or President Bush were not in the courtroom.

At issue is whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney deliberately manipulated evidence regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and whether they deliberately lied to and deceived the American people and Congress in order to invade Iraq.

Of course, all this was brought to light when the White House made the decision to "out" CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly suggested that Bush and Cheney had lied and manipulated evidence in order to launch the Iraq invasion. To date, no one has been charged with leaking Plame's identity, but the Libby trial has clearly implicated Bush and Cheney in the whole affair. The jurors seemed convinced of that much, that is for sure.

It has been reported that George W. Bush began planning an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after being elected president in 2000, which was long before the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, President Bush has since acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that it had no WMD capable of threatening the United States. However, he has constantly blamed "bad intelligence" for the decision to launch the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

The American people and history may forgive a leader for an erroneous decision predicated upon bad intelligence. However, neither the American people nor history will forgive a leader for deliberately manipulating evidence and lying to Congress in order to satisfy a personal bloodlust.

Therefore, Congress should immediately commission an independent counsel to investigate whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney did indeed manipulate evidence and deliberately lie to the American people. If that investigation proves that President Bush acted in good faith and with no ulterior motives, his decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as a colossal lapse in judgment. If, on the other hand, the investigation proves that he manipulated evidence and lied to the American people, his actions most definitely rise to the constitutional standard for impeachment. We need a thorough investigation to find the truth."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 05:16 AM

"To the Editor:

David Brooks rationalizes the Bush administration's appalling failures in the so-called war on terror with the statement that "wisdom comes from suffering and error, and when the passions die down and observation begins."

There was no pre-existing shortage of wisdom. Among the many who eloquently expressed such wisdom were the former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

But such wisdom was absent from, rejected by and disparaged by the Bush administration and its cheerleaders in the media, including Mr. Brooks.

Kenneth J. Kahn"

Long Beach, N.Y., March 8, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:28 PM

Too Many Secrets

(NY Times editorial)

It is a challenge to keep track of all the ways the Bush administration is eroding constitutional protections, but one that should get more attention is its abuse of the state secrets doctrine. A federal appeals court in Virginia this month accepted the administration's claim that the doctrine barred a lawsuit of a torture victim from going forward, and the government is using the defense in another torture case in New York. The Supreme Court needs to scale back the use of this dangerous legal defense.

Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, says he was picked up in Macedonia and flown to Afghanistan, where he was questioned about ties to terrorist groups and beaten by his captors, some of whom were Americans. He was apparently subjected to "extraordinary rendition," the practice of taking foreign nationals to be interrogated in other countries where, the Bush administration believes, American law does not reach.

Mr. Masri sued, charging the C.I.A. with violating the Constitution and international law. The government argued that if the case went forward, it would put national security secrets at risk. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, agreed and threw out the case, insisting that the "very subject matter" of Mr. Masri's encounter with the rendition program was too secret for his case to go forward.

The court erred badly. The government has already spoken publicly about its rendition program, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has hailed as "a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism," and Mr. Masri's case has been widely covered in the media. If there are particular facts that need to be kept secret, the court could have found a way to separate them out, while letting the case proceed.

The government has raised a similar defense in the case of Maher Arar, who was sent to Syria and tortured. That case is on its way to a federal appeals court in New York.

If the state secrets doctrine is allowed to grow to the scope the Fourth Circuit stretched it to, it could prevent judicial review of a wide array of unconstitutional actions by the executive branch. The Supreme Court should reverse this ruling and hold the executive branch accountable, in Mr. Masri's case and others, when it acts outside the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:39 PM

Reflections on British politics:

"But why do people stand as politicians if they have no policies? Many politicians claim privately that they are simply concealing their policies until they are elected. It is more likely that when the winds of office change in their favor, they will find their faces frozen into an expression of affable inaction. The role of a modern politician is apparently to be likable, to tinker with existing institutions and to manage occasional crises.

Churchill has been replaced by Bertie Wooster.

In Iraq, hundreds of thousands have died over the last few years and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent by the U.S.-led coalition. The international system is fractured; the Islamic world is angry. Yet both major British political parties still refuse to admit the problem and instead tweak the current mission: withdraw some troops from Iraq, put a few more in Afghanistan.

A million people took to London's streets to stop the invasion. Thirty million now think we should withdraw from Iraq. Whatever the correct policy, there should be a fierce practical and ideological political debate. But it is not happening in Parliament."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:14 AM

On Libby's role as a central team player for the WHite House Gang:

"Mr. Libby's novel was called "The Apprentice." His memoir could be titled "The Accomplice." Its first chapter would open in August 2002, when he and a small cadre of administration officials including Karl Rove formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret task force to sell the Iraq war to the American people. The climactic chapter of the Libby saga unfolded last week when the guilty verdict in his trial coincided, all too fittingly, with the Congressional appearance of two Iraq veterans, one without an ear and one without an eye, to recount their subhuman treatment at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

It was WHIG's secret machinations more than four years ago that led directly to those shredded lives. WHIG had been tasked, as The Washington Post would later uncover, to portray Iraq's supposedly imminent threat to America with "gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence." In other words, WHIG was to cook up the sexiest recipe for promoting the war, facts be damned. So it did, by hyping the scariest possible scenario: nuclear apocalypse. As Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in "Hubris," it was WHIG (equipped with the slick phrase-making of the White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) that gave the administration its Orwellian bumper sticker, the constantly reiterated warning that Saddam's "smoking gun" could be "a mushroom cloud."

Ever since all the W.M.D. claims proved false, the administration has pleaded that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else saw. But the nuclear card, the most persistent and gripping weapon in the prewar propaganda arsenal, was this White House's own special contrivance. Mr. Libby was present at its creation. He knows what Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney knew about the manufacture of this fiction and when they knew it.

Clearly they knew it early on. The administration's guilt (or at least embarrassment) about its lies in fomenting the war quickly drove it to hide the human price being paid for those lies. (It also tried to hide the financial cost of the war by keeping it out of the regular defense budget, but that's another, if related, story.) The steps the White House took to keep casualties out of view were extraordinary, even as it deployed troops to decorate every presidential victory rally and gave the Pentagon free rein to exploit the sacrifices of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in mendacious P.R. stunts."

(Frank Rich, NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:16 AM

Ibid:

"What Mr. Libby did — fabricating nuclear threats at WHIG and then lying under oath when he feared that sordid Pandora's box might be pried open by the Wilson case — was despicable. Had there been no WHIG or other White House operation for drumming up fictional rationales for war, there would have been no bogus uranium from Africa in a presidential speech, no leak to commit perjury about, no amputees to shut away in filthy rooms at Walter Reed.

Listening to Ms. Matalin and her fellow apparatchiks emote publicly about the punishment being inflicted on poor Mr. Libby and his family, you wonder what world they live in. They seem clueless about how ugly their sympathy for a conniving courtier sounds against the testimony of those wounded troops and their families who bear the most searing burdens of the unnecessary war WHIG sped to market."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

There -- don't you feel safer? Yes

Amos was the one that brought up FDR.

FDR stayed out of the war until he was forced to Fight Japan but how was he forced to fight in Europe?

If FDR had joined in the war in Europe earlier, lives would have been
saved.


Here Amos, this is by a fellow anti war person like yourself:
How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War



Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the United States out of World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt promised never to send American boys onto foreign battlefields, even as each was doing his best to do otherwise.

Who attacked the US in WW1?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM

I new that rabbit couldn't stay in the hat.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 12:59 AM

Dickey;

What can you add to the discussion of popular views of the Bush administration?

Do you concur they are as profoundly corrupt as some say? Do you think Bush is the worst President ever?

What do _you_ feel he has done well?


A

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

Krugman (Times) on Gozales and the political manipulation of Justice:

"Nobody is surprised to learn that the Justice Department was lying when it claimed that recently fired federal prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. Nor is anyone surprised to learn that White House political operatives were pulling the strings.

What is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an "overblown personnel matter."

Sources told Newsweek that the list of prosecutors to be fired was drawn up by Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, "with input from the White House." And Allen Weh, the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, told McClatchy News that he twice sought Karl Rove's help — the first time via a liaison, the second time in person — in getting David Iglesias, the state's U.S. attorney, fired for failing to indict Democrats. "He's gone," he claims Mr. Rove said.

After that story hit the wires, Mr. Weh claimed that his conversation with Mr. Rove took place after the decision to fire Mr. Iglesias had already been taken. Even if that's true, Mr. Rove should have told Mr. Weh that political interference in matters of justice is out of bounds; Mr. Weh's account of what he said sounds instead like the swaggering of a two-bit thug.

And the thuggishness seems to have gone beyond firing prosecutors who didn't deliver the goods for the G.O.P. One of the fired prosecutors was — as he saw it — threatened with retaliation by a senior Justice Department official if he discussed his dismissal in public. Another was rejected for a federal judgeship after administration officials, including then-White House counsel Harriet Miers, informed him that he had "mishandled" the 2004 governor's race in Washington, won by a Democrat, by failing to pursue vote-fraud charges.

As I said, none of this is surprising. The Bush administration has been purging, politicizing and de-professionalizing federal agencies since the day it came to power. But in the past it was able to do its business with impunity; this time Democrats have subpoena power, and the old slime-and-defend strategy isn't working.

You also have to wonder whether new signs that Mr. Gonzales and other administration officials are willing to cooperate with Congress reflect the verdict in the Libby trial. It probably comes as a shock to realize that even Republicans can face jail time for lying under oath..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:23 AM

"Bob Herbert presents the Walter Reed scandal as a much broader issue, something much of the mainstream press and our government are refusing to believe.

There can be no more contempt for our troops than concocting a lie to send them into harm's way and not providing adequate resources for them to accomplish their job — however impossible it may be to begin with.

The responsibility rests with the Republican Party, which has offered unapologetic canards for Iraq from the beginning.

The G.O.P. is the first to accuse critics of draining troop morale, developing new catch phrases like "a Democratic 'slow bleed' strategy."

What the G.O.P. must realize is that our troops have been slowly bleeding since the day President Bush began this blunder of a war, and they will continue to do so until we bring them home.

Randy LoBasso
Philadelphia, March 8, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

Another facet of the obsessive secretiveness and below-board style of the Resident:

"In November 2001, while the world was focused on terrorism, President Bush issued an executive order making it significantly harder for historians and the public to gain access to a former president's official papers. The House has a chance tomorrow to reverse this damaging decree.

Mr. Bush's decision effectively repealed the presumption of public availability enshrined in the Presidential Records Act of 1978, a post-Watergate reform that established that the treasure trove of historical material amassed by a president belongs to the American people.

In the place of these open government principles, Mr. Bush established cumbersome review procedures that give former presidents, and even their heirs, unprecedented authority to selectively withhold sensitive records indefinitely. The backlog of presidential document requests now extends to five years or longer, compared with 18 months in 2001, according to recent testimony in the House.

The bill to undo Mr. Bush's order, sponsored by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and colleagues from both parties, would re-establish sensible procedures to ensure timely release of presidential documents. It would retract the authority Mr. Bush granted presidential descendants and vice presidents to withhold records. "

(Editorial NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 10:42 AM

From Bangor, Maine, in the Daily News:

"Politicized justice
By BDN Staff
Monday, March 12, 2007 - Bangor Daily News


What began as scattered reports of the firing of some top federal prosecutors has suddenly erupted into a full-blown scandal with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the defensive, scrambling to appease his critics and possibly even to hold onto his job.

As recently as Wednesday, in a column in USA Today, he brushed aside questions about the firings as "an overblown personnel matter." And he sought to explain the dismissals by saying merely "they lost my confidence."

But on Thursday afternoon Mr. Gonzales reversed himself, went to the Capitol for a private meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and agreed to let five of his aides involved in the firings testify without subpoena. He also dropped his objection to a pending bill that would withdraw his year-old power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

Most striking of all was a cryptic remark by Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the committee and a frequent critic of the Bush administration. Mr. Specter, stung by the Gonzales column, said, "One day, there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner than later." (He later said that he hadn't meant to suggest that Mr. Gonzales was stepping down.)

The concessions came after a week of hearings in which the fired prosecutors told of Republican pressure to hasten investigation of alleged Democratic wrongdoing and go easy in investigating Republicans. In one case, Daniel G. Bogden, an 11-year Justice Department veteran, tried to learn why he was dismissed as U.S. attorney in Nevada. He said he finally reached a senior department official who told him they were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in, a return to the old discredited spoils system.

This evident politicization of the Justice Department might never have been known if the Republicans hadn't lost the leadership of both houses last November. The Democrats' victory put gave them the committee chairmanships and, above all, the power to subpoena testimony.

..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

IF you have ever wondered how you compared to Bush on the morality scale here is an easy quiz that will let you find out. Enjoy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM

A scandalous story of genuine jackbootery on a Denver busline has crossed my plate. It reflects not on the Bush Administration directly but on the reign of terror that the Bush Administration has promulgated. It is a really ugly tale of the kind of thuggery that people should never have to put up with in this country. Unfortunately, in the days of Home Land Security panic-mongering, it occurs too often -- at airports, in meetings on city streets, and on public transport.

You read the facts of the case, and a legal analysis of it, here.

If this is the kind of country that Bush's people want to have, they should be put on trial for treason.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

"What can you add to the discussion of popular views of the Bush administration?

Do you concur they are as profoundly corrupt as some say? Do you think Bush is the worst President ever?

What do _you_ feel he has done well?"

Given the difficult circumstances inherited from previous adminstrations, I feel that the Bush Administration has done no worse that previous administrations and is no more corrupt.

In handling the economy he has done well. If you look back in history and at the economy of other countries, you will see what I mean.

On curbing illegal immigration he has done poorly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

PS:

I don't see this thread as a discussion of anything. Just a gathering of anything negative that Amos can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:16 AM

Well, feel free to add popular views in support of the "doing well" part, if you can find some. Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush. I am not sure why that constitutes doing a good job on the economy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

"What you are doing is tantamount to fear-mongering, in an effort to scrabble for some kind of cheap factional angle with no concern for the public weal yourself.

By all means, expose graft and shine the light on evil. But don't go doing it on a partisan ballyhoo basis. It is tedious and counterproductive. I predict you will find some more, and it will not stop, because power corrupts human beings in general, with delightful rare exceptions. Blow all the whistles you like, but do it from a sense of decency, not a lust for slander."


I wonder who said this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Our surplus went from billions at the end of the Clinton era to negative trillions under Bush."

Will Mr. fixated narrow focus please see this chart and notice the the Clinton "surplus" started a precipitous down hill decline in 2000, before Bush took office because there was a recession underway.

Also notice that the deficit was decreasing before Clinton took office.

Right now it is decreasing and will likely be decreasing when the next president takes office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

The chart you refer to says that Clinton's talley was a net gain of 526 billion. George Bush's first term was a net deficit of -648 billion. This loss has been reduced to -496 billion to date. These numbers do not reflect the national indebtedness, merely the budget deficit. Bush effectively wiped out all Clinton's gains, according to this chart, and is barely back to square zero or one in recovering them as far as the budget deficit is concerned. Also note the chart ends on 1-29, before present surge outlays have been fully assessed.

BB: I did.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

"Spend our grandchildren's legacy & dowery"

FDR, one of Amos's good guys, spent ours. See Chart

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

Dickey, you blithering dog's breath, that was the middle of WW II!! Jaysus!! You would turn Christ's own crutch into a political football if someone dropped it on your head!! LOL!





A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

Amos: Please be advised that Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy that indicate you have nothing to offer but personal attacks and rhetoric.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks.

As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness, because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

I notice you have cleverly avoided addressing the actual logical fallacy of comparing WW II fiscal management with the fiscal management in later years.

My argument with you was couched in ad hominem terms, but it is quite clear there is a substantive distinction in the center of it which you have twisted to your own purposes.

I have frankly had enough of this ducking, twisting. squirming and viperous inanity. The thinking is too corkscrewed around and bass-ackwards for me to even begin to understand it. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

And the FDR rabbit appears AGAIN! Please kill the rabbit!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 04:07 PM

my cartoon of Bush with Harriet Myers and Gonzales on his arm:

SURGE THE TROOPS AND PURGE THE JUDGES !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

From "Political COrtex", a blog with left-leaning tendencies:

"To Impeach George Bush or Not to Impeach George Bush! That is the Question!
By Bob Kendall
03/13/2007 04:17:18 PM EST

Does the current Congress consider the Constitution a dead document? Ronald Roberts of Redmond, Washington, in a compelling letter to the Seattle Times editors on March 12, posed this impeachment necessity bluntly:
"Our legislators at both the federal and state level are equally bound by Article 6 of the United States Constitution to support it. To ignore the assault that has occurred is dereliction."

As for Democrats who have failed their constitution-bound duty to begin impeachment proceedings, we must censure Nancy Pelosi emphatically. How dare Nancy decide, "Impeachment is off the table."

Apparently instead of demanding that impeachment investigations begin immediately, Nancy has demanded a larger airplane to supply for herself and those she deems worthy to be taken along for the ride, at taxpayer expense, of course.


Elizabeth Walter of Seattle told the editors of the Seattle Times her views on March 12:
"I believe Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney in order to honor the wisdom of our forefathers and to defend the American experiment.

"Our forefathers knew that there would be corrupt people in the executive office who would abuse the people and abuse the power bestowed by the people. Those corrupt people are in the executive office today, and we need to hold them to account.

"Bush and Cheney have repeatedly violated the Constitution, our laws, and lied to Congress and the public over and over."

After launching the Iraq War with a well orchestrated media blitz of lies and fear tactics which did dispose of a former ally, Saddam Hussein, we have demolished the Iraq infrastructure, sent everyday Iraq citizens fleeing by the millions to Jordan, Syria, anywhere on earth just to survive.

The unforgivable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,500 U.S. service personnel, and over 50,000 combatants and non-combatants are a tragic stain on U.S. history.

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

What does Bush fantasize chasing around South America now in Air Force One can achieve with his terrifying track record? CNN Worldwide TV has repeatedly shown all the hellish death, destruction, and debt this Administration must be held accountable for right now!

If they lose their role of allegedly representing the people they can become lobbyists themselves. Before they were accepting cash lobbyist contributions. Now they can hand out cash contributions. It has been called the slippery hand syndrome.

But not to worry; we are blessed with moral guardians like that Republican icon Newt Gingrich.

Gary Clark of Marysville, Washington told it like it is in a letter to the Seattle Times, which was published on March 12:

"It was stunning to read that Newt Gingrich crawled out of his septic tank to admit or confess that he had an extramarital affair during his pursuit of charges against President Clinton.

"Imagine that! Somehow Newt suckered all the conservative Republicans into believing he was indeed the compass for moral values and family values."

And this is one from Ripley's "Believe It or Not". Apparently born again Newt calculates that after this "public confession" he should consider running for president."


The groundswell continues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:12 AM

The New York Times offers a steaming condemnation of Bush's involvement with the firing of US Attorneys on improper grounds:

"Politics, Pure and Cynical


Published: March 14, 2007
We wish we'd been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration's sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power's sake.


Documents Regarding the Department of Justice Firings From the House Judiciary Committee Web SiteTime and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney's vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove's fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.

But these firings had nothing to do with national security — or officials' claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it.

..." Full article , worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:03 AM

"According to Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters of a plan to reduce our military presence in Iraq are "undermining" our troops.

No, what undermines our troops, and the security of our nation, is the politicized gobbledygook being spouted by Mr. Cheney and his allies.

Born of hubris, betrayed by incompetence, the administration's war strategy has been a disaster — for Iraq, for America and especially for our troops.

Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and decelerate American involvement in Iraq. Anything less undermines the safety, security and effectiveness of our brave men and women in uniform.

David Alexander
Powell, Ohio, March 13, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

I notice you have avoided addressing the fact that the money was spent by noting it was spent during a war, Do you deny it was spent?

Do you deny it was a much greater overspending than Bush is credited with now?

If it was indeed spent and if it is a greater portion of the GDP than is being spent now, how can it be any more ruinous now than it was then?.

Thus the charge of spending our grandchildren's legacy & dowery was done 60+ years ago and we are probably better off because of it.

Do you deny that Clinton inherited a declining deficit and left an decreasing surplus?

The downhill trend began during Clinton's tenure, continued until mid-2004 and is now in an upward, declining deficit trend. To say that GWB has not turned a negative trend into a positive trend is to put a narrow focus on the current state of affairs.

Notice how I have avoided calling you clever and avoided a display of hostility. Just a contribution to this discussion like you requested.

You continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours. That is why I say this is not discussion, as you have mischaractarized it, but a collection of negative views or "dogpiling".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Sigh.

No, I have no animosity. You tried to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war. The illogic of such a parallel is so obvious I was moved to cry out momentarily, because such un-reason is painful.

In any case, Bush had some wonderful opportunities to make things better, both before and after his Defining Moment of 9-11.

But he did not. He instead made things worse. His choices were made, his actions taken, on the basis of different principles than people belileved he had (those who believed he had any).

"Bush spending mopney on the Iraq War is JUST like FDR spending money on World War II" is a ridiculously improbable proposition, on the order of saying that a cat is just like an orangutang, because they both have fur and breathe. It's absurd on the face of it. Bush's invasion of Iraq was an elective course, pre-emptive and unilateral. Iraq had not invaded American soil, nor had it launched a military attack against an ally, as was the case in Bush Senior's little war in the sand over Kuwait. Bush could have chosen NOT to invade Iraq, limiting his pursuit of terrorists to Al Queda, focusing on the appropriate target, and retaining the sympathy and friendship of nations. Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content. The bottom line, when all the glorious phrases die in the wind, is that it was a bad choice cuausing unjustifiable death, homicide with a blunt instrument writ extraordinarily large in the sands of Mesopotamia.



Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:32 AM

Dickey, you said, "Your continued display of animosity toward anyone that dares to oppose your assertions indicates you are only interested in views that comply with yours."

(I added the italics.)

Well, here's the truth of it. We're all guilty of that. 99.999 % of people are really only interested in views that comply with their own. ;-) It's sad, but it's true. They listen to views that do not comply with their own only just long enough to sieze like a hungry raptor upon some detail or inconsistency or perceived weakness in the other person's argument which they can then use to attack and discredit the other person's argument. They seek victory and enhancement of their own identity (their sense of self) at the expence of someone else's identity (sense of self).

I am keenly aware of this tendency in myself as well as others. I watch it sardonically as it works out its nastiness in every political discussion on this forum. I realize that we are all quite prejudiced and subjective in our judgements, specially when it comes to controversial subjects like politics, religion, UFOs, coverups, etc....

And we all like to talk. And we all think we're right. I predict that this process will continue playing itself out over and over again until we all get old and die. And then it will recommence shortly following the beginning of our next incarnation.

It's more fun for those who have not yet acquired the ability to observe self in an accurate fashion. You could say that they are well cushioned by their own innocence, and will get to enjoy being "right" until the day they die.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

I like Little Hawk's analysis; it is interesting to reflect that some hundreds of thousands of people have been caught short inthe middle of being as right as they possibly can by the sudden intrusion of shrapnel, lead slugs, overhwelming explosive force, flames, or other violent facets of matter, causing momentary excruciating pain followed by death (hopefully quick). Not to mention those who are slogging through life on artifical limbs or unhealed stumps (depending on their support system), or eyeless, or vegetative, as a result of near death collisions with armament. Or those whose losses of loved ones have thrown them into terminal depression and incurable despond.

These beings are adding up to a population of reincarnations coming up who are probably firmly convinced that Bush's invasion was a very poor idea indeed. These sentiments, most likely, will be accompanied by inexplicable but very intense emotions such as rage, grief, and the other feelings one typically generates when being deprived of a lifetime.

I predict a major generational disagreement in 12-15 years! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM

Amos: I did not try "to draw a parallel between WW II and the Iraq war"

I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?

I think it is another artificial negative claim, a polarising issue to persuade more people to oppose the administration.

Amos seems concernend about people dying unecessarily. How many people die uncessarily every year with or without a war?

Actual Causes of death in the US in 2000:

Tobacco..............................435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity....400,000
Alcohol consumption...................85,000
Microbial Agents......................75,000
Toxic Agents..........................55,000
Motor Vehicle.........................43,000
Firearms..............................29,000
Sexual Behaviors......................20,000
Illicit Drug Use......................17,000
Total..............................1,159,000

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

Oh yeah, there's a lot out there to get upset about, isn't there? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM

It is really good of you to search out hard data, old boy.

However, the fact that as a species we do many things to bump ourselves off either accidentally or covertly does NOT mean that it just, ethical or right-minded to seek out additional ways with which to augment the statistic.

As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject. The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined by those who have been bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down. It is not a solid principle of good fidscal management no matter how rationalized it is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:02 PM

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM

Amos,

You state:
"As for why soaring deficits are bad for the economy, I can only suggest you look a little deeper into the subject."

Did you even read the comment
"I drew a paralell to deficit spending now and then and the fact that if an even greater degree of deficit spending did not "ruin" us then, why do people claim it will "ruin" us now?"




As for why soaring deficits are bad under a Republican administration at war, and good under a Democratic administration at war, I can only suggest that you try to get beyond your own bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM

"Today, he has a lot of unnecessary blood on his hands because he chose otherwise. So do those who support him. A lot of unnecessary, unjustifiable, inappropriate bloodshed, mayhem and cold death. You may sanitize all this until the cows come home. Rationalize to your heart's content."

Gee, that is the way I feel about those "anti-Bush" folks who decided that Saddam should not have to comply with 12 years of UN resolutions, and gave him the impression that he could continue to stay in power and develop WMD, by protesting US actions with NO protest of the Iraqi violations.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that is ever valid?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:34 PM

Arguing about the relative merits of Democrats and Republicans is like trying to decide which is nicer...a rabid hyena or a bubonic plague-carrying rat.

Just to voice a couple of my stronger prejudices... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

No problem, LH.

I just object to the double standard- either deficit spending IS bad, or it is not- It should NOT depend on the Party which is doing it.

We ALL have opinions- the trick is to figure out when something is stated as fact, and when it is opinion. I will argue the FACTS- ANY opinion is as valid as any other: That is NOT true about facts. Either they are, or are not valid- does not matter how deeply one wishes to believe in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM

Amos: "The glory of debt free living can barely be imagined"

I was here when the budget was supposedly balanced during the Clinton administration and I did not notice any glory. I did notice an irrational exuberance that caused a stock market bubble to burst, I did notice a rising Fed interest rate rising and I did notice gas prices rising and a slide into a recession.

Likewise I do not feel "bullied, cowed, or harassed into living upside down". I feel rather lucky that the economy has done well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

Clinton did not move the nation out of debt by a long shot. But Bush moved it deeper into it.

If the nation had been out of debt you would have seen a different picture indeed.

Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

"Deficit spending is -- in my _opinion_ -- ill-considered as a first choice policy. It over-extends the local economy and makes it dependent on the whims of factors in other nations, such as China."


An opinion that I can agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

Hmmm. Well, I think that in a general sense it is unwise for both individuals and societies to practice deficit spending, but there are times when it may be necessary. For instance, most people have to incur debt in order to buy a house. So they get a mortgage. Similarly, when a nation gets into a huge war it may need to mortgage its future to pay for that war...and that's just a question of national survival at that point. (if defeat is seen as unthinkable, which is normally the case)

Wars that are entered into by choice are a different matter from wars that are defensive in nature, and I believe that is Amos's point. For instance, Hitler freely chose to attack Poland, Norway, Denmark, the USSR, Holland, Belgium, the USA, and some other countries during WWII. They did not choose to attack him. Hitler did NOT, however, choose to fight the UK and France in 1939, they declared war on him over Poland. He then responded to that state of war with the UK and France. There's a difference, right?

Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower. That puts the USA in a rather less easily defensible light than supporters of this war would prefer, I should think, and in the view of most people in the world it was an unjustified attack based on false propaganda claims. So mortgaging your future on unprovoked aggression is not the same as mortgaging your future on legitimate self-defence, is it?

To go into debt when it is unavoidable is understandable. To do it capriciously is to behave irresponsibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"Bush's war with Iraq was freely chosen by America, not by Iraq. The Iraqis have been the recipients of an unprovoked attack by a much superpower."

There are those of us with the opinion that Iraq attacked a treaty ally, Kuwait, and the fighting was only stopped due to a cease-fire agreement. When Iraq refused to comply with the conditions of that cease-fire, even after repeated efforts over 12 years, the decision was made to resume combat, in order to remove a perceived threat ( the WMD development program).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Al-Qaeda chose to attack US civilians in New York, Kenya, Tanzania and US military in Yemen preemptively.

That does fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Clinton chose to attack preemptively in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and in Afghanistan in retaliation.

Bush chase to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan in retaliation and The regime in Iraq preemptively.

That does not fall under my definition of "unprovoked aggression"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM

The perceived threat was a thin veneer of Bushwa, IMHO. It was either rampant manipulation for other reasons, or it was blatant stupidity.

The actual threat was mismanaged at the same time as the false one was invested with great effort, wasting of blood and money, and decimation of political capital.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

Heh! Yes, I know, BB. That's an argument I can't take seriously...but I know that it's always possible to come up with such arguments if one wants to. That's how the human mind works. Hitler had the Germans convinced that his attack on Poland was legitimate defence too, after all. It's easy to convince people of anything that they want to be convinced of. You just tell them what they want to hear.

Young Japanese servicemen in 1941 were equally convinced that China had caused the war with Japan, and that Japan was legitimately defending itself against a conspiracy on the part of the USA, Britain, and China to destroy Japan. So they had no guilt whatsoever in hitting Clark Field, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies, and Pearl Harbor. It was "self-defence"!

People can justify anything in their own minds. Wars are started by choice. The one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. Wars that are "resumed" after a lengthy ceasfire are likewise again started by choice, are in fact a brand NEW war, and the one who starts them is the one who launches the attack. When he outguns the other side by 50:1 and he can't possibly lose, the sheer hypocrisy of it becomes so blatant to the surrounding community of nations that very few are fooled as to what is really going on (except among the ranks of the attackers themselves...they MUST convince themselves that they are "in the right"...morale would suffer badly otherwise, and that would imperil the mission).

Be assured that most German and Japanese soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda. This combination of patriotism and naivete is what warmongering demagogues depend on to achieve their aggressive ends. Most people are good people who would not dream of murdering their neighbours...but they will murder foreigners if given the order. There's a disconnect in their understanding of what they are really doing to other human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

What about the British duped into supporting the war against Germany? Germany had not attacked them- they were reacting to the attack upon Poland. Seems like they should have just accepted the German control instead of starting a war with 27 million deaths...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

Be assured that most English and Canadian soldiers in WWII believed implicity that they were doing "the right thing" when they went to war. They trusted their leaders and believed their country's war propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

BTW, Canada has been involved in a number of wars this century. Please let me know when ANY Canadian territory had been attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

What was the specific attack on America that caused it to enter WW1?


America's policy of isolation, and thus wanting stay out of any European affairs while also trying to broker a peace resulted in tensions with both Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, a large passenger liner with 128 Americans also aboard, the United States President, Wilson, vowed "America was too proud to fight", and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson tried to mediate a compromise settlement; yet no compromise was discovered. Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare because it violated America's rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Teddy Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice. In January 1917, the Germans announced they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare. Berlin's proposal to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the U.S. was exposed in February [The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. But because Wilson had run for reelection in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.] angering American opinion. After German submarines attacked several American merchant ships, sinking three, Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the war resolution 373-50, the U.S. Senate 82-6, with opposition coming especially from German American districts such as Wisconsin. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917.

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-i

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

That's right, BB. They all believed the same sorts of things. I know that, and that's why I am repelled by war movies that cast one side (whoever) as evil, nasty, vicious people who grin in an evil fashion as they mow down their helpless opponents. (this was the way Germans and Japanese were routinely depicted oftentimes in those old war movies, and I don't doubt that the German and Japanese war propaganda films of WWII were similarly distorted).

It's sad.

Countries almost always get into wars over various important interests they have, like: competing spheres of influence, trade considerations, access to vital land and resources, control of some large material agenda.

Your suggestion that the British (and French) could have ignored or swallowed the German attack on Poland is entirely worth considering...and it was certainly exactly what Hitler expected them to do! He grossly miscalculated their reaction, probably because he had been made overconfident by their previous lack of resolve in earlier crises he had provoked.

His next objective after Poland was in the East...Russia. So, if the French and British had decided to sell out the Poles, which they very well might have done, then I believe there would have followed a major war between Germany and Russia sometime in 1940 or '41, and no war in the West at all at that time. Farther on down the road? Hard to say. It would have depended on how well the Germans did in Russia.

Would that have been a better way to go from the point of view of Britain and France? Quite possibly. But who knows? It would not have been nearly so good for the Russians.

As an aside, Britain and France were deeply upset by the Russian attack on Finland in the Winter War as well as the earlier Russian move into Poland in concert with the Germans, and the French were close to declaring war on Russia even after they were already at war with Germany! It's incredible in retrospect that they could have been so foolish as to contemplate that.

I think that everyone would have been better off if the citizens in ALL the involved countries had refused to believe their leaders and had refused to go to war for them. ;-) But how does one arrange that? Most people are essentially fairly sheeplike, and they will obey orders from higher authority, even if those orders cause them to commit mass murder on foreigners.

The propaganda in all the fighting countries was distorted, hate-filled, and intended to inflame people to go out and kill for their country. That's standard prodedure.

The reality was that all those major countries were jockeying for position in the world...Germany, France, the UK, Russia, the USA, Japan, and Italy. It was inevitable that in their jockeying for control of spheres of influence, they would come up against each other. The British and French were only willing to let either Germany or Russia go so far...but no farther. Germany and Russia had both suffered great losses of territory in WWI and were looking to restore their fortunes. They were in an expanding phase (as the USA is now...), looking to enlarge their spheres of influence. That would bring them into conflict with each other and with Britain and France, and eventually the USA. Japan was taking advantage of the decline and weakness of a hereditary enemy (China) and of their own emergence into the only modern military power in East Asia. The USA was not willing to tolerate either Japan or Germany expanding beyond a certain point, again because it would impinge on American spheres of influence. The USA held the wild cards, because it had the greatest GNP in the world, and was basically unattackable behind 2 great oceans.

They all acted in their own self-interest. Their people and a lot of other people paid the price. They all made up grand and noble-sounding stories to prove why it was all worthwhile. It wasn't. It was a tragic, incredible waste of human lives on a vast scale.

Have you seen the recent Japanese movie made in 2005 about the sinking of the battleship Yamato? It's an interesting view of the psychology of people on the Japanese side, seen through the eyes of patriotic young cadet sailors on the doomed ship caught up in the events of the time. They managed to avoid saying anything inflammatory about the Americans during the entire movie, and it has some very striking scenes. Those young men, like all young men everywhere who go to war, figured that they were defending their homeland and their loved ones, and they were ready to die if necessary. War is simply a very, very sad and tragic business. Those Japanese cadets felt exactly the same way as the young American airmen who bombed and torpedoed them, strafed them on the decks of the ship, slaughtered them by the hundreds, and even strafed the survivors in the water after the ship went down. (that last part was not shown in the movie)

War is murder. Bloody murder. If people were not so sheeplike, they would not so easily be fooled into doing it.

Once it starts, though, it takes its own inevitable course until someone gives up fighting. That's why I say the onus is on those who either launch the initial attack(s) or who make the initial declaration of war. They are the ones who open the door to chaos and disaster.

In the case of the invasion of Kuwait, it was Saddam. In the case of the Iraq war in 2003, it was the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

It's very rare that a real villain ever considers himself to be a villain. Even if he knows down in his guts that it's power-lust and / or greed, he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story.

Even Cesare Borgia justified all the treachery, deceit, and assassinating by saying that he was trying to unite the independent Italian city-states into one cohesive nation (under his leadership, of course) in order to drive out foreign invaders and exploiters like Spain, France, and Austria. And if he had to invade the city-states and kill their leaders in order to save them? Well, it was all in a good cause!

And the followers of such leaders? Little Hawk said it neatly:    "This combination of patriotism and naiveté. . . ."

And the beat goes on.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:45 AM

Don,

And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?

"he manages to convince himself that he has a good, moral reason for doing what he wants to do. Psychiatrists call it "rationalization." In his own mind, he is the hero of the story."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:29 AM

Looks like this dogpile has turned into a discussion.


What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?

I can't include the Nazis because they did not directly attack the US but they did attack other countries in Europe.

What were their goals?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

"And YOUR excuse for your actions? Are you not just as human as the rest of us? How do YOU know that YOU are the hero, and not Bush?"

First of all, BB, what actions have I performed that I need to be excused for? And excused by whom? If you are referring to the fact that I am highly critical of Bush and his administration, let me point out to you that if a patriotic American sees his or her elected leaders involved in wrong-doing, it is their duty as good citizens to call them on it. It is unpatriotic not to do so.

Whether one is a villain or a hero is not simply arbitrary. There are certain ethical and moral imperatives that determine the difference. I could present you with a long list—a list I am sure you are familiar with, whether you accept it or not—of what constitutes these imperatives, but it's been my experience that most civilized people agree as to what they are.

High on the list of villainy is when elected officials lie to the citizens in order to get the nation into a needless war, leading to the deaths of thousands of troops, the maiming of tens of thousands more, and the killing of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in order to gain geopolitical power over the world's oil reserves for the purpose of intimidating other countries, such as oil-dependent China, and at the same time, fattening of the wallets of their personal friends with lavish, no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq after being responsible for destroying it in the first place. Not to mention starting a civil war that is liable to go on for generations. Or promising the electorate all kinds of programs, then neglecting to fund them, rendering the promise hollow. Example (one of dozens):   "No Child Left Behind." Or how about this one? Many instances of riding rough-shod over the Constitution and Bill of Rights after taking an oath to "preserve and protect?"

I could present you with a huge list of villainies—which I'm sure you would disagree with—but why go on? Others see what you refuse to.

But suffice it to say that I have not caused the death of one single human being, whereas Bush has given orders—for no moral or ethical reason—that caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands. So on a continuum running from heroism to villainy, where, relatively, do Bush and I stand?

I don't consider myself any kind of hero. Neither do I qualify as a villain. Bush, on the other hand. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:53 PM

Bush is no hero, he is by far one of the most dangerous humans on the planet today. I'm ashamed to admit that he our President, hopefully that too will soon change.
In 2 days I will be joined hopefully by hundreds of thousands marching on the Pentagon who share the same veiw. To get rid of Bush through impeachment & demand an end to this war.
There I will be joined by those that I consider America's heros.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Good for you, Barry!

Heroes are those who act on matters of moral principle when it would be a lot easier—or less dangerous—for them to just look the other way. Heroes act on principle even when they have nothing to gain, and their actions may, indeed, cost them dearly. The person who risks his or her own life to save someone else. Or the whistle-blower who acts even when he or she knows that it will cost them their job. Or those who voice their protest even when doing so could get them thrown in jail.

Villains are those who do something they know, or at least suspect, to be wrong, but invent reasons—excuses—for going ahead anyway, rationalizing to themselves and lying to others to justify their actions. Often they tell the lie so often and so vociferously that they come to believe it themselves.

As do, especially on a national or political level, those afflicted with "patriotism and naiveté," who become their apologists when others protest.

The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM

"The lowest level in Danté's Inferno is reserved for those who, when they see evil being done, maintain a "colorless neutrality" and avoid "getting involved.""

You mean like those who watched Saddam violate the UN resolutions for 12 years, kill how many Kurds, and then would not demonstrate that he should comply with UN demands, but instead protested any enforcement of those resolutions?


You have missed my point- YOU are making a value judgement that the war was unjustified. Others differ. So who made you God?

I am sure there were those who felt the war against Hitler was unjust, since Germany did not attack the US. But Saddam DID attack US forces in the region, over the 12 years, by attacking those patroling the no-fly zone. The UN resolution gave hime the chance to comply-
BECAUSE of people such as you who protested enforcement and made no effort to demand that Saddam comply, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands have been killed. It seems, IMHO, that you bear some responsibility.

Or is it only YOUR opinion that matters in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM

BB has a fine point, one that deserves an answer. There is no argument that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein killing people in it. There is some question as to what he was not in compliance with, exactly. If he had in fact discontinued all WMD programs but was simply being an intransigent ass as far as saying so, that is a different matter than if he were in fact secretly doing the things Rice, Rove, Bush and Cheney asserted he was.

Furthermore, you are waving a wide brush, Bruce, when you speak as though everyone who was opposed to Bush's war on Iraq was also silent about Saddam's crimes against the Kurds. I don't think this is justified as a general conclusion.

Finally there is the question of unilateral war and preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation. While Bush, having gotten himself appointed Commander in Chief had the power to invade Iraq, and used it, he did not have the consent of the majority of the people in the country or the full ratification of Congress; to get even their condoning of his actions he had to flood the media with exaggerations and falsehoods.

Being a man of action may be better, especially in a leader, than being a man of no-action, UNLESS the actions are ill-informed, misestimated and destructive in their net effect, as this one has so far been.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

You raise some useful questions there, Dickey...

"What were the motivations of the Japanese and the Muslim extremists for attacking the US?"

Well, for the time being, how about I just discuss the Japanese? The Japanese went through a period of governmental power struggles and instability between the world wars, and it eventually ended up with the Army basically controlling Japan's government (with the Emperor as the symbolic head of state, but the Japanese Army really was calling the shots as far as I can see, and the Emperor was rubber-stamping their decisions, so to speak). It was Army generals who were put in the key positions of political power. This developed into an era of aggressive expansionism on the part of the Japanese. They were seeking a fight with China, for a number of reasons. One was that China was already a hereditary enemy of Japan going way, way back. Another was that the Japanese were a very large nation of people crowded onto some relatively small islands, and they were very short of both land and certain vital resources. Accordingly, they sought to acquire overseas possessions in Korea, Mongolia, and China so they could obtain more good land and resources to feed their growing economy.

Now...those were the motivations behind the actions of those in power. They were not the motivations behind the actions of a vast number of ordinary Japanese soldiers, sailors, and civilians, who were simply doing what people everywhere do...trying to make their way in life, find wives and husbands, raise families, support themselves, etc...

The Japanese Army provoked incidents with the Chinese in order to create a pretext for war. They made it appear that the Chinese had attacked them...but this was not true. However, the Japanese people naturally believed that it was true. Therefore, the motivations of ordinary Japanese soldiers and civilians were, as always, to protect their nation, their families, their loved ones. They fell for false propaganda.

As the fighting continued in China ordinary Japanese were encouraged to make sacrifices to support the war effort, and they did. Victories were won, but the fighting went on. There were a few voices in the Japanese press who did not echo the offical line, but they were silenced, and the media supported the officlal government line. The fighting in China went on.

The USA had decided that the Japanese were expanding too much in East Asia and that this was injurious to American and British interests. (a case of competing empires, as usual) The USA gave substantial assistance to China. This was not appreciated by Japan, just as the USA, for example, does not appreciate people supplying its enemies when it is at war.

FDR then made the crucial move. He placed a trade embargo on Japan's overseas supply of oil and steel, and got the British and Dutch to join the USA in that embargo.

Japan's main source of steel had been the USA. Their main source of oil had been in the Dutch East Indies. They were now placed in a position where their entire war machine would literally run out of fuel and steel within about one year and be unable to remain effective. This meant that they would be unable to sustain their campaign in China, a campaign to which they had already committed the entire strength of their nation.

They were not going to just give up and go home. It was inevitable that they would now fight the USA, Britain, and Holland to get the oil that was in the Dutch East Indies, and to secure other vital resources in those areas.

The young Japanese who served in their armed forces were unaware that Japan was in the wrong in this matter. They were deeply patriotic and they grew up in a society which encouraged the individual to subordinate his own needs for the needs of "the group" or the nation. The spirit of self-sacrifice was basic to their understanding of life. Thus they were seen as "fanatical" and "suicidal" by Americans and Europeans, but if you'd been born Japanese in that era, you would probably have thought just as they did. It was normal behaviour in their society. (We do things they think are crazy too, you know...) ;-)

So, here's what their motivations were (the ordinary soldiers and civilians, I mean):

1. to serve their country and defend it against foreign attack
2. to honor their traditions and way of life
3. to fight back against those who would destroy their way of life
4. to be courageous and loyal

So their goals, Dickey, were the same goals as young American soldiers have....to defend their country, their families, and their way of life.

They were fooled and manipulated by a barrage of government and media propaganda that made them think it happened this way:

1. China attacked us first. (not true)
2. We must not let China defeat us.
3. Now the USA is helping China!
4. Now the USA, Britain, and Holland are ganging up on us, and cutting off our oil and steel in order to cause our defeat by China!
5. We must fight them all to prevent the defeat of our nation.

You see...if you accept one false proposition (that you were attacked first) it can lead to an almost endless series of bad decisions. It can lead to disaster.

I suggest that that is what is now happening to America in regards to Iraq (which never attacked the USA).


Regarding the goals of the German soldiers and civilians in WWII? Pretty much the same, but with a few additional wrinkles.

1. They were trying to restore the honor of Germany after the losses suffered in WWI.
2. They were trying to recover areas of land given up by Germany after WWI (but Hitler didn't stop there...he went farther)
3. They were, as usual, trying to be loyal, patriotic citizens and defend their homeland and their loved ones against foreign attack (as they saw it).

Their views were shaped by their national media which conducted a vigorous propaganda campaign over many years to convince ordinary Germans that the nation was under direct threat of deadly enemies such as Jews, Communists, the British, the French, etc...

As usual, most ordinary Germans believed the propaganda. That's how it happens. Governments manipulate their people through the media. This is what your government does as well, and that's why your people are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in places like Iraq.

As for the Muslim extremists, they also believe they are defending their homes, their families, and their way of life against a deadly foreign threat from the USA and/or Israel.

Everyone thinks he's doing the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:56 PM

LH: I do not think the US government owns or controls the media. When the NYT was asked not to publish a story on wiretapping, they refused.

I think the only time the media complied with a request from the governmnet was during the Cuban missle crisis.

I do not see a trade embargo as a military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

Dickey, the fact is that the major media chains in the USA are owned by a few enormous corporate entities, and that what gets on the news and how it is covered is determined by a few powerful men in the management of those corporate entities. When you consider that your government itself is controlled by a consortium of major corporate entities (among whom are those ones who own the main medio chains) then you do have what amounts to a controlled media...and a controlled government. It's not a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" anymore...if it ever was. It's a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires, and there isn't a darned thing you or I can do about that.

This doesn't mean that every single writer or media person in America is controlled. It just means that most of them are at any given time. Most of them is enough to do easily the job of manipulating the public down any path the controllers desire, mainly through the tactics of appealing to fear, greed, and consumption.

I don't see an embargo as a military action either, but I do see it as the kind of action that can definitely bring on a war...under certain circumstances. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing. He was putting the Japanese in a position where they would go to war, because he wanted the USA to get involved in WWII as soon as possible, and that was the most expeditious way of doing it. He HAD to have a genuine outside attack on some part of America. He couldn't find a practical or feasible way to provoke Germany into attacking the USA, but he could do it with the Japanese, so he did. The rest fell into place perfectly. I think FDR's only miscalculation was his failure to realize how effective the Japanese Navy and its aircraft were...so the initial situation proved much tougher than what he had expected up until the Battle of Midway evened the balance. After that, the Japanese were doomed to lose by steady attrition and lack of resources.

My point, in any case, was that ordinary Japanese people during the war had absolutely no idea their country was in the wrong. In this respect they were just like most ordinary people in other countries that commit aggression on someone. The natural reaction is to assume your country is in the right and rally round the flag to defend it. That is what every citizen's entire upbringing from the time they are a small child prepares them to do. Why should it be surprising that they fall into line so easily?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:25 PM

BB, I've been gone for a bit today, but when I returned, I saw you're question, then noted that Amos did a fine job of answering it.

I did not condone Saddam Hussein's actions. But there are much better ways in which it could have been handled than the one the Bush administration took.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:33 PM

By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter.

But I hear diddly squat from both Bush and the Bush apologists about that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:41 PM

Little Hawk: Not to be discourteous but Bullshit ;). You have been Chomskyised.

What drives corporations is profit. They publish and broadcast what they think the public wants to hear. You hear phrases like news porno and if it bleeds, it leads. Right now the fad is calling Bush an idiot so that's most of you hear out of the MSM due to the bandwagon effect. The only one out of the bunch that does not dogpile Bush is Fox so all the anti-war folks claim Fox is the evil mouthpiece of the administration. So there is CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and even PBS is biased against the administration to the glee of the anti-war crowd.

The way the corporations influence the government is through lobbying and handing out cash contributions (sometimes personal payoffs) for certain legislation or decisions. Something I am 100% opposed to.

If the mean old pro-war corporations control the government, how do anti-war documentaries, TV programs, music etc. ever come to be?

If what you claim is true how would you ever know about embarrassing things like Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse?

Who owns the Media in Canada?

"Nations such as Italy and Canada are often accused of possessing an Imperial media structure, based on the fact that much of their media is controlled by one corporation or owner."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_imperialism

How about BBC?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:10 AM

Dickey, it is pretty much the same people...or their close associates...who own the media in Canada. But the mood and attitude of the Canadian public is quite different, they're not as easily fooled by American policy as Americans are, and the media must shape their reporting a bit differently in Canada to be seen as doing their job. Our government pretty well does most of what the coporatocracy wants, I assure you, because it is also controlled by the corporatocracy. That's why we sent soldiers to Afghanistan.

Britain's media and government are also controlled by the corporatocracy, but they too must tread a little differently than in the USA, because the British population is not as easily fooled either as the American population.

Part of the political game is to play off the public against each other by dividing them over phony political parties and red herring issues. The Democrats will always badmouth the Republicans, and vice versa. That's the way the game works, and the game is to fool you, the voters, into thinking you still have a say in things.

It's much the same game in Canada and in the UK in that respect. Our elections are about as phony as yours are.

Of COURSE corporations are driven by profit! That's exactly the problem, and it is the key to understanding all important foreign and domestic policy decisions in the USA, Canada, and the UK, as well as just about everywhere else. Profit is the one objective. Profit is the reason for all the crazy, idiotic stuff that is going on in this world, because when people seek ONLY profit, and don't really give a damn who or what gets hurt in the process...then you have wars, disaster, suffering, and destruction.

This isn't the case with small scale capitalism, which is a very healthy thing in society. It is the case with multinational giant-scale corporate capitalism as it exists now. It's as bad as communism, but more clever in how it fools people and controls them.

Your media right now are most likely preparing the ground for the next election and getting things ready to switch to the Democrats, so that's why Bush is getting kicked around so much. He's a lame duck in the making. That's the game. He's got less than 2 years left to hang himself and kill the Republicans chances at the polls. If the Democrats get in next time (which they will if they don't really screw up and pick someone unelectable), the same bunch of mega-corporations will be running them from behind the scenes, and the policy won't change much. The agenda will still go forward. It'll change some, but not much.

Anyway, given Bush's present very low popularity rating, why would the media not be emboldened to go after him? They are only reflecting the mood of the majority of Americans at this time. Bush is unpopular, so he's fair game.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:11 AM

"By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter."

1. The Bush administration HAS declared that it is genocide, but the UN refuses to say that, so that the international laws that would allow interferencce are not in effect.

2. I have protested the lack of action, publicly and here on Mudcat, by both the US and the UN, and tried to keep it in the active threads- but nobody HERE seems to think we should take ANY action.

3. There you go, making judgements. After we do go in, I suppose you will protest ( like dianavan has stated already) how we just went in after the oil.


I consider the US inaction about Cambodia ( due to the anti-war folks here at the time, no action could even be proposed), Rwanda ( Check to see how effectively Clinton ignored the problem) and Bosnia ( We waited until the Europeans were ready to act- too late.)will be our greatest regret and shame in the future.


So how many Kurds would have had to die before you would "approve" of US action in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:33 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iB0QECqoaI&mode=related&search=

In this clip a BBC reporter and anchor desk discuss the falling down of building 7. However bld 7 is seen clearly behind the reporter.
Eventually the building falls down.

Propoganda is hard to coordinate sometimes...
or this clip could be deemed a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:26 AM

Today's New York Times editorilaizes:

"The Bush administration's mania for secrecy has been dealt an overdue blow by the House. Significant numbers of Republicans voted with Democrats to reverse the erosion of the public's right to know how its government operates. A package of strong open-government measures would repair some of the damage inflicted in the past six years on laws governing taxpayers' access to federal records and presidential archives, while bolstering the standing of whistle-blowers to report abuses in agencies without fear of retaliation.

Overwhelming majorities were registered for the measures despite the White House's threat of a presidential veto. We say bring it on. The majorities were vetoproof in size, and an override confrontation is just the medicine the administration needs for the hubris it has shown in enshrouding all manner of information. The Senate should move quickly on companion sunshine measures. The bipartisan support that's emerging is no doubt driven by the administration's unalloyed dedication to secret machinations — whether in the Iraq war fiasco or the bare-knuckled purging of federal prosecutors.

The freedom of information law has been steadily undermined, to the point where agencies are blithely ducking their lawful responsibility and taking years to answer legitimate requests. The House voted to mandate initial answers within 20 days, and computerized tracking of pending requests. Another measure would effectively revoke President Bush's 2001 executive order that allows former presidents and vice presidents to use their official libraries as mausoleums to bury controversial and historical documents indefinitely beyond public discovery. Who knows — if lawmakers stand firm against White House objections, historians may someday be able to plumb the full depths of the Bush-Cheney administration's devotion to governance by murk.

..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

Remarking on the pattern of political encroachment on the judiciary represented by the recent firings of eight Attorney General for not carrying otu the wishes of the Executive branch, the Times opines:

"In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on "fraud," the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor's race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. "There was no evidence," he said, "and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

...
Mr. McKay is not the only one of the federal attorneys who may have been brought down for refusing to pursue dubious voter fraud cases. ... The White House said that last October, just weeks before Mr. McKay and most of the others were fired, President Bush complained that United States attorneys were not pursuing voter fraud aggressively enough.

... Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. They have intimidated Native American voter registration campaigners in South Dakota with baseless charges of fraud. They have pushed through harsh voter ID bills in states like Georgia and Missouri, both blocked by the courts, that were designed to make it hard for people who lack drivers' licenses — who are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities — to vote. Florida passed a law placing such onerous conditions on voter registration drives, which register many members of minorities and poor people, that the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its registration work in the state.

The claims of vote fraud used to promote these measures usually fall apart on close inspection, as Mr. McKay saw. Missouri Republicans have long charged that St. Louis voters, by which they mean black voters, registered as living on vacant lots. But when The St. Louis Post-Dispatch checked, it found that thousands of people lived in buildings on lots that the city had erroneously classified as vacant.

The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

Okay, BB.

"There you go, making judgments."

Exactly so! I don't buy the precept (no matter who said it) of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I say, "Use your judgment. Judge—and be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make."

Point:   I don't recall the Bush administration considering much of anything that the U. N. said or did prior to our invasion of Iraq. Since when has that stopped the Bush administration from doing whatever it damn well pleased? And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue.

And a question about the way we "handled" Saddam Hussein. How many Iraqis did Saddam kill compared to the number of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the American invasion?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

"And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."


You obviously have not read the threads on Darfur. The Bush Administration DID go to the UN, who refused to declare it "genocide" and basically did nothing. For all our disagreements about what this administration has done, IMO you are trying blaming them even when they do the "right " thing by your own standards.

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=97

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."


thread.cfm?threadid=69879&messages=48



A true pity, Amos, that when the Bush adminstration called it genocide, and the UN disagreed, you felt it was nothing to be concerned over. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

2 weeks after Cheney went to Pakistan, Musharev (President of Pakistan by coup) has fired/arrested the Supreme Court Judge of Paksistan. The Supreme Judge of Pakistan is the only person who could block the continued rule of Musharev who would otherwise have to undergo an election.


Amos, you are becoming my news source.



PS

I fear that Ceasar may get so annoyed with the Senate that he may take some extreme measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

Bruce:

Do not vent your bitterness on me with false assumptions. It is a bottomless pit of woe not worth the falling itno, to start that kind of a slanging match. Based on these petty forum scribblings you have no gauge or metric of what I feel about what.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:13 PM

Amos,

That was the post from 2005 that I had posted. I was pointing out to Don that his blame of the Bush administration was not justified, and merely an example of his ( perhaps justified in other cases, but not this one) bigotry.

I am sure we slang enough at the time to fulfil both of our desires.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

Bigotry?

Okay, beardedbruce, this conversation is over!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 01:30 AM

LH:

You read a book like that Hitman thing, by the guy that believes in time travel, and you believe it but you are not fooled as easily as the American people.

Have you ever heard the saying "they will believe a lie quicker than they will believe the truth? Those books and exposées are a real money maker. They tell you exactly what you want to hear. The things that the government dosn't want you to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM

Senator Insists Bush Aides Testify Publicly
Jamie Rose for The New York Times
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the judiciary panel, said a vote on subpoenas would be held Thursday.

               E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 19, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 18 — The Democratic senator leading the inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors insisted Sunday that Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush must testify publicly and under oath, setting up a confrontation between Congress and the White House, which has said it is unlikely to agree to such a demand.

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, is among the officials who may be subpoenaed to testify publicly and under oath.
Some Republicans have suggested that Mr. Rove testify privately, if only to tamp down the political uproar over the inquiry, which centers on whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

But Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seemed to rule out such a move on Sunday. He said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Mr. Rove as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel.

"I do not believe in this 'We'll have a private briefing for you where we'll tell you everything,' and they don't," Mr. Leahy said on "This Week" on ABC, adding: "I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this."

---

Nice to hear a Senator is getting tired of half-truths. Slow, but steady.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:26 AM

Paul Krugman has an interesting essay on why Bush is the extension of the spirit of Reagan's administration in today's Times.

An excerpt:

"Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan's administration, like Mr. Bush's, was run by movement conservatives — people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be "loyal Bushies."

The movement's apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn't likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.

Still, Mr. Reagan's misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush's. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan's relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it's the movement, not just one man, that has failed. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Perhaps I'm jaded to political rewards and punishment of the Bush administrations.

It does not strike me as unusual to punish the prosecutors of Duke Cunningham since the bribery case struck at the very heart of the standard operating procedures of Defense Contrators buying off Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:07 PM

Don,

"Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb "

If the shoe fits....

Your blame of the Bush administration for all the evils of the world demonstrate your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Bruce:

This is a bit like saying that accusing a killer of killing is bigoted. The instantiations of the over-secretive, repressive, and destructive policies imposed on the nation by the current executive suite are legion. Their lies are legion; their economic blunders, legal evasions, and poor decisions are legion. Wherefore would it be bigotry to say so? Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

Amos,

Because, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, with supporting info, in THIS case the Bush administration TRIED to do exactly what Don suggested that they should have ( with the implication they did not) and was rebuffed by the UN in its ( the Bush administration's) efforts.


Hardly a case of "Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?"

I have no problem with his, or your comments on other topics, regardless of whether I agree with your conclusions, but in THIS he is out of line, and beyond reasonable debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

Bruce:

OK. I have to leave this one between the two of youse, and hope you iron out your data and judgements among you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth - PM
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

"...And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point?"


********************************************************************
" If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."
*********************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=97

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM

Scientist accuses White House of 'Nazi' tactics
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
1:05 PM PDT, March 19, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

"I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy and that some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching evolution and climate change," Issa said.

Hansen said the Bush administration was not the first in U.S. history to practice information management over government scientists, but it has been the most vigorous. He deplored a "politicization of science."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM

BB, I stand by what I wrote.

. . . a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

I do not regard or treat any racial or ethnic group with hatred or intolerance. Nor do I regard the Bush administration with hatred and intolerance. I do, however, regard them as being both incompetent and corrupt, and I can give you a whole list of reasons why I—and large numbers of other people who are rational and in no way bigoted—regard them as such.

And you will also note that in no way can the Bush administration, and their apologists such as yourself, be regarded as an "ethnic or racial group." Being a member of an ethnic or racial group is not a matter of one's choice. One's philosophical and political position, on the other hand, is a matter of choice.

So your charge of bigotry against me is completely empty, and having to descend to mischaracterizing those with whom you disgree and calling them names in that manner displays a certain desperation on your part.

Feeling that the weakness of your position makes you a bit vulnerable?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:01 PM

Not to worry, Amos...

Business-as-usual in the Bush White House has been replaced with a big "Going Out of Business" sign...

Yeah, the Bushites had their run and now it's coming to a close... All the dirty tricks 'n dirty politcis are now being exposed on a daily basis...

Okay, I ain't too fond of Dems but one thing is fir sure, the Dems winning over Congress has certainly exposed 6 years of some of the nastiest and distasteful politics and policies since, ahhhhh??? Geeze, maybe forever....

I mean, even Helen Keller would plainly see the Bushites fir what they are: rich or stooges of the rich!!! That's the bottom line here... Bruce Springsteen sang "Sooner or later it all comes down to money" and the Bushite regiegm is ***proff positive***... Behind every stupid thing they have done you will find a pot of gold...

Think about it...

Iraq??? Here's the most anti-human grasping for money... Iraq has Rove written all over it... Hey, the voters don't throw out a war president until it is apparent that the war is lost and thus, the timing was right to invade Iraq... Hey, it kept the thieves in office and it would take a million accountants and an act of God to figure how much $$$ they stole from the American people...

That's, unfortaunately, is what American politics has come down to... Okay, in the Dems defense (tho flimsy) they haven't really had much of an opportunity to ***take the money and run*** but I have no faith that they won't do the same if they get themselves in the same position that the Bushites have enjoyed but fir now???

Glad to see the current crooks gettin' what they deserve...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

Changes Sought in Naming of Prosecutors (NY Times)

By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 19 — The Senate moved Monday to revoke authority it granted the Bush administration last year to name federal prosecutors, with Democrats accusing the administration of abusing the appointment power at the center of an escalating clash over the ouster of eight United States attorneys.

The move to overturn an obscure provision of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation came amid growing speculation that the controversy over the prosecutors would cost Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales his job.

President Bush has said he has confidence in Mr. Gonzales, but the White House seemed to offer only tepid support for him on Monday.

"Nobody is prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said when asked if Mr. Gonzales would remain until the end of Mr. Bush's term. Mr. Bush has said Mr. Gonzales needs to repair his relations with Capitol Hill; asked if the attorney general had done so, Mr. Snow said, "I don't know."

At the Justice Department, neither Mr. Gonzales nor his staff have engaged in a major effort to reverse the erosion of his support among Republicans in Congress, associates said. Mr. Gonzales read budget briefing books over the weekend and on Monday he phoned one or two lawmakers, said one aide, who declined to identify them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM

One of President Clinton 's very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire all 93 United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:53 AM

Nicho0las Kristoph writes an amusing column on the hypothesis that Dick Cheney is actually a mole in the service of Iran. He argues almost persuasively.

Then he says "Even at home, Iran's leaders have been bolstered by President Bush and Mr. Cheney. Iran's hard-liners are hugely unpopular and the regime is wobbly, but Bush administration policies have inflamed Iranian nationalism and given cover to the hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Why focus on Dick Cheney rather than his boss? Partly because Mr. Cheney, even more than Mr. Bush, has systematically pushed an extreme agenda that has transparently served Iranian purposes. And domestically, his role in the Scooter Libby scandal — and his disgraceful refusal to explain just what he was doing at the crime scene — ended up paralyzing executive decision-making and humiliating our government.

Is that really just one more coincidence? Or could it be another case of Mr. Cheney's following instructions from his Iranian bosses to damage America?

O.K., O.K. Of course, all this is absurd. Mr. Cheney isn't an Iranian mole. Nor is he a North Korean mole, though his we-don't-negotiate-with-evil policy toward North Korea has resulted in that country's quadrupling its nuclear arsenal. It's also unlikely that he is an Al Qaeda mole, even though Al Qaeda now has an important new base of support in Iraq.

Like Kennedy and Johnson wading into Vietnam, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney harmed American interests not out of malice but out of ineptitude. I concede that they honestly wanted the best for America, but we still ended up getting the worst.

So what are the lessons from this episode?

Our national interests are as vulnerable to incompetence as to malicious damage. So we must identify and abandon the policies that backfired so catastrophically. The common threads of those damaging policies are clear: a refusal to negotiate with "evil"; an aggressive willingness to use military force to solve problems; contempt for our allies; and the bending of legal and moral principles to allow indefinite detention and even torture, particularly for anyone with olive skin and a Muslim name.

Whenever we've suspected a mole in our midst, we've gone to extreme lengths to find the traitor. This time, betrayed not by a mole but by failed policies, let's be just as resolute. It's time to uproot policies that in the last half-dozen years have damaged American interests incomparably more than any mole or foreign spy ever has in the last 200 years. ".


I think he's right. We have been harboring the mole of stupidity about human nature, the mole of indifference to genuuine workiable principles, the mole of apathetic callousness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

After four years of a war brazenly launched by a large United States bombardment, President Bush and his administration seem audaciously indifferent to the morass and suffering in Iraq that American actions and presence worsen each day.

There is no good that can come of a continued United States troop presence in Iraq. Rather than stemming terrorism, American military might and bases are fueling a maelstrom of hatred and determination that merely give rise to terrorism.

What is unconscionable is that Mr. Bush claims sole authority in this matter. It is little wonder, then, that no mention was made of democracy in this war anniversary speech. It has been useful as a war slogan, yet discarded as a guiding principle to abide.

Democracy's erosion is a threat that whittles away at us by bits and pieces, until our voices are neither heard nor heeded, and a war we decry rages on with no end in sight.

Nancy Dickeman
Seattle, March 20, 2007

It is only presidential hubris that can account for President Bush's latest plea that we be "patient" as he commits upward of 20,000 more troops to the nightmare called Iraq.

I feel almost certain that Mr. Bush will leave office expressing the same empty, almost meaningless refrain that the war "can be won" if only we have the "resolve" to see it through.

Presidential stubbornness is no substitute for policy. Telling us to be patient and applauding our troops for their bravery does nothing to cure the absence of an intelligent, comprehensive, diplomatic and military plan to stop the death and destruction in Iraq now and in the forseeable future.

This president is hopelessly lost in his own single-minded inability to accept failure. I already feel sorry for Mr. Bush's successor, because it will take years, maybe decades, for the United States to restore its reputation.

The "resolve" the American people really need is to survive the remainder of Mr. Bush's term without this country getting into yet another war, this time with Iran, and to be thankful that Mr. Bush can't run again.

Peter C. Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y., March 20, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:30 AM

In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that "people just need to hear the truth" about the firing of eight United States attorneys. That's right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for "interviews" did not come close to meeting that standard.

Mr. Bush's proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush's idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush's threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials' statements to Congress, which may have been untrue. It needs to question Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials.

It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.

The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush's overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton's high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.

The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of "executive privilege." That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Mr. Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical. President Richard Nixon tried to withhold the Watergate tapes, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him.

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

Excerpted from the New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:39 AM

One can view pdf copies of the released documents at http://judiciary.house.gov/.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

So Bush says God tells him what to do.

Did God tell him that they can't swear to God to tell the truth?

naw

More likely they have seen with their own eyes what a "democracy" like Iraq does to their authoritarian leaders like Saddam.

they must surely hang together or they will hang seperately.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:29 AM

4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war

March 21, 2007
BY LISA DONOVAN Staff Reporter
About 4,000 war protesters, under the watchful eye of hundreds of Chicago Police officers, walked 1½ miles to the Loop Tuesday night pumping "Impeach Bush" signs and chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, our troops in Iraq have got to go."

With a chilly breeze off Lake Michigan, protesters marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq began at Oak and Michigan at 7:30 p.m., marching to Daley Plaza as approved in a request to the city. Police officers lined the marching route. No arrests were reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

An excerpt from an interesting essay called "Winning Smart Power" by Ernest Wilson:

"It's easy to beat up on the current administration for failing to understand and deploy 'soft power' and public diplomacy in their toolkit of foreign policy. Bush, Cheney and the gang prefer coercion, i.e. hard power.

But the previous Democratic campaigns have not done such a good job either.

During the Kerry campaign there was pressure on the candidate to give a diplomacy/soft power speech. It would describe the 'third leg' of a triad of effective foreign policy instruments. Guess what? He never gave the speech. Whatever his campaign's reasoning, it demonstrated how little the Democratic candidate for president thought of the subject. Maybe he didn't want what we wanted.

Now, four years later, it is patently obvious to all that the administration's hapless mix of coercion and diplomacy has been a disaster. By using far too much of the former and far too little of the latter it has seriously compromised America's national interest. Washington lacks an effective combination of hard and soft power to make smart power. Instead of a smart power policy, we have a policy of 'stupid power'. Bush barely uses traditional or public diplomacy at all, and uses coercive power badly.

The disastrous consequences of 'stupid power' have created an attentive public ripe for a serious conversation about the proper mix of convincing and coercing. But the amount of ink (or bits and bytes) devoted to developing a 'smart power' agenda is modest relative to talk about force structures, troop strength and intelligence reform. It is ironic that those most interested in seeing a better balance between hard and soft power have not been particularly adept at using soft power. They have failed to make a consistent and tough-minded public argument linking America's national security and soft power, and tying the 'why' with the 'how'.

Between now and November 2008 believers in smart power will need to make a much more effective case for soft power if they hope to restore America's standing in the world. (For more discussion of 'smart power' check out http://smartpowerblog.org). "

---

Here's the core issue. The limits of "soft power" as described above are, generally, the common interests of disparate groups -- individual food and shelter, getting laid, having kids, freely forming groups and communicating amongst them. These are values to whichevery individual from Kabul to Juneau can subscribe, to one degree or another.

Additionally, of course, the freedom to engage in belief has to be considered; this runs into trouble when belilefs are intolerant or so radical that they cut across the other core importances ("I believe you should not be free", essentially).

Hard power only comes into play when seeking to prevent destruction that comes from these specialized fanatic beliefs; and typically, such beliefs are promulgated by very small cliques of men, more in the character of criminals than statesmen. If this were widely recognized, of course, they would be treated as criminals in every domain where they began their practices. Maybe some day, Rebecca!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

WASHINGTON, March 21 — A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.

Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.

"We have worked toward voluntary cooperation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth," said Representative Linda Sanchez of California, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics.

"The only purpose of the subpoenas is to the fan the flames and photo ops of partisan controversy," said Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, the senior Republican on the subcommittee.

President Bush and Congress appear to be headed toward a constitutional showdown over the demands for testimony and for internal White House documents.

Under growing political pressure, the White House had offered to allow private interviews with Mr. Rove, Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM

Dobbs: 'Showdown' really a battle of partisan buffoons
POSTED: 10:20 a.m. EDT, March 22, 2007

By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

Now the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has voted to approve subpoenas that would force chief policy adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other top presidential aides to testify publicly and under oath about their involvement in the firings.

Guess what? That little ol' subcommittee can't do much of anything to force executive branch employees to testify without the help of the very man and department at the center of this altogether silly and over-baked controversy. That's right; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or one of his U.S. attorneys would have to enforce any subpoenas refused by any of the president's aides.

This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?

While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics.

Is there not one decent, honest man or woman in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, in either party's leadership, who possesses the courage and the honesty to say, "Enough. The people who elected us deserve better"? So far the answer is no. Is there really any wonder that public opinion polls demonstrate that the president and this Congress share equally low approval ratings in poll after poll?

The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:58 PM

Inspector General Details Failures of Iraq Reconstruction

By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A18

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such magnitude

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:16 AM

he news that Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general and liaison to the White House, is invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination takes the United States attorney scandal to a new level. Ms. Goodling's decision comes just days after the Justice Department released documents strongly suggesting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not been honest about his own role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors. Mr. Gonzales is scheduled to testify before the Senate in three weeks, but that is too long to wait. He should speak now, and explain why he continues to insist that his department did nothing wrong.

As the liaison between the White House and the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling seems to have been squarely in the middle of what appears to have been improper directions from the White House to politicize the hiring and firing of United States attorneys. Mr. Gonzales has insisted the eight prosecutors were let go for poor performance, and that the dismissals are an "overblown personnel matter." But Ms. Goodling's decision to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights suggests that she, at least, believes crimes may have been committed.

Last Friday night, the Justice Department released a calendar entry that directly contradicts Mr. Gonzales's insistence that he was out of the loop. It shows that he attended an hourlong meeting on Nov. 27 to discuss the upcoming firings of seven of the prosecutors. Previously, he had insisted that he never "had a discussion about where things stood."

The release of the calendar entry is disturbing because it suggests not only that Mr. Gonzales may have personally approved the firings — something he has denied — but that the Justice Department has been dishonest in its responses to Congress. The department had already released what it claimed was a full set of relevant documents, and it now says it simply overlooked the ones released on Friday. But the information about the Nov. 27 meeting may have been released because Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, who was present at it, has agreed to testify before Congress this week. ... (New York Times editorial 3-26-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:06 PM

Liberals would rather see us lose war than support Bush

"I am amazed that we so quickly forget the realities we face in this dangerous world. We are willfully ignorant of the Islamic terrorist jihad being perpetrated against the free world and how far-reaching this evil goes...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:30 PM

Mister D, you are seriously deluded about what the word "liberal" means, and have allowed your thinking to become frazzled with arm-wavig generalizations and terror of the most nebulous sort. The man you quote above seems to have no concept of identifying who he is talking about -- he has only vague bogey-clusters of generalized fear and hatred to offer. Such generalizations make him, and you in turn, look like a right wingf nutball. Get your definitions and facts straight to start with, and name your enemies specifically and on clear grounds -- "fascistic ragheads" doesn't count, and neither does "pinko bleeding hearts" -- and you might come across as a reasonable human being.

But not with links like this one.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

Amos:

I have never heard the terms "pinko bleeding hearts" and "fascistic ragheads" before. Is that Liberal terminology that goes with "tree dwelling, leather jacketed, Bushite goons"?

My favorite Liberal term, by Ward Churchill, the Indian imposter is Camel Jockey.

This guy has the right perspestive: "Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," he said in an interview. "You hook into a movement that exists - in this case the antiwar movement - and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism,"

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2955§ionid=3510101

Radicalized and activated Liberals never wave their arms do they? It is the conservatives that wave their arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 12:03 AM

All kinds of people fall into gross generalizations. Anybody can once in a while.

By the way, what is your definition of the word "Liberal" in this context?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

Sometimes you read something about this administration that is just so shameful it takes your breath away. For me, that was the March 20 article in this paper detailing how a House committee had just released documents showing "hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role."


The official, Philip A. Cooney, left government in 2005, after his shenanigans were exposed in The Times, and was immediately hired by, of course, Exxon Mobil. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil industry lobby arm.

The Times article, by Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, noted that Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on behalf of the oil industry had "no bearing" on his actions at the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration." (How about loyalty to scientific method?) Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing on what he had seen in good faith as the "most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge."

Let's see, of all the gin joints. Of all the people the Bush team would let edit its climate reports, we have a guy who first worked for the oil lobby denying climate change, with no science background, then went back to work for Exxon. Does it get any more intellectually corrupt than that? Is there something lower that I'm missing?

I wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."

I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.

But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.

"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming?' "

What is "amazing for someone that does not come from a political background like myself," said Governor Schwarzenegger, is that "this line is being drawn" between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. "You say to yourself: 'How can it be drawn on the environment?' But it is. But the great thing is more and more Republicans are coming on board for this. Seeing how important this is. And more and more Democrats and Republicans are working together. ... I said in my inaugural address: 'There isn't such a thing as Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.' Let's get our act together, fix this problem and fight global warming. ..."

(Friedman, NY Times, 3-27-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:37 AM

Alao, while we are on definitions...

Would any of you Bushites like to define:

1. "lose war"

or 2. "victory"

???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:37 AM

SETTING the stage for a direct confrontation with President George Bush, the US Senate has voted in favour of a timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

The 50-48 vote turned aside a Republican bid to strip the timelines from a $US122 billion ($152 billion) emergency spending bill to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Republicans unexpectedly giving up plans to block the bill, the Senate appears ready to pass it as soon as today.

With the House of Representatives having approved its own timetable last week, congressional Democrats are now close to presenting the President with a stark choice: veto the essential war funding or negotiate directly with war critics.

"He doesn't get everything he wants now, so I think it's time that he started working with us," said the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a chief architect of the Democratic campaign to pressure the President to alter his war policy. "The President must change course."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

Bobert, you hit the nail succinctly on the head.
Amos your overview is seen through the crystal clear eyes of the American eagle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

Donuel:

I am not sure what you mean. Elucidate!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:34 PM

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region's politics.

The king's speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging.

The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.

They brokered a deal between the two main Palestinian factions last month, but one that Israel and the United States found deeply problematic because it added to the power of the radical group Hamas rather than the more moderate Fatah. On Wednesday King Abdullah called for an end to the international boycott of the new Palestinian government. The United States and Israel want the boycott continued.

In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.

Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said.

Mustapha Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said the Saudis were sending Washington a message. "They are telling the U.S. they need to listen to their allies rather than imposing decisions on them and always taking Israel's side," Mr. Hamarneh said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 10:41 PM

A Liberal is a person that believes in Liberalisim. If you want to know what Liberalisim is, ask a Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:15 PM

Dickey:

That is what we call circular reasoning ; I assume you have been espousing it for a long time, as it always produces smaller and smaller circles.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:03 AM

A summary of Nancy Pelosi's first 100 days as Majority Leader.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:51 AM

"Like the House last week and the voters last November, the Senate made clear Tuesday that Americans expect to see the disaster in Iraq brought to an early and responsible end.

President Bush's reaction was instantaneous, familiar in its contempt for views that do not follow his in lockstep, and depressing in its lack of contact with reality. Mr. Bush threatened to veto the spending bill needed for this year's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than accept language calling for most American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq sometime next year. Nor was there any hint of his own prescription for ending this war.

Mr. Bush, his advisers and his loyalists on Capitol Hill threw up a cloud of propaganda aimed at making Americans think there is a debate going on between those who want to win the war and those who want to lose. That's nonsense, and the White House knows it. Mr. Bush's inadequate response was a cynical attempt to portray the Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted with the majority as indifferent to the political future of Iraq and to the morale of American soldiers stationed there.

In truth, it is Mr. Bush who has been defaulting on his own responsibilities in both areas, and that is why Congress needed to add the language he now objects to so vehemently.

Instead, he has handed a blank check to a government of divisive Iraqi politicians adept at paying lip service to national reconciliation while working hard to undermine it in practice. And he continues to ratchet up an already unsustainable troop escalation that will require sending exhausted units back into combat and compromise the Army's ability to maintain high-quality forces ready to respond to crises around the world.

..."

(NY Times 3-28-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Our current president could certainly be described as cunning and idealistic, but he has chosen to use those traits in ways that have robbed us of our blood, treasure and international reputation.

After six years of incompetence, deceit and deception, I'd prefer a president who exudes the qualities of honesty, compassion and intelligence. "

John Esposito
Huntington, N.Y., March 25, 2007
In a letter to the NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 12:04 PM

Poll: A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for '08
Thursday, Mar. 29, 2007 By JAY CARNEY/WASHINGTON

Could things be any worse for George W. Bush and his beleaguered party? In the new TIME poll, the President's job approval rating continues to wallow near his all-time lows, at 33%, while his disapproval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third consecutive survey. On Iraq, meanwhile, just 38% of respondents think the U.S. was right to invade, and only 37% believe "the new Iraqi government will be able to build a stable and reasonably Democratic society." Given a choice of policy options going forward, 68% endorse proposals to withdraw most combat troops, either within a year or no later than August 31, 2008, while just 28% say troops should stay in the country "as long as needed until the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves."

And then there's the burgeoning scandal stemming from the Justice Department's dismissal last year of eight U.S. attorneys. Forty-eight percent of respondents say the federal prosecutors were fired because they "refused to be pressured by politics," compared to just 22% who believe they were dismissed "for proper reasons." By a 55-33% margin, Americans believe Bush is refusing to allow top aide Karl Rove and other White House aides to testify under oath "because he's trying to cover up the reasons for the firings" , not because he "wants to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers." A slight plurality, 39-36%, believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign.

So it's taken almost as a given among the professional political class that the 2008 presidential election is the Democrats' to lose. Republicans are so morose in general, and conservatives so unhappy with their current field of candidates, that the assumption of a Democratic advantage has become bi-partisan. And with the public so soured on the Republican in the White House, and so many other trends working against them, including an up-tick in the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats , it's hard to find any good news for Republicans these days. So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a president in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election match-ups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead-heat, but Obama still loses: 43-45% to McCain, 44-45% to Giuliani.

It's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards — and in many cases fed up with — the GOP might still prefer a Republican for president over a Democrat. Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved. In Clinton's case, as TIME pollster Mark Schulman points out, "with Hillary the Democratic front-runner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con. She may have limited upward potential against Republicans. The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point."

Another GOP advantage in these match-ups is the way the party's top two candidates are viewed by the public. "Giuliani and McCain are not traditional Republicans," says Schulman. "Rather they both have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democratic bastions, such as the Northeast and California, the left and right coasts." As anyone following the campaign knows, the perceived "independent streak" that helps both McCain and Giuliani with the general electorate could hurt them, and possibly doom them, with GOP primary voters. Also, as Schulman points out, every Republican candidate is vulnerable because of his support for Bush's policy in Iraq and his closeness to Bush in general. "If Iraq persists as an issue, all of our polls show this will undercut Republican candidates," he says. "Being seen as 'close to Bush' is a real negative in the polls. When the campaign really heats up, the Democrats should have a lot of cards to play."

Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons GOP candidates appear competitive at all.

There are other interesting developments in the poll. John Edwards has surged among Democrats since he announced that his wife Elizabeth's cancer had recurred. In a three-way match-up, Clinton polls 38% among registered Democrats, vs 30% for Obama and 26% for Edwards. Edwards received just 17% in mid-March.

In the GOP race, Giuliani's post-announcement honeymoon appears to be over. The former New York City mayor's lead over erstwhile front-runner McCain has narrowed to 13 points, 35-22%, among registered Republicans, down from a 20-point lead two weeks ago.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html?cnn=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 03:13 PM

As the old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times". I'd say we do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:32 PM

"News that war veterans were not getting adequate care stunned the public, outraged Capitol Hill and forced three high-level Pentagon officials to step down. Bush met with soldiers once housed in Building 18, who endured moldy walls, rodents and other problems that went unchecked until reported by the media.
"I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush said. "It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem.""

Hey, he learned a new trick. Off the top of my head this is only the second time he's admitted to something having gone wrong, and the first I have ever heard him apologize for something.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:30 PM

"When Will Fredo Get Whacked?"

The New York Times
Frank Rich.


PRESIDENT BUSH wants to keep everything that happens in his White House secret, but when it comes to his own emotions, he's as transparent as a teenager on MySpace.

On Monday morning he observed the Iraq war's fourth anniversary with a sullen stay-the-course peroration so perfunctory he seemed to sleepwalk through its smorgasbord of recycled half-truths (Iraqi leaders are "beginning to meet the benchmarks") and boilerplate ("There will be good days, and there will be bad days"). But at a press conference the next day to defend his attorney general, the president was back in the saddle, guns blazing, Mr. Bring 'Em On reborn. He vowed to vanquish his Democratic antagonists much as he once, so very long ago, pledged to make short work of insurgents in Iraq.

The Jekyll-and-Hyde contrast between these two performances couldn't be a more dramatic indicator of Mr. Bush's priorities in his presidency's endgame. His passion for protecting his power and his courtiers far exceeds his passion for protecting the troops he's pouring into Iraq's civil war. But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president saddled with the nickname Fredo; they revolted when Mr. Bush flirted with appointing him to the Supreme Court and shun him now. The attorney general's alleged infraction — misrepresenting a Justice Department purge of eight United States attorneys, all political appointees, for political reasons — seems an easy-to-settle kerfuffle next to his infamous 2002 memo dismissing the Geneva Conventions' strictures on torture as "quaint" and "obsolete."

That's why the president's wild overreaction is revealing. So far his truculence has been largely attributed to his slavish loyalty to his White House supplicants, his ideological belief in unilateral executive-branch power and, as always, his need to shield the Machiavellian machinations of Karl Rove (who installed a protégé in place of one of the fired attorneys). But the fierceness of Mr. Bush's response — to the ludicrous extreme of forbidding transcripts of Congressional questioning of White House personnel — indicates there is far more fire to go with all the Beltway smoke.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

See also this thread on scientific fascism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:08 PM

From AP, 3-31-07:

WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman on Saturday urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, citing what he said were Gonzales' contradictory statements about his role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"I trusted him before, but I can't now," said five-term Rep. Lee Terry, whose district includes metropolitan Omaha.

Gonzales' credibility took a blow this past week during testimony by his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sampson, who resigned March 12, said the attorney general was regularly briefed about plans to fire the prosecutors and was involved with discussions about "this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."

Lawmakers impatient to hear Gonzales' side of the story said the embattled attorney general needed to explain himself quickly or risk more damage to his department. Gonzales is to testify on Capitol Hill on April 17.

"My views were that this was Democrat posturing and a witch hunt," Terry said. "My trust in him in that position has taken a hit because of these contradictory statements by him."

Gonzales on Friday sought to explain weeks of inconsistencies about how closely involved he had been in decisions to dismiss the U.S. attorneys. He said he had been aware his staff was drawing up plans for the firings but did not recall taking part in discussions over which people would actually be told to go.

"I believe in truth and accountability, and every step that I've taken is consistent with that principle," Gonzales said in Boston. "At the end of the day, I know what I did. And I know that the motivations for the decisions that I made were not based upon improper reasons."

Asked why he had not resigned, as some Democrats and Republicans have demanded, he said: "I am fighting for the truth."

Terry, asked whether he believed Gonzales' accounts, said: "I don't know ... I don't think so. ... I trusted him before, but I can't now."

He added, "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is demanding a retraction from Gonzales on behalf of New Mexico's former U.S. attorney, who was among the prosecutors fired last year.

Schumer wrote Gonzales on Friday demanding that the attorney general clear David Iglesias' name. Schumer's letter came the day after Sampson testified that in hindsight, he would not have recommended Iglesias for dismissal.

Sampson orchestrated the firings for department officials as part of a plan to replace some prosecutors in President Bush's second term. He added Iglesias' name late in the process, but on Thursday said he could not remember exactly why.

Iglesias has said that he wants a written retraction from the Justice Department stating that performance had nothing to do with his dismissal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:16 AM

Bush Job Approval Up To 35%
As Bush's approval numbers inch upward, satisfaction with where the country is headed is also trending higher.

National NewsPresident Bush's job approval rating has rebounded to 35%, after hitting a all-time low of 30% for the second time earlier this month, the latest Zogby International telephone poll shows.

Bush's job approval rating bump returns him to an approval level he last attained in late October 2006, when his positive marks stood at 36% during a torrid campaign to hold Republican control of both the U.S. House and Senate. Ultimately, that effort failed, and since, his positive numbers have hovered between 30% and 32%. His latest ratings boost now, as he winds up a five-country visit to Latin America, where anti-Bush sentiment runs high in many areas.

Sixty-three percent of Republicans gave Bush positive job marks, up from 61% in our early March poll. This compares to 11% of Democrats, up from 7% in early March. Among self-described independents, the President's positive job rating jumped from 20% in early March to 31% in our most recent poll.

The telephone survey of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted March 7-9, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

In addition to a positive job rating boost for Bush, the same poll finds a slight increase in his ratings for handling the war in Iraq – overall, 26% give him a positive performance rating on the war, up from 23% in polling in early March. While nearly half of Republicans (47%) said they approve of how Bush is handling the war, Republican support is down slightly from the last round of polling, when it stood at 49%.

As Republican support slips slightly, gains have been made among Democrats and independents. Although there is significantly less support for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq among Democrats, 8% give positive ratings to his handling of the war, up from just 3% in the last round of polling. Among independents, 25% approve of Bush's handling of the war, a boost from 15% who said the same earlier this month.

As Bush's approval numbers inch upward, satisfaction with where the country is headed is also trending higher. Overall, 33% said the country is headed in the right direction, an increase from 31% in early March polling. But while Republicans' confidence in the country's direction grew to 57% from 54% earlier this month, Democrats remain skeptical – 16% of Democrats said the U.S. was headed in the right direction earlier this month, compared to just 10% in the most recent poll. Independent voters show the most positive swing, with nearly a third (32%) who believe the nation is headed in the right direction, up from 23% in the last poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM

Wow! 35%!!! When they reached that level last October he was viewed as a dead duck.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:31 AM

AUSTIN, Tex., March 29 — In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush's early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.
A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush's political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president's chief campaign strategist.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush's leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a "my way or the highway" mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

"I really like him, which is probably why I'm so disappointed in things," he said. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

In speaking out, Mr. Dowd became the first member of Mr. Bush's inner circle to break so publicly with him.

He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Mr. Bush's presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power.

(NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 11:01 AM

Turn over a scandal in Washington these days and the chances are you'll find Karl Rove. His tracks are everywhere: whether it's helping to purge United States attorneys, coaching bureaucrats on how to spend taxpayers' money to promote Republican candidates, hijacking the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for partisan politics, or helping to organize a hit on the character of one of the first people to publicly reveal the twisting of intelligence reports on Iraq.

Whatever the immediate objective, Mr. Rove seems focused on one overarching goal: creating a permanent Republican majority, even if that means politicizing every aspect of the White House and subverting the governmental functions of the executive branch. This is not the Clinton administration's permanent campaign. The Clinton people had difficulty distinguishing between the spin cycle of a campaign and the tone of governing. That seems quaint compared with the Bush administration's far more menacing failure to distinguish the Republican Party from the government, or the state itself.

This was, perhaps, the inevitable result of taking the chief operative of a presidential campaign, one famous for his scorched-earth style, and ensconcing him in the White House — not in a political role, but as a key player in the formation of policy. Mr. Rove never had to submit to Senate confirmation hearings. Yet, from the very start, photographs of cabinet meetings showed him in the background, keeping an enforcer's eye on the proceedings. After his re-election in 2004, President Bush formally put Mr. Rove in charge of all domestic policy....

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 06:38 PM

See if you can shit all over this one Amos

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 07:03 PM

Dickey:

Not too hard, as it is the kind of simplistic argument, graphically, that claiming "WMDs" is, verbally. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? There are a LOT of events that are left off that graph which could have a lot to do with the alleged upturn, assuming even that the graph portrays the numbers correctly. The revenue stream might be responding to the huge deficit blow-out due to the war machine, feeding back part of its illgotten and debit-based gains to the Feds.. In short, this graph has no reliable semantic content with a lot of supplementary data. If it is true that Federal revenues are up, I say, great, but let's be more analytical about the causes of it. Are they up relative to the deficit? Hmmmm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

On the issue of Minica Goodling invoking the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, the letter from her attorneys detailing the rationale therefore is full of obscure rationalizations which add up to "I don't want to testify because they think I am going to lie" and "I don't want to testify because they will charge me with perjury afterwards."

These, surely, are not the grounds on which the 5th Amendment can be legally invoked, but it makes for an entertaining tap-dance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:33 AM

Here ya go Amos:

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage.png

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:40 AM

Wow! 35%!!!

Jimmy Carter, left with a rating of 34 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:43 AM

Harry Truman Nov. 1951 23% job approval rating

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:10 PM

Interesting study in deficit spending. Outside of WW II there a few outstanding accomplishments.

Spending more than we make -- from 2% to 6% more:

        
1980-1984        Reagan
1985-1989        Reagan
1992-3               G.H.B.
2001-2004        G.W.B.

Spending less than we make for a surplus up to 3% of GDP:

        
1955-56                 D. Eisenhower
1969                 LBJ
1997-2001         W. Clinton

It would be interesting to see the national debt also graphed alongside of the deficit spending history, as it would quickly show where the nation's fiscal health was being eroded or improved.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:39 PM

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:12 PM

PROVO, Utah (AP) -- Some students and faculty on one of the nation's most conservative campuses want Brigham Young University to withdraw an invitation for Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at commencement later this month.

Critics at the school question whether Cheney sets a good example for graduates, citing his promotion of faulty intelligence before the Iraq war and his role in the CIA leak scandal.

The private university, which is owned by the Mormon church, has "a heavy emphasis on personal honesty and integrity in all we do," said Warner Woodworth, a professor at BYU's business school.

"Cheney just doesn't measure up," he said.

Woodworth is helping organize an online petition asking that the school rescind its invitation to the vice president. In its first week, the petition collected more than 2,300 signatures, mostly from people describing themselves as students, alumni or members of the church.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:40 PM

Graph of the National Debt and accompanying analysis makes it real clear where the drunken spendthrifts are in our national history, Dickey. Clinton was fiscally responsible; Reagan and the Bushes were fiscal owlhoots.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:15 PM

How a Bogus Letter Became Grounds for a War

This article, which traces the history of the uranium letter scam, demonstrates clearly the bias-toward blindness that prevented saner minds from persuading the Bush administration that the case was bogus.

Why did they plunge ahead with the belief it was true? What was the cost of that obdurate approach?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 09:48 AM

Excerpt from a Times editorial on Bush's comment that those with deployable sons and daughters are, in effect, too emotionally involved to make clear decisions about the war in Iraq:

"... But by extension, Mr. Bush's comments were insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and spouses have served or will serve in Iraq.

They are perfectly capable of forming judgments about the war, pro or con, on the merits. But when Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Dowd during a Rose Garden news conference yesterday, he said, "This is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is for a lot of other people in our country."

Mr. Dowd's case, Mr. Bush said, "as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable."

Over the weekend, two of Mr. Bush's chief spokesmen, Dan Bartlett and Dana Perino, claimed that Mr. Dowd's change of heart about the war was rooted in "personal" issues and "emotions," and talked of his "personal journey." In recent years, Mr. Dowd suffered the death of a premature twin daughter, and was divorced. His son is scheduled to serve in Iraq soon.

Mr. Dowd said his experiences were a backdrop to his reconsideration of his support of the war and Mr. Bush. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something deeply wrong with the White House's dismissing his criticism as emotional, as if it has no reasoned connection to Mr. Bush's policies.

This form of attack is especially galling from a president who from the start tried to paint this war as virtually sacrifice-free: the Iraqis would welcome America with open arms, the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues — and the all-volunteer military would concentrate the sacrifice on only a portion of the nation's families.

Mr. Bush's comments about Mr. Dowd are a reflection of the otherworldliness that permeates his public appearances these days. Mr. Bush seems increasingly isolated, clinging to a fantasy version of Iraq that is more and more disconnected from reality. He gives a frightening impression that he has never heard any voice from any quarter that gave him pause, much less led him to rethink a position.

Mr. Bush's former campaign aide showed an open-mindedness and willingness to adapt to reality that is sorely lacking in the commander in chief."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:49 AM

Perhaps this will clarify Amos's arm waving, rhetorical position on drunken spendthrifts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:56 AM

The Naigara Falls Reporter opines:
..."Voters in Utah, the Mormon theocracy, have supported Bush with loyalty they usually reserve for the Brigham Young football team. In 2004, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's criminal enterprise got 71 percent of the vote in Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that a two-year compilation of Gallup polls showed staunch support among Mormons for the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of the violence: "American Mormons, more than any other religious group over that period, believed the United States was right to invade Iraq."

But a recent survey found "just 44 percent of those identifying themselves as Mormons said they backed Bush's war management." Mormon support for the war has plunged 21 percentage points in just five months.

The defection of the Mormons is a seismic political event, and you can bet Bush's political brain, Karl Rove, turns pale when he sees those numbers. The head of the Church of Latter-day Saints is expressing doubts about war, and the mayor of Salt Lake City is leading the charge to impeach Bush.

LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley may have set the stage for the precipitous plunge in Mormon support for the war. Speaking to students at Brigham Young University last fall, Hinckley spoke of "the terrible cost of war."

While not mentioning Iraq or Bush directly, the church leader said of war, "What a fruitless thing it often is," adding, "And what a terrible price it extracts." In the Mormon tradition, the words of the church president are carefully weighed.

Kirk Jowers, the director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, told the Salt Lake Tribune the church leader's remarks "may have been interpreted by the LDS community as an indictment against the world's violence."

Jowers said, "Small phrases by President Hinckley are to the LDS community as Alan Greenspan's words were to the financial community."

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a lapsed Mormon, rejected subtle pronouncements and ambiguity. He said Bush should be impeached for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." Anderson had the guts to say what every clear-thinking American ought to be shouting from the mountain tops.

Anderson told CNN, "If impeachment were ever justified, this is certainly the time. This president, by engaging in such incredible abuses of power, breaches of trust with both the Congress and the American people, and misleading us into this tragic and unbelievable war, the violation of treaties, other international law, our Constitution, our own domestic laws and then his role in heinous human rights abuse; I think all of that together calls for impeachment."

Whatever Democratic candidate for president will say and embrace similar words of truth has my support. That sure as hell will not be the calculating, triangulating Hillary Clinton. Such crisp honesty escapes her. Other leaders in the Democratic Party are similarity afflicted with the play-it-safe syndrome.

Anderson made his fellow Democrats cringe, saying forthrightly, "The fact that anybody would say that impeachment is off the table when we have a president who has been so egregious in his violation of our Constitution, a president who asserts unitary executive power, that is absolutely chilling."

Anderson denounced the "culture of obedience" that has so damaged our nation and weakened the Democratic Party.

Bush will now blame Congress, the Democrats and the Iraqi people for the disaster in Iraq that was doomed from its inception. Those of us who rejected the "culture of obedience" are seeing the horrible tragedy we predicted unfolding every day. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM

Afternoon October 7, 2002

Elisabetta Burba, a reporter for the Italian current affairs weekly Panorama, receives a phone call from Rocco Martino, an Italian information peddler and former SISMI agent. He tells her that he has some documents (see March 2000) that might interest her. Burba has obtained information from Martino before and she considers him to be a reliable source. [Talking Points Memo, 10/31/2003; Financial Times, 8/2/2004 Sources: Elisabetta Burba] They meet at a bar in Rome and he tells her he has documents proving that Iraq made a deal to purchase hundreds of tons of uranium from Niger. He tells her, "Let's make this war start. This is a megagalactica situation." [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 147] He hands over copies of the documents, totaling some 22 pages, mostly in French, and offers to give her the originals for a sum of $12,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:47 PM

March 2000

Italian information peddler Rocco Martino agrees to pay Laura Montini, an employee at the Niger embassy in Rome, the sum of £350 per month in exchange for any documents that might shed light on rumours that “rogue statesâ€쳌 are trying to acquire uranium from Niger (see Between 1999 and 2000). Martino wants to sell the documents to the French who are investigating the rumours. France is concerned about the security of a French consortium that controls Niger’s only two uranium mines. Martino has reportedly been on French intelligence’s payroll since 1999 (see (After June 1999 or July 1999)). Martino learned of Montini through his friend Antonio Nucera, deputy chief of the SISMI center in Viale Pasteur in Rome (see Early 2000). Up until this point, Montini, age 60, has been working as an informant for Italian intelligence. She goes by the name “La Signora.â€쳌 [Sunday Times (London), 8/1/2004; Financial Times, 8/2/2004; La Repubblica (Rome), 10/24/2005; Marshall, 11/10/2005; Sunday Times (London), 4/9/2006; Vanity Fair, 7/2006, pp. 150] One of the first documents she gives to Martino is one relating to Wissam al-Zahawie’s 1999 visit to Niger (see February 1999). Martino reportedly passes the document on to the French. [Sunday Times (London), 4/9/2006] Over the next several months, La Signora reportedly provides Martino with numerous documentsâ€"a “codebook,â€쳌 a dossier including a mixture of fake and genuine documents, and then finally, a purported agreement between Niger and Iraq on the sale of 500 tons of uranium oxide, also known as “yellowcake.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:28 PM

Dickey:

You're blowin' smoke again, pal. 1. Your graph doesn't clarify anything at all. 2. Your links simply support that the whole yellowcake scam was as phony as a two-dollar bill and anyone with the brains of a broom-pusher -- let alone a senior executive -- saw through it or should have seen through it.

Note, also, that my arm waving was accompanied by straight mumbers of a source which you provided originally.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM

How about a new WAR tax?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070403/OPINION02/704030331/1068/OPINION

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:06 PM

Amos:

Your chart includes references to the first oil war and second oil war. Pure rhetoric.

If you download the underlying data, it says from government sources but dos not say where or what government.


For the national debt it has this set of numbers:

2000        5,628,700,209,886
2001        5,769,881,563,436
2002        6,198,401,456,847
2003        6,760,140,247,818
2004        7,354,673,867,424
2005        8,031,387,000,000
2006        8,707,627,000,000

I get this set of numbers from http://www.treasurydirect.gov :

2000         5,674,178,209,886.86
2001         5,807,463,412,200.06
2002         6,228,235,965,597.16
2003         6,783,231,062,743.62
2004         7,379,052,696,330.32
2005         7,932,709,661,723.50
2006         8,506,973,899,215.23

For the GDP It uses this set of "calcualted" numbers:


2005        12,227,400,000,000           
2006        12,907,300,000,000           
2007        13,617,200,000,000           
2008        14,349,000,000,000           
2009        15,111,400,000,000           
2010        15,905,200,000,000        

Form http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html I get these numbers

2005        12,290
2006         13,030
2007         13,761
2006         14,521
2009         15,296
2010        16,102

In other words your chart is way off from the truthful numbers but you don't care about the accuracy and validity of what you present as facts. You only care that it makes the administration "look bad".by any means possible.

But if you look at this chart it cearly shows the direction that the deficit is heading. However you agenda is to foil that trend by whatever means necessary. To viciously stomp out any glimmers of anything positive before it can take root.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:44 PM

Aw, Keerist, Dickey. You don't know much about trends, in graphs, do you? Here's what your lovely graph shows. Clinton REVERSED the trend toward deficit spending into a deeper hole and Bush then reversed Clinton's trend, and dragged the nation into the depest hole yet. Talk about not alowing the glimmers of improvement to take root! Bush's record is to have taken the highest positive turn we've ever seen fiscally and turn it into the deepest pit, and then crawl half way out. But he hasn't even gotten back to the solvency left by his father, let alone Clinton's positive accomplishment. If the trend defined by the graph as shown were to continue, we would rollercoaster into complete insolvency by 2012, but fortunately, Bush wn't have his hand on the till or the tiller by then. So there's a chance someone will turn it around. But don't pretend your boy is pulling us out of a hole that he himself created.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

A Path to Common Ground
The Iraq Study Group Plan Could Break the Logjam

By James A. Baker III
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A17

I wholeheartedly agree with a point Lee Hamilton made in his March 25 op-ed, " A Partnership on Iraq," regarding the need for a unity of effort in Iraq. He is correct that the United States will probably falter unless President Bush and Congress reach a bipartisan consensus in the coming months.

Unfortunately, more than 100 days after the Iraq Study Group released its report, we are further than ever from a consensus. Recent narrow votes in the House and Senate, largely along partisan lines, illustrate our country's continuing division on this critical issue.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Sister Toldjah
Title Pending
Candide's Notebooks: News - Commentary - Culture - A Daily Portal to Minds Without Borders by Pierre Tristam


Full List of Blogs (10 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook



The best, and perhaps only, way to build national agreement on the path forward is for the president and Congress to embrace the only set of recommendations that has generated bipartisan support: the Iraq Study Group report. The Iraq Study Group was composed of five Democrats and five Republicans. Each of us has strong wills and views. But we managed to find consensus for 79 recommendations that we suggested be carried out in concert. Our leaders could still use this report to unite the country behind a common approach to our most difficult foreign policy problem.

The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.

The goal of the United States should be to help Iraqis achieve national political reconciliation and greater effectiveness of their security forces, the report said, so that Iraqis can assume more of the security mission. This in turn could allow for an orderly departure of U.S. troops. An important way to encourage Iraqis to work together is to hold them to the type of benchmarks that Congress, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have all considered. If the Iraqi government does not meet those benchmarks, the United States "should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government," the report said. But we did not suggest that this be codified into legislation. The report doesn't recommend a firm deadline for troop removal unless America's military leadership believes that the situation warrants it.

Nothing has happened since the report was released that would justify changing that view. Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.

The president announced a " new way forward" on Jan. 10 that supports much of the approach called for by the Iraq Study Group. He has since said that he is moving to embrace our recommendations. The president's plan increases the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi army units, with the goal that the Iraqi government will assume control of security in all provinces by November. It outlines benchmarks and indicates that the Iraqi government must act to attain them. He has approved ministerial-level meetings of all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran; the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council; and other countries.

The International Compact for Iraq and the Iraqi-led neighbors conference are a good start. But more can be done. The president should beef up regional diplomacy, particularly that involving Syria and Iran, by establishing an Iraq International Support Group to encourage the participation of countries that have a critical stake in preventing Iraq from falling into chaos. He should move to further engage all parties to seek a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis. And he should enhance the training of Iraqi forces and push harder for national reconciliation by Iraqis as called for by the study group so as to permit the orderly reduction of U.S. forces.

But most important, the president should reiterate his intention to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and ask congressional leaders to join him. They should do so. If they do not, the burden of rejecting a unified bipartisan approach would fall on them.

Moving forward this way, which would require compromise by both sides, would be far better than continuing a political dogfight that can only undermine U.S. foreign policy goals in Iraq and the Middle East.

The writer, a former secretary of state, was co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:55 AM

Washington Post:

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16


HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.


OP-ED COLUMNISTS
Columnist Biographies, Past Columns and RSS Feeds
The Editorialist

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook



Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:29 PM

From the Los Angeles Times:

6:40 PM PDT, April 4, 2007


WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Wednesday appointed as his top regulatory official a conservative academic who has written that markets do a better job of regulating than the government does and that it is more cost-effective for people who are sensitive to pollution to stay indoors on smoggy days than for the government to order polluters to clean up their emissions.

As director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget, Susan E. Dudley will have an opportunity to change or block regulations proposed by government agencies.

Bush also named a researcher at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank in Washington, as deputy director of the Social Security Administration. Andrew G. Biggs has been an outspoken proponent of converting Social Security benefits into self-directed retirement accounts, which Bush favors but Democrats have stopped cold. Bush nominated Biggs to that post in November, but the process stalled in February when the Senate Finance Committee refused to hold confirmation hearings because of his views of privatization.

And as ambassador to Belgium, Bush installed Sam Fox, a St. Louis businessman and GOP fundraiser who contributed $50,000 to the Swift Boat veterans' campaign against John F. Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. The White House actually withdrew Fox's nomination last week in the face of opposition from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

With the Senate on its spring break, all three received "recess appointments," under which they can serve without Senate confirmation until the 110th Congress adjourns in late 2008 or early 2009. Bush has used recess appointments more than 100 times, often to get around a recalcitrant Senate.

Although Dudley's new job is more obscure than those to which Biggs and Fox were appointed, it is also potentially the most powerful. The budget office's regulatory shop acts as a funnel for all regulations emanating throughout the government.

In congressional testimony, Dudley has favored dispensing with costly air pollution controls and initiating a pollution warning system "so that sensitive individuals can take appropriate 'exposure avoidance' behavior" -- mostly by remaining inside.

She opposed stricter limits on arsenic in drinking water, in part because she argued that the Environmental Protection Agency's calculations of the costs and benefits overvalued some lives, particularly those of older people with a small life expectancy.

She has argued that air bags should not be required by government regulation but requested by automobile consumers willing to pay for them.

Rick Melberth, director of regulatory policy for the watchdog group OMB Watch, called Dudley a "terrible pick." He described her as "an anti-regulatory extremist" who believes that the proper regulatory lever is the free market, "and if the market doesn't protect you, too bad."

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called her a "radical reactionary" who favors business over public protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:38 PM

Amos: Your claim that "Bush then reversed Clinton's trend" is false. If you study the chart that you found so easy to shit all over a but harder you will notice a decline in revenues starting in 2000, before Bush took office. It began with the bursting of the internet bubble at the same time that gasoline prices started to rise. Remember when Yahoo and Amazon stock went from the hundreds to the 20's? But the need for government spending did not decrease.

It continued until 2003 when Bush signed the jobs and growth act which reversed the downward trend that Clinton left.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

The rate of increase of the national debt went down every year Clinton was in office. The rate of increase of the national debt increased every year Bush was in office.

As for the deficit, the Internet bubble caused the positive gain in Clinton's term to settle from a net -290 billion dollars at the end of G.H. Bush's term to a positive +128 billion dollars surplus when Clinton left office. It is true that before the bubble burst, it had been as high as +236 billion surplus. Bush's first term drove it down to a -413 billion dollars, the lowest point ever graphed since 1961 when the subject graph began. He has reportedly reduced this deficit to only -260 billion dollars. It is hard to tell from this graph exactly where the decline from Clinrton's high point began, but the first drop from 236 down to 128 appears to be in late 2000, Bush's watch. This is also supported by the fact that the last number on the chart says Bush's "score" is "-496", the difference between the present deficit of -260, and Clinton's high-water mark of +236 billion.

So I would say it is pretty clear that your boy is a spendthrift.

No armwaving, just read the chart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM

"appears to be in late 2000, Bush's watch."




from http://english.people.com.cn/english/200101/21/eng20010121_61048.html

Sunday, January 21, 2001, updated at 11:16(GMT+8)
World   


Bush Sworn In as 43rd U.S. President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush became the standing residents of the White House on Saturday after braving cold, damp Washington streets to complete the last block of the presidential inaugural parade on foot.

Bush assumed the presidency from former President Clinton just after noon Saturday, and quickly moved to assert his new power: Before the inaugural parade had stepped off, he had formally nominated members of his Cabinet and ordered federal agencies to suspend implementing new regulations within an hour of taking office. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM

Editorial
No Recess From Bad Appointments

(NY Times)

Published: April 6, 2007

President Bush resorted to an old political trick this week, using recess appointments to evade Senate confirmation votes that he was sure to lose. All three are extraordinarily bad appointments — and three more reminders of how Mr. Bush's claims of wanting to work with Congress's Democratic leadership are just empty words.

The most bitterly resented but least important appointment sent Sam Fox, a major Republican donor, to Belgium as ambassador. Mr. Fox contributed $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group whose vicious ads during the 2004 campaign lied about Senator John Kerry's war record and helped win President Bush a second term. It is common for administrations to reward big donors with ambassadorships. But this appointment is a deliberate thumb in the eye of Senator Kerry and fellow Democrats who were poised to reject the nominee.

Of more importance was the appointment of Susan E. Dudley to the Office of Management and Budget, where she will review regulations from major federal agencies before they are issued. Ms. Dudley has made no secret of her hostility toward government regulation, criticizing everything from fuel economy standards for light trucks to a national drinking water standard for arsenic, arguing that the market will almost always suffice. This makes her just right for this administration but wrong for consumers and the environment.
...
With nominees of such dubious merit, it is no wonder that Mr. Bush resorted to an end run around the Senate. The American public will almost certainly pay the price.

---

It would be refreshing to get an honest man into the White house for a change.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 02:25 PM

Dear Amos: If YOU read the chart you will see that the points do not come at the end of the year.

Who was on watch in late 2000?

Here is a chart from your coveted NY Times that shows federal spending taking an up turn and federal revenues taking a sharp downturn before the end of 2000.


"The US economy experienced negative growth in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s (the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001). Using the common definition of a recession as "as a fall of a country's real Gross Domestic Product in two or more successive quarters", then the United States was, strictly speaking, not in recession during the period...
...Using the stock market as a benchmark, the recession began in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 03:21 PM

Dick:

I was wrong about late 2000. The first sag was in Clinton's last quartter. Sorry.

So the chart about which we are speaking says that Clinton's net score was an increase of 526 billion at peak, which slipped to a positive gain of 398 billion when he left office.

ush's net score for his first term was a loss of 541 billion from that 398+. He managed to offset the negative to - 394B at the end of the chart.

No matter ow you parse the fine points, though, the graph is starkly catastrophic from the day he moved in.

The graph you now refer me to, from the NY Times, makes it clear that Conton's era was the only one in which revenues exceeded spending, and that immediately after Clinton the revnue stream fell to a forty-year low while spending increased dramatically.

If you ran your own budget that way, pal, you'd be bankrupt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' although No. 3 Defense staffer called contact 'mature and symbiotic.'

By Jesse Nunes | csmonitor.com
A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

The report, which was made public in summary form in February, was released in full on Thursday by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a statement accompanying the 121-page report, Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "

The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a "mature, symbiotic" relationship, a view that was not supported by the available intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report specifically states that," the CIA and DIA disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

The Los Angeles Times reports that in excerpts of the report released in February, Mr. Gimble called Feith's alternative intelligence "improper," but that it wasn't illegal or unauthorized because then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assigned the work. The Times also reports that a prewar memo from Mr. Wolfowitz to Feith requesting that an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection be identified was among the newly released documents.

"We don't seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official.

Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: "We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."

The Times reports that the memo "marked the beginnings of what would become a controversial yearlong Pentagon project" to convince White House officials of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a connection "that was hotly disputed by U.S. intelligence agencies at the time and has been discredited in the years since."

Full story here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:08 PM

heney Sticks to His Delusions
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, April 6, 2007; 1:20 PM


Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even President Bush has backed off his earlier inflammatory assertions about links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But Vice President Cheney yesterday, in an interview with right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, continued to stick to his delusional guns.


Cheney told Limbaugh that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading al-Qaeda operations in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

"[A]fter we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney said. "And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." (Think Progress has the audio clip.)

But Cheney's narrative is wrong from beginning to end. For instance, Zarqawi was not an al-Qaeda member until after the war. Rather, intelligence sources now agree, he was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents. And although he worked hard to inflame sectarian violence after the invasion, he certainly didn't start it.


More here...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:20 AM

That link to the chart is messed up for some reason. Here it is again

Do you remember the irrational exuberance and increase in gas prices that precipited this crash? Do remember that Clinton cut back on military spending that is hurting us now? Bush inherited a downward trend that would have still been there if Gore was elected. The Federal budget is made the year before so Bush inherited the spending of the Clinton administration. All that Enron crap was brewing during the Clinton admistration also.

Cheney is just throwing out some raw meat for the rabid dogs and arm wavers to fight over. You make a good echo chamber.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:21 AM

http:/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/07/16/weekinreview/20060716_BUDGET_GRAPHIC.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 08:10 AM

"Do remember that Clinton cut back on military spending that is hurting us now?"

Yes! Clinton was correct to cut that budget. It was Bush who was wrong to start these wars along with his hawkish crowd that were a bit too eager to reup thier budget monies.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 08:35 AM

What Barry said, plus...

300...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 11:18 AM

Did al-Qaeda cut their military budget?

How did the guys in Somalia fare with this "proper" budget cut.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: PSzymeczek
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:03 PM

"FDR stayed out of the war until he was forced to fight Japan but how was he forced to fight in Europe?"

Germany declared war on the US immediately after we declared war on Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:12 PM

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

Washington Post Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: PSzymeczek
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:15 PM

'One of President Clinton 's very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire all 93 United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff. "

Dickey, EVERY incoming President replaces all, or practically all, of the US Attorneys appointed by the previous administration, especially if the previous administration is of the opposite party. They've been doing it for years. Reagan did it, Carter did it, and I'm reasonably certain that Nixon did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:32 PM

Why Dickey? Was Rice Patty doing such a good job? NOT!

Barry

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

"The reference is to February 1993 when Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys who had been appointed by George Bush. One of them was Stephens, who was then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and developing a case against House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski -- a pivotal Clinton ally in the battle for health-care reform -- for diverting taxpayers' money to personal and campaign funds. Stephens charged that the mass firing was a way of derailing the Rostenkowski investigation. The RTC, however, chose Stephens precisely because he could be trusted to carry out an investigation that would not back away from information potentially embarrassing to Clinton. Stephanopoulos adds: "Once I got the facts from Josh ((Steiner)), that ended the matter, as far as I was concerned."

But that is not the story Fiske and the grand jury have been hearing from some others. As pieced together by TIME from a review of documents and interviews with many sources -- Administration officials, lawyers for some of the 12 Clinton aides subpoenaed by Fiske and sources involved with the special counsel's probe..
..Further down the road, says a White House official, "it depends on whether Fiske wants to indict some White House folks. Indictments he could get easily. Convictions are another matter." In any case, he says, the conversations are "the most damaging Whitewater-related stuff so far."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980437-2,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 11:15 PM

German Declaration of War against the U.S.

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

    On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

    Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

    The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

    Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

    The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

    Accept, Mr. Chargé d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.


December 11, 1941

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

I don't see how this piece of Nazi rhetoric is relevant, ac tually. Are you presenting it as a summary of facts?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 12:28 PM

..."As if to confirm we're in the last throes, President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn't even emerge for the Washington Nationals' ceremonial first pitch last week) that he feels he has nothing left to lose.

Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked Congress for taking 57 days to "pass emergency funds for our troops" even though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for "pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war," though last year's war-spending bill was also larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural subsidies to the president's own request for money for bird-flu preparation.

Mr. Bush's claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he couldn't sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay for the war until well into July. Since by that point we'll already be on the threshold of our own commanders' late-summer deadline for judging the surge, what's the crisis?

The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering of the troops and their families — a button he had pushed five days earlier when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal-ridden Walter Reed. "Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," he said. "And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to."

His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week's end, we would learn the story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for new troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile the Iraqi "democracy" that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for "working on an oil law," though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush's sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own. Now it's not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding. The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March.

Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared "a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq" in 2006, is a cauldron of bloodshed."...

From Frank Rich's column in the NY Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM

Speaking of flu preparations, I'm thinking that the nation's getting an overdose of Bush & will possibly die from exposure to him & that he needs to take a shot for the team & for US in order for US to find a cure.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:48 PM

"This too shall pass." That's what my friends keep telling me, but how deep in manure will we sink before his time is up? Who will lead us after Bush and Cheney leave office and how many generations will it take to correct all that they have wrought?

Hang ALL the war criminals!


Peter

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

The Times today points to even more layers of duplicity in the scandal of the Bush administrations messing with DA's and justice for purposes of political gain.
And excerpt:


Another Layer of Scandal


Published: April 9, 2007

"As Congress investigates the politicization of the United States attorney offices by the Bush administration, it should review the extraordinary events the other day in a federal courtroom in Wisconsin. The case involved Georgia Thompson, a state employee sent to prison on the flimsiest of corruption charges just as her boss, a Democrat, was fighting off a Republican challenger. It just might shed some light on a question that lurks behind the firing of eight top federal prosecutors: what did the surviving attorneys do to escape the axe?

Ms. Thompson, a purchasing official in the state's Department of Administration, was accused by the United States attorney in Milwaukee, Steven Biskupic, of awarding a travel contract to a company whose chief executive contributed to the campaign of Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. Ms. Thompson said the decision was made on the merits, but she was convicted and sent to prison before she could appeal.

The prosecution was a boon to Mr. Doyle's opponent. Republicans ran a barrage of attack ads that purported to tie Ms. Thompson's "corruption" to Mr. Doyle. Ms. Thompson was sentenced shortly before the election, which Governor Doyle won.

The Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seemed shocked by the injustice of her conviction. It took the extraordinary step of releasing Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. "It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from Mr. Biskupic's office. ..."

More to the story in this editorial.

A

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

And Paul Krugman has a few choice comments about the slime tactics that have come to typify the Rove-and-martini crowd:

"Sweet Little Lies

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 9, 2007

"Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can't picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.

But there's another political lesson I don't think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren't meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.

For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush's credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn't believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.

Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.

The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.

Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no there there, if reported at all, received far less attention. The effect was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well run — especially compared with its successor — seem mired in scandal.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, little lies never went away. In particular, promoting little lies seems to have been one of the main things U.S. attorneys, as loyal Bushies, were expected to do. For example, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, appears to have been fired because he wouldn't bring unwarranted charges of voter fraud.

There's a lot of talk now about a case in Wisconsin, where the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney prosecuted the state's purchasing supervisor over charges that a court recently dismissed after just 26 minutes of oral testimony, with one judge calling the evidence "beyond thin." But by then the accusations had done their job: the unjustly accused official had served almost four months in prison, and the case figured prominently in attack ads alleging corruption in the Democratic governor's administration.

This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans have been taking at Nancy Pelosi.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her "arrogance of extravagance" — then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.

Now there's Ms. Pelosi's fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as "bad behavior" — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich's trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration's reaction as a "tantrum." But it's more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy — which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.

But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time's Joe Klein, a media insider if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that "the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal." For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi's trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."

The G.O.P.'s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

I understand that the ICC would like to investigate Bush and Cheney for war crimes but because the U.S. is not a member their hands are tied. Apparently, Saddam was just about to sign when the invasion hit Iraq. Iraq is actively seeking to become a signator.

If Iraq signs the agreement, will the U.S. give them Bush and Cheney?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

The International Colour Consortium? Too much white?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM

"Sweet Little Lies By PAUL KRUGMAN"

I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:21 PM

Well, it is understandable that Krugmans sensitivity to truth-telling and your own might be very disparate, Dick. But if you look over his article you will find he has specifics.

I suspect there is a kind of inoculation which prevents loyal followers from perceiving torque, spin, alterations in time and event, and the misassessment of importances which are mixed into the rhetoric handed out by their camp followers. I don't think you'd be able to spot Rove lying if he phoned you up and todl you you'd been elected Party Commisar for your collective.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM

Dear Mr Echo Chamber:

PSzymeczek claims FDR was forced to fight in europe because Germany declared war on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: PSzymeczek - PM
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:03 PM

"FDR stayed out of the war until he was forced to fight Japan but how was he forced to fight in Europe?"

Germany declared war on the US immediately after we declared war on Japan.

"On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel."

Germany declared war on the US on December 11, 1941 becuase of FDRs public statement of September 11, 1941 as stated in their declaration of war.

Therefore FDR entered into the fighting in europe voluntarily 3 months before Germany declared war on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:20 PM

"Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

Nonetheless, the idea that Clinton and Reno broke with precedent and fired all U.S. attorneys upon taking office has played a key role in the public debate in recent weeks. In conservative media and on talk radio, Reno's abrupt firing of all the U.S. attorneys had been described as extreme and unprecedented.

Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania's attorney general, knows the story firsthand.

"I am the one who took the message," he said in an interview Wednesday.

In 1993, he was the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and the liaison between the outgoing George H.W. Bush administration and the incoming Clinton administration. "We had been asking them for months: 'When do you want our resignations?' " he said.

The answer came in a meeting with Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general, in mid-March. "He said, 'I have good news and bad news. The good news is the attorney general wants you to stay until your successor is confirmed. The bad news is she wants your resignations by the end of the week,' " Corbett said.

He said the demand for resignations by the week's end was surprising.

"We knew this was coming, but it broke with tradition to do it this way," he said. "It didn't make for a smooth transition. By the end of that week, they had backed off a bit. Over the course of the next few months, they made the changes. It was how the message was delivered more than what actually occurred."

Despite Reno's request for all of their resignations, some U.S. attorneys stayed on the job for several more months.

In Los Angeles, for example, Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992, and he served through 1993, Clinton's first year in office.

Nora Manella, Clinton's choice for the post, took over in 1994.

In Pittsburgh, Corbett says he stayed in office until August, when a new Clinton appointee won confirmation.

In New Jersey, Michael Chertoff, a 1990 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, continued into the Clinton administration before leaving in 1994. He is now the Homeland Security secretary.

In western Michigan, John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, served until the beginning of 1994. "I knew I would be resigning, but I wasn't sure of the timing. I ended up serving for one year of the Clinton administration," he said.

His predecessor, James S. Brady, served as U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., during the Carter administration.

"When Carter lost in November of 1980, I resigned," said Brady, who later became president of the National Assn. of Former U.S. Attorneys. "Nobody asked me, but that's the tradition of the office. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and when a new administration comes in, everybody knows you will have a new U.S. attorney."

There have been local exceptions to this rule.

In New York, former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a Democrat who had served in Republican administrations — persuaded several presidents to allow U.S. attorneys to continue in office after a change of administrations.

In Manhattan, for example, Robert Fiske, a President Ford appointee in 1976, served throughout the Carter administration.

And a Carter appointee, John S. Martin, served during the first years of the Reagan administration.

Many former U.S. attorneys draw a sharp distinction between the political nature of the appointment and the apolitical role of law enforcement.

"The process of selection is political, but once you are there, you can't be political," said Daniel French, who was a Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney in Syracuse, N.Y.

"I don't think there is anything wrong with [former White House Counsel] Harriet Miers saying, 'We want all new people in office.' "

But he said the administration would cross the line if it interfered in a politically sensitive prosecution.

Tom Heffelfinger, a former U.S. attorney from Minnesota who served under Bush — as well as in the elder Bush's administration — said a White House move to fire a large number of U.S. attorneys was quite different from replacing the appointees of a previous administration.

"In my opinion, it is not comparable," said Heffelfinger, a Republican who resigned voluntarily from his Justice Department post last year.

"When you have a transition between presidents — especially presidents of different parties — a U.S. attorney anticipates that you will be replaced in due course. But the unwritten, No. 1 rule at [the Justice Department] is that once you become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door," he said.

Democrats in the House and Senate say they intend to press ahead with their investigation to determine whether partisan politics played a role in the dismissal of the eight U.S. attorneys.

For their part, Republican leaders counter that politics is driving the investigation.

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), the GOP party chairman, sent out a message Wednesday accusing Democrats of "feigning outrage" over the Justice Department's actions.

"There is no question that U.S. attorneys, like all political appointees, serve at the pleasure of the president," Martinez said. "That was true when Bill Clinton's Justice Department replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys, and it remains true today."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-talking23mar23,0,3342736,full.story

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM

Improvised? After 4 years we still call it improvised?

For the first time, the U.S. military is treating more head injuries than chest or abdominal wounds, and it is ill-equipped to do so. According to a July 2005 estimate from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, two-thirds of all soldiers wounded in Iraq who don't immediately return to duty have traumatic brain injuries.

Here's why IEDS carry such hidden danger. The detonation of any powerful explosive generates a blast wave of high pressure that spreads out at 1,600 feet per second from the point of explosion and travels hundreds of yards. The lethal blast wave is a two-part assault that rattles the brain against the skull. The initial shock wave of very high pressure is followed closely by the "secondary wind": a huge volume of displaced air flooding back into the area, again under high pressure. No helmet or armor can defend against such a massive wave front.

It is these sudden and extreme differences in pressures -- routinely 1,000 times greater than atmospheric pressure -- that lead to significant neurological injury. Blast waves cause severe concussions, resulting in loss of consciousness and obvious neurological deficits such as blindness, deafness and mental retardation. Blast waves causing TBIs can leave a 19-year-old private who could easily run a six-minute mile unable to stand or even to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM

Amos:

I see in your and Krugman's rhetoric laden writings that you then to equate rhetoric to fact and fact to lies.

"a nonexistent threat" Amos, do you believe that there is no terrorist threat in the US?

"right-wing noise machine" Does this device exist or is it a rhetorical straw man? I hear a lot of noise from you. Does it come from a left wing noise machine?

"assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies" Show me this statement. I havn't seen it yet, only the assertion that he said so.

"Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn't believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security." Up till now the drum beat has been he stole the election with evil Republican voting machines.

"At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out" ."Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition," said a General Accounting Office (GAO) report, which was published here on Wednesday." http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200206/13/eng20020613_97755.shtml

"a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate." Fake? How about Cattlegate, Nannygate, Helicoptergate, Gennifer Flowersgate, Vince Fostergate, I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate, Paula Jonesgate, Federal Building campaign phone callgate, Lincoln bedroomgate, White House coffeegate, Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate, Buddhist Templegate, Web Hubbell hush moneygate, Lippogate, Chinese commiegate, Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate, Zippergate, Monicagate, Willeygate, Web Hubbell prison phone callgate, Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate, Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate, Wag-the-Dog-gate, Jaunita Broaddrickgate, PBS-gate, Email-gate, Lootergate, Pardongate?

Loius Freeh:

"The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out."

Freeh says he was preoccupied for eight years with multiple investigations, including Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

He found it deeply awkward and frustrating to be constantly investigating his boss and says it became 'theater of the absurd' when special prosecutor Ken Starr asked him to get a DNA sample from the president to compare with that notorious stain on Lewinsky's dress.

Freeh says the entire scenario of getting a blood sample from the president was like a bad movie.

"Well, we went over to the White House. We did it very carefully, very confidentially," remembers Freeh. The president was attending a scheduled dinner and pretended he had to go to the bathroom. Instead, Clinton went to a room where the FBI had people waiting to take his blood.

Freeh thought Clinton disgraced the presidency; Clinton felt Freeh was out to get him, and that Freeh was an insufferable Boy Scout.

As FBI director, Freeh operated strictly by the book and annoyed the president in his first week on the job when he returned his White House pass after learning the president was under investigation for Whitewater.

"The implications of a White House pass would mean I could go in and out of the building any time I wanted without really being recorded as a visitor," explains Freeh, adding "I wanted all my visits to be official. When I sent the pass back with a note, I had no idea it would antagonize the president. I found out years later that it did."

We were told that relations between the two men had deteriorated so badly, that former Chief of Staff John Podesta says Clinton always referred to the FBI director as 'Effing' Freeh.

"Well you know, I don't know how they referred to me and I really didn't care. My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation," says Freeh.

Freeh says he stayed on longer as FBI director because he didn't want to give Clinton a chance to name his successor. "I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director. I was going to stay there and make sure that he couldn't replace me."

Freeh had another reason for wanting to outlast Clinton. It was the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died and more than 370 were wounded.

President Clinton had sent the FBI to investigate and promised Americans that those responsible would pay. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say it again: we will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished," the president said.

But Freeh says the President failed to keep his promise.

The FBI wanted access to the suspects the Saudis had arrested but then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar said the only way to get access to prisoners would be if the president personally asked the crown prince for access.

Freeh says Clinton did not help him. He writes in his book:

"Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudi's reluctance to cooperate, and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/60minutes/main923095.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:58 PM

Dickey:

Thanks for making my point for me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:29 PM

Senators Press for More Files on Removing Prosecutors

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: April 10, 2007 (NY Times)

WASHINGTON, April 9 — Four senators said Monday that they suspected that the Justice Department had failed to turn over all relevant documents related to the dismissals of eight United States attorneys.

The department has released more than 3,000 pages of e-mail messages and other files. But, the senators wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, "We are concerned that additional documents relevant to the committee's investigations are missing or have been withheld."

The letter expressed skepticism about whether lawmakers had all the material they needed to evaluate the motives for the removals and raised questions on the scope and methods used to assemble the material. A spokesman for the department, Brian Roehrkasse, said officials would not comment until they had reviewed the letter.

Justice Department officials have previously said they turned over all relevant materials, but held back sensitive personnel information about most prosecutors other than those who were removed last year.

The signers of the letter were one Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and three Democrats, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee chairman; Dianne Feinstein of California; and Charles E. Schumer of New York.

Among the missing documents the senators mentioned was a chart cited in a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message from Monica Goodling, a former aide to Mr. Gonzales, to other department officials.

The senators suggested that other documents had been withheld, like biographies of each of the 93 prosecutors in briefing books provided for Mr. Gonzales in December in preparation for a meeting of United States attorneys. The meeting was held to start an initiative against child exploitation.

The documents were disclosed last week in The American Spectator. A department official said briefing documents were not turned over because they did not assess prosecutors or did not relate to the removals and were to familiarize Mr. Gonzales with prosecutors' backgrounds. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:35 PM

"In the summer of 1974, Richard Nixon bet his presidency on the doctrine of executive privilege, and lost. Nixon's lawyer, James St. Clair, argued to the Supreme Court that he did not have to give a special prosecutor the Watergate tape recordings of Nixon talking with various advisers. But in the oral argument, the justices were skeptical. Lewis Powell, the courtly Virginian, asked: "Mr. St. Clair, what public interest is there in preserving secrecy with respect to a criminal conspiracy?"

Justice Powell's question cut through Nixon's central claim: that executive privilege gives presidents an absolute right to keep their communications secret. Barely two weeks after the oral argument, the court unanimously ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes.

Three decades later, the Bush administration is threatening to invoke executive privilege to hobble Congress's investigation into the purge of United States attorneys. President Bush has said that Karl Rove, his closest adviser, and Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel, among others, do not have to comply with Congressional subpoenas because "the president relies upon his staff to give him candid advice."

This may well end up in a constitutional showdown. If it does, there is no question which side should prevail. Congress has a right, and an obligation, to examine all of the evidence that increasingly suggests that the Bush administration fired eight or more federal prosecutors either because they were investigating Republicans, or refusing to bring baseless charges against Democrats. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Watergate tapes case, and other legal and historical precedents, make it clear that executive privilege should not keep Congress from getting the testimony it needs.

It's odd to hear President Bush invoke executive privilege because it is just the sort of judge-made right he has always claimed to oppose. Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution, but judges have found it in the general principle of separation of powers. Presidents like to invoke it in sweeping ways, but the courts have been less enthusiastic.

United States v. Nixon is the Supreme Court's major ruling on executive privilege. The first important principle that it established seems obvious, but it is not: that presidents cannot simply declare what information is privileged. Nixon argued, as Mr. Bush seems poised to, that presidents have an "inherent authority to refuse to disclose." But the Supreme Court made it clear that as with other legal issues, courts, not presidents, have the final say on when executive privilege applies. ..."

(NY Times Editorial, 4-9-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:43 PM

Bush is sorry to hear that Mr. Dowd has lost all his good sense and loyalty to the office of the President.

Besides having family problems...

Mr. Dowd also has a painful fever blister that has obviously caused him to go insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:46 PM

First you need a point to be made. Otherwise it looks like you are avoiding questions.

"a nonexistent threat" Amos, do you believe that there is no terrorist threat in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 12:13 AM

No, I am avoiding nothing. But I am not going to engage, Dickey, with your text-twisting. You have made yourself as obvious as a case of dripping clap on a priest. Your question has no bearing on what the man was talking about, but you have tried to twist it to suit your bias. Your ability to find rumormongering does not ratify the content of the rumors you find.

And I am not going to re-do the last eight years worth of homework for you. Read this thread and the one of like title before it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 07:36 AM

"Your ability to find rumormongering does not ratify the content of the rumors you find."

Amos,

You might want to recall two points.

1. You started, and named this thread "VIEWS".

2. Almost all of what you have posted are OPINION pieces.


If you object to views such as Dickey's that you disagree with, perhaps you should have named it "Views of what Amos wants people to think about the Bush administration"

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

" The abuse of the recess appointment perhaps isn't President Bush's most egregious attack on our Founders' carefully crafted system of checks and balances, since others before him have exploited this constitutional loophole. But the implicit reasons behind each of the three significant recess appointments he made this week —installing the officials without Senate confirmation during the congressional recess—are quite egregious, and each in their own way.

The one that's gotten the most attention is Sam Fox, our new ambassador to Belgium.

It's typical, if still highly inappropriate, for cronies of the president to get cushy ambassador gigs. But Sam Fox wasn't just a big donor of Bush. He gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat liars that smeared Sen. John Kerry's war record during his 2004 presidential bid.

Of course, the Bush campaign always insisted it had nothing to do with the smear merchants, even though the group had ties to Karl Rove. But to go the extra mile after being stiff-armed by the Senate, to appoint a major backer of filthy politics to a major post, shows how politics are played in the conservative movement.

Get dirty now, get rewarded later. No consequences for your actions. No disincentive to smear again.

The second is Andrew Biggs, to become the No. 2 man at the Social Security Administration.

Biggs is not only committed to the dismantling of Social Security via privatization. As associate commissioner of SSA, he was behind an effort to use the agency to pump out misinformation and undermine support for the program.

He is one of the many examples of how the White House is trying to cripple the civil service, and prevent our government from providing us with objective, factual information.

Finally, we have Susan Dudley becoming administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, also known as the "regulatory czar" because it reviews regulations throughout the government.

OMB Watch explains her significance:

"Dudley's record is one of anti-regulatory extremism," said Rick Melberth, Director of Regulatory Policy at OMB Watch. "She has opposed some of our nation's most basic environmental, workplace safety and public health protections."

Dudley has falsely proclaimed ground-level ozone to be beneficial, opposed ergonomic standards to protect workers from repetitive stress disorders, and even suggested that airbags should never have been mandated in automobiles.

This is also a big part of the conservative game plan to cripple the civil service. When civil servants try to implement laws passed by our democratically-elected Congress, such as the Clean Air Act, folks like Dudley are installed to bring the hammer down, prevent the law's implementation, and put the special interest ahead of the public interest.
..."

From Tom Paine.com

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:20 AM

Washington Post

Candor? Call the Special Prosecutor!

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 10, 2007; Page A17

Monica Goodling is not my kind of gal. A graduate of two schools not known for partying (Messiah College and Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School), she would not be my ideal seatmate on a long airplane flight. But for vowing to take the Fifth in the ongoing probe of why and how eight U.S. attorneys were fired, I offer her my hearty congratulations. She knows that in Washington, free speech can cost you a fortune in legal fees.

The standard question about Goodling is: What is she hiding? After all, until her resignation last week, Goodling was the senior counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his liaison to the White House. She was at the center of the White House's purge of non-party party people (a pseudo-Stalinist term coined for this occasion) and so she must be hiding something. Maybe.


Misogyny in the Morning
» Eugene Robinson | Why would Don Imus think 'nappy-headed hos' was an amusing way to describe the Rutgers University women's basketball team?
Richard Cohen: Call the Special Prosecutor!
David S. Broder: Time for a Bargain On the War
E.J. Dionne Jr.: The McCain Tragedy


OPINIONS: Toles on Romney | On Faith | PostGlobal

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Washington City Paper: News & Features: Blogs
MetaDC
The NonSequitur


Full List of Blogs (9 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook



More likely, Goodling's problem is probably not what she's done but what she might do. If she testifies before Congress, swears to tell the truth and all of that, she will produce a record -- a transcript -- that can be used against her. If a subsequent witness later on has a different memory of what transpired, then the bloodcurdling cry of "special prosecutor" will once again be heard in the land. Already, in fact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has raised that possibility. In the offices of U.S. attorneys everywhere, ambitious prosecutors are probably checking The Post's real estate section.

No lawyer is going to be thrilled about letting a client testify in today's political environment. Remember, please, that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not convicted of the crime that the special prosecutor was appointed to find -- who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame -- but of lying to a grand jury. In fact, the compulsively compulsive Patrick Fitzgerald not only knew early on who the leaker was but also that no law had been violated. No matter. Fitzgerald valiantly persisted, jailing Judith Miller of the New York Times for refusing to reveal her sources and, in the end, nailing Libby. It was a magnificent victory, proving once again that there is nothing more dangerous to the republic than a special prosecutor with money to spend.

The fact remains that ordinary politics -- leaking, sniping, lying, cheating, exaggerating and other forms of PG entertainment -- have been so thoroughly criminalized that only a fool would appear before Congress without attempting to bargain for immunity by first invoking the Fifth Amendment. After all, it is a permissible exaggeration to say that in recent years more senior federal officials have had sit-downs with prosecutors than have members of the Gambino family.

Recall: A president of the United States was impeached for lying about something that was not a crime. Recall: the zealous special prosecutors wading through Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate and even gates that never became public. Recall: the many White House aides who had to hire criminal lawyers. Recall: the investigation by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh (Iran-contra), who got convictions of several high-level officials, many of them later pardoned.

Recall, with what should be deep shame, that some of these special prosecutors were cheered on by liberals who are supposed to feel tenderly about civil liberties (even about journalists whose work they don't like) or, if you will, conservatives who are supposed to be on alert for any abuse of government power. Now, only a fool would accept a juicy federal appointment and not keep the home number of a criminal lawyer on speed dial.

May I suggest that Gonzales quit and go back to Texas where, I'm sure, the pace of executions is lagging without him. May I suggest, further, that he and Karl Rove and, of course, George W. Bush have unforgivably politicized the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys -- and Congress is not only right in looking into this but also has an absolute obligation to do so. May I suggest also that Sen. Pete Domenici go on Don Imus's radio show so that the two of them can have a contest on who is stupider -- Domenici for pressuring New Mexico's U.S. attorney or Imus for his clearly racist remarks. I might even listen.

In the end, though, some thought has to be given to why Monica Goodling feels obligated to take the Fifth rather than merely telling Congress what happened in the AG's office. She's no criminal -- but what could happen to her surely is.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:22 AM

Newt Sees Spanish As Threat
Roberto Lovato
April 09, 2007


When Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education with teaching "the language of living in a ghetto" this week, it took me back to my own linguistic roots. San Francisco's Mission district was a place where the crowded housing projects overflowed with sounds of English, Spanish, Ebonics, Spanglish and other languages spoken and sung and mixed and dubbed until those moments when night and morning became one. The multilingual polyphony of this environment still makes it hard to define whether I grew up in a "ghetto" or a "barrio."

Because these multiple threads of my speech DNA inspired my love of language (while sometimes disturbing my formal studies of it as well), I respond with a mix of anger and some confusion to Gringrich's recent comments linking languages like Spanish to a "ghetto." I share neither his experience and views of ghettoes nor his understanding of language as a kind of gated community frozen in time. What he triggers most are various sorts of fear.

One kind of fear comes from having heard during a recent visit to Atlanta both the stately, sotto voce expressions of upscale, mostly white anger in Gingrich's Cobb County and the more blatant and very loud drawled racist epithets at one of the increasing numbers of anti-immigrant KKK and Neo-Nazi rallies in Georgia. All of this anger and hate was expressed in English, a language, Gingrich tells us, is "the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

Rather than cast off Gingrich as another backwoods racist in statesman's clothing, we should be deeply disturbed about his word choices, his deployment of and attacks on one of the primary definers of the human: language.

Reading about how the repetition of certain words and phrases that denigrated minorities in places like Rwanda and Nazi Germany helped me understand how politicians and other "leaders" can use words to facilitate, normalize, interpret and incite violence, mass jailings and other frightening actions against racial, religious and linguistic minorities.

Reading the diaries of Protestant German journalist and literature professor Victor Klemperer taught me how the slow but steady march of repression—having his license revoked, losing his job, losing his citizenship, having his home invaded by state authorities, being forced to live in a ghetto—was almost always accompanied by a slow, but steady growth of verbal, linguistic attacks on Jews and other unwanted groups.

Having lived in wartime El Salvador, when it was a de facto military dictatorship, taught me that such hatred and bigotry recognize no physical or linguistic borders. Having interviewed immigrants here in the United States who, like Klemperer, have had to stand by and watch their licenses revoked, their jobs lost, their families imprisoned and deported makes me fearful of the tepid response of too many media and community leaders who treated as "casual" Gingrich's allegedly "off-handed" statements (he has since apologized in broken Spanish for what he called "clumsy" remarks).

Calling Gingrich a "racist" does little to him or for our understanding of the workings of language in times of social distress. I learned more from my interview three weeks ago with Justeen Mancha, a 16-year-old Georgia girl who woke up to find six heavily-armed immigration agents crashing through her door asking for who was "Mexican" and had "papers." Justeen's experience makes me even more nervous about what her fellow Georgian has in mind for immigrants and non-immigrants alike (Mancha and her family are all U.S. citizens.)...(Full article here).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:41 PM

Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
Declassified document cites lack of 'evidence of a long-term relationship,' although No. 3 Defense staffer called contact 'mature and symbiotic.'
By Jesse Nunes | csmonitor.com
A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

The report, which was made public in summary form in February, was released in full on Thursday by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a statement accompanying the 121-page report, Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "

The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a "mature, symbiotic" relationship, a view that was not supported by the available intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report specifically states that," the CIA and DIA disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

The Los Angeles Times reports that in excerpts of the report released in February, Mr. Gimble called Feith's alternative intelligence "improper," but that it wasn't illegal or unauthorized because then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assigned the work. The Times also reports that a prewar memo from Mr. Wolfowitz to Feith requesting that an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection be identified was among the newly released documents.

"We don't seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official.

Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: "We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."

The Times reports that the memo "marked the beginnings of what would become a controversial yearlong Pentagon project" to convince White House officials of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a connection "that was hotly disputed by U.S. intelligence agencies at the time and has been discredited in the years since."

The New York Times reports that presentation slides used during a Pentagon briefing at the White House were also released Thursday. The slides showed how Feith criticised US intelligence agencies that had found little or no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

The slide used by the Pentagon analysts to brief the White House officials states the intelligence agencies assumed "that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate, even when they have common interests," and there was "consistent underestimation of importance that would be attached by Iraq and Al Qaeda to hiding a relationship."

The Pentagon, in written comments included in the report, strongly disputed that the White House briefing and the slide citing "Fundamental Problems" undercut the intelligence community.

"The intelligence community was fully aware of the work under review and commented on it several times," the Pentagon said, adding that [former CIA Diector George] Tenet, at the suggestion of the defense secretary then, Donald H. Rumsfeld, "was personally briefed."

The Times notes that the Pentagon analysts' appraisal of the CIA's approach was "in contrast" to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its 2004 report on prewar intelligence, which praised the CIA's approach as methodical, reasonable, and objective.

On a website set up to challenge Gimble's assessment in his report, Feith argues that the key issue at hand is "whether the CIA should be protected against criticism by policy officials." Feith also challenged Gimble's characterization of his intelligence assessment as "inappropriate."

The IG got this point wrong and it would be dangerous to follow his badly reasoned opinion on the issue. It would damage the quality of the government's intelligence and policy. The CIA has made important errors over the years - think of the Iraqi WMD assessments. To guard against such errors, policy officials should be praised, not slapped, for challenging CIA products.

Despite the release of Gimble's report, the Associated Press reports that Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday appeared on a conservative radio show and reiterated his stance that Al Qaeda had links to Iraq before the US invasion in 2003.

---

Above from the Christian Science Monitor for April 6, 2007.

The point is clear that the Administration went out of its way to prove a link where none was to be found.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:53 PM

Amos:

This is a simple question: Do you believe that there is no terrorist threat in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:11 PM

Here's another, Dick: Do you believe Saddam Hussein had stored up chemical, nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction?

Your question has no definable meaning. What degree or kind are you asking about? The country has always lived with the threat of terrorism, even in the best of times. We've had Bolshvists, Whigs, Commies, black Panther, redneck Christians and a dozen other kinds of terrorists aside from Islamofascists.

I am glad you're not in the White House.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

The biggest threat to the U.S. is its present administration and by most standards, they are terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

I can understand people feeling extremely angry about an attack on US soil. I can understand the desire to lash back. Lashing back at the wrongcountry is another thing.

The American forces et alia have terrorized plenty of people, although probably fewer than the Islamic fanatics they are fighting.

It has always struck me a peculiar, though, that some folks can see very plainly why being terrorized by Islamic fanatics makes them want to strike back and kill, but they just can't see why it might work the other way around.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:12 PM

"Do you believe Saddam Hussein had stored up chemical, nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction?"

At one time I did but now it seems he did not. At one time he did have chemical weapons.

Now what is your answer to a much simpler question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:50 PM

I already answered it, Dick. Define your terms, or withdraw the question, it's all the flaming same to me.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:04 PM

Yes, Dickey, there are terrorists out there in the US. Mostly they occupy the White House, though I'm sure there are a few others besides the home grown kind out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:59 PM

"Your question has no definable meaning." Is that the answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:14 PM

That's an even stupider question than the first one. Are you thicker than a breadbox?

You asked a question that was not answerable as written. I pointed this out to you and asked you to define your terms. You either didn't understand what I said or intentionally altered it. You say which.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:22 PM

Some in G.O.P. Express Worry Over '08 Hopes



By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: April 11, 2007

==NY Times

WASHINGTON, April 10 — Republican leaders across the country say they are growing increasingly anxious about their party's chances of holding the White House, citing public dissatisfaction with President Bush, the political fallout from the war in Iraq and the problems their leading presidential candidates are having generating enthusiasm among conservative voters.

In interviews on Tuesday, the Republicans said they were concerned about signs of despondency among party members and fund-raisers, reflected in polls and the Democratic fund-raising advantage in the first quarter of the year. Many party leaders expressed worry that the party's presidential candidates faced a tough course without some fundamental shift in the political dynamic.

"My level of concern and dismay is very, very high," said Mickey Edwards, a Republican former congressman from Oklahoma who is now a lecturer in public policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. "It's not that I have any particular problem with the people who are running for the Republican nomination. I just don't know how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration."

"We don't have any candidates in the field now who are compelling," Mr. Edwards said, adding: "It's going to be a tough year for us."

The Republicans made their comments a day before Senator John McCain of Arizona, once the party's presumed front-runner, is to give a speech intended to revitalize his troubled candidacy. In the speech, focused on Iraq, Mr. McCain will warn against making policy about the war based on "the temporary favor of the latest of public opinion poll" and assert that the administration's strategy for securing Baghdad is the right one, according to excerpts released Tuesday by his campaign. The other two leading presidential contenders are Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM

Amos: The question could not be made any simpler. You prefer to use ad hominem attacks to avoid answering the question.

Then you use a complex counter question to avoid answering the simple question.

Call me anything you want and use all the rhetoric you want but it still does not change the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:03 AM

WASHINGTON - The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

(MSNBC, April 11 2007)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:08 AM

Rats don't return to a sinking ship.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 02:26 PM

Amos:

Do you believe there is a terrorist threat in America?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

Define "terrorist threat", Dick. I have known some six-year-olds who would possibly qualify. In fact, there was a great story recently about a six year old girl who intimidated a classroom by throwing a tantrum, and got handcuffed and thrown into jail for it. A SIX year old. Good thing we're cracking down on these terrorists.

If that doesn't meet your definition, please enlighten me.

A

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

What Amos? Can you be more specific? You talk in such nebulous terms when asked what you believe.

Yes there are six year old girls who know what a terrorist threat is but you don't know?

The problem is you don't beleive the crap you echo from the left wing fear your government mongers. When asked if you believe it, your steel trap mind suddenly slams shut.

I don't mind saying I beleive there is a terrorist threat in America but evidently it casues you great distress when asked what you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 12:51 AM

When you get around to saying what you think you mean, I'll be glad to tell you what I think, Dicky lad. But you are ewaving this cliche of "a terrorist threat" around without saying specifically what you mean.

And I notice you twisted my example of the sixyear old around bass-ackwards, a talent you seem to have developed.

A

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

The NY Times remarks:

"Four years ago this week, as American troops made their first, triumphant entrance into Baghdad, joyous Iraqis pulled down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein. It was powerful symbolism — a murderous dictator toppled, Baghdadis taking to the streets without fear, American soldiers hailed as liberators.

After four years of occupation, untold numbers killed by death squads and suicide bombers, and searing experiences like Abu Ghraib, few Iraqis still look on American soldiers as liberators. Instead, thousands marked this week's anniversary by burning American flags and marching through the streets of Najaf chanting, "Death to America."

Once again, tens of thousands of American troops are pouring into Baghdad. Yesterday the Pentagon announced that battle-weary Army units in Iraq would have to stay on for an additional three months past their scheduled return dates.

Mr. Bush is desperately gambling that by stretching the Army to the absolute limits of its deployable strength, he may be able to impose some relative calm in the capital. And he seems to imagine that should that gamble succeed, the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki will, without any serious pressure from Washington, take the steps toward sharing political power and economic resources it has tenaciously resisted since the day it took office a year ago.

Unless Mr. Maliki takes those steps — eliminating militia and death squad members from the Iraqi Army and police, fairly sharing oil revenues, and rolling back laws that deny political and economic opportunities to the Sunni middle class — no lasting security gains are possible. More Iraqi and American lives will be sacrificed.

Even among Shiites, who suffered so much at the hands of Saddam Hussein and who are the supposed beneficiaries of Mr. Maliki's shortsighted policies, there is a deep disillusionment and anger. This week, a Washington Post reporter interviewed Khadim al-Jubouri, who four years ago swung his sledgehammer to help knock down the dictator's statue. Mr. Jubouri said that ever since he watched that statue being built he had nourished a dream of bringing it down and ushering in much better times.

Now, with friends and relatives killed, kidnapped or driven from their homes, the prices of basic necessities soaring and electricity rationed to four hours a day, Mr. Jubouri says the change of regimes "achieved nothing" and he has come to hate the American military presence he once welcomed. "

---

I submit that in his bullheaded cronyism, Mister Bush has made losers of us all, in a sense; he has certainly eroded any confidence other nations had in the United States.

A

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

The Christian Science Monitor runs an interesting essay on the real nature of flat-out war, and what happens when wars are fought half-way.

"Air Marshall Sir Robert Saundby, one of those involved in the deadly 1945 air attacks on Dresden, said in the foreword to "The Destruction of Dresden," by David Irving: "It's not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized...."

Sir Robert then adds this critical point: "... and if one side attempted to do so [wage a humanized war] it would be most likely to be defeated."

Win – or go home

That may be happening to the US now in Iraq. America and Britain didn't win WWII by building playgrounds and schools and setting up local governments. They won by pounding the other side into dust. As American Gen. George Patton once said, "Nobody ever defended anything successfully; there is only attack and attack and attack some more." Rebuilding comes later.

Many Americans say we should never have attacked Iraq in the first place. Afghanistan is where the real enemy was. It's an argument historians will have to settle. But the piecemeal way this Iraq war has been fought has added to the injury on all sides.

Perhaps the message to Mr. Bush, Congress, and the American people should be: If this fight is worth doing, if America truly has an unquestionable moral imperative to win, then wage it with everything you've got. Otherwise, why is America there? "

---

This is the issue that the Bush gang never thought through. They had experience only in ducking war, not waging it, and none of them knew what it meant; none of them understood the deep, terrible price that follows the starting excitement, and none of them was mature enough to see the lessons of history relating to their rush to invade. This lack of thought would be a civil act of negligence in a lawyer or a computer technician. To wield the power of international warfare with the same slipshod stupidity is, to my mind, criminal negligence of the first degree.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:51 PM

McCain calls war 'necessary and just,' Democrats reckless
POSTED: 3:01 p.m. EDT, April 11, 2007

Story Highlights• Sen. McCain calls Iraq war necessary, calls Democratic withdrawal plans reckless
• Arizona Republican pushes for Congress to free up money for wars
• Bush's troop increase in Iraq must be given chance to succeed, McCain says
• Three in four Republicans still showing support for Iraq war

LEXINGTON, Virginia (AP) -- Republican presidential contender John McCain on Wednesday called the four-year Iraq conflict "necessary and just" and accused anti-war Democrats, including the party's top White House candidates, of recklessness.

Struggling to reinvigorate his troubled campaign, McCain reiterated his longtime criticism that President Bush initially went to war without a plan to succeed. But he also backed the commander in chief's recent troop increase and said Bush is right to veto legislation that places conditions on the war.

"In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering" when House Democrats enthusiastically passed legislation setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal, the Arizona senator told cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. (Watch Sen. McCain assail Democrats' withdrawal plans )

"A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning, not celebrating," he added.

In a quick counter to McCain, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama challenged the Republican's assessment of improved security in Baghdad and argued that only a change in strategy will bring a responsible end to the conflict.

"What we need today is a surge in honesty," the Illinois senator said in a statement, contending that McCain was measuring progress in Iraq using "the same ideological fantasies" that led the U.S. into war.

McCain has staked his candidacy on the war's outcome, planting himself firmly on the side of the president he hopes to succeed and the three of four Republicans who view the war as a worthy cause. Most Americans, however, call it a hopeless cause.

His remarks came a week after he made his fifth trip to Iraq, where he was criticized for saying he was cautiously optimistic of success even as he toured the capital under heavy military guard. Iraqis accused him of painting too rosy a picture and U.S. critics argued he was out of step with reality.

In a CBS News poll released Wednesday, 39 percent said when McCain talks about Iraq, he makes things sound better than they really are while 29 percent said he was describing the situation accurately. The poll, conducted before the speech, surveyed 480 adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The Iraq episode threatened to undercut McCain's credibility on a signature issue -- defense. Wednesday's address, to several hundred uniformed cadets at the military college's Jackson Memorial Hall, was intended to counter his critics and put his faltering presidential bid back on course.

The cadets mostly remained silent as he spoke but gave him a standing ovation when he finished the speech.

McCain assails Democrats on withdrawal plans
In the speech filled with rhetoric for the GOP base, McCain portrayed himself as a leader who puts the country's interests above politics and as the most qualified Republican candidate to counter Democratic calls for withdrawal.

"Lets put aside for a moment the small politics of the day," he said. "The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."

He ignored his GOP rivals, all of whom support the president on the war but none of whom has McCain's military experience or has been as closely aligned with the conflict as the senator.

Instead, McCain assailed Democrats who control Congress, including "their leading candidates for president." It was a reference to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Obama. Both voted for a troop withdrawal timetable.

McCain called the Democrats' pullout policy politically expedient but strategically disastrous. He accused Democrats who control Congress of acting in "giddy anticipation of the next election."

McCain said those like him who support Bush's troop increase chose the "hard road" but "right road."

"Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road," he said, referring to the standoff between Democrats and Bush over war funding and a timetable. "It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election."

A former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, McCain is the only top-tier GOP candidate to have served in the military and he is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:00 PM

I question sharply this use of the word "defeat". Exactly what, in this perspective, is your definition of "victory"? Over whom?

If the answer is Sunni insurgents, or Shiite insurgents, it seems to me clear that there were no such animals at play in Iraq prior to the invasion.

So where will this victory be found? What is it, exactly, that is to be won?

I can envision an iraq in which the streets are safe for free people to walk and talk freely. It would be ideal. Is that what McCain means by "victory", anything less than which will be defeat? If so, because largely of Rumsfield and Bush's complete ineptitude at war -- never mind at peace -- it will be a long time coming, because the sands of Iraq have become the sabdbox for every jihadist with an attitude from Safi to Tehran, going the long way around.

So I would suggest before anyone starts tearing their chest hairs out about "defeat", they might get wise enough to define what the hell a victory would be, and against whom.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:09 PM

Good, Amos! That's the very question that everyone seems to be dodging. At it's the very meat of the matter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM

I'll define "victory" for you, Amos. Victory will occur when the last American soldier exits Iraq the way they exited Vietnam...off the roof of a building, with desperate people hanging off the landing skids. That will be the victory...for the Iraqis, and for Third World people everywhere.

There is no victory waiting for the USA in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:38 PM

Dickey, do you wonder WHY there might be a terrorist threat in the U.S.?

   (This thread looks longer than the astrological one !!!)





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 08:37 PM

Yeah, I've asked over and over what a "victory" in Iraq would look like but all I get is the SOS... But that, I guess, is why they call this the BS section...

Bad news for rhte Bushites: There will be ***no*** victory unless "Victory" is redfined back to what it once was and that was "over throwing Saddam"... Yeah, that has been done... There are no other victories to be had...

...just more losses...

Read 'um and weep, Bushites... Lotta other folks is weeping, too..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:18 PM

And, in the same context, the notion that the war in Iraq is "necessary" is another piece3 of political shit-talk. Necessary to what goal? To what larger purpose? What policies might serve as alternate paths to that purpose? Why ISN'T war working to acheive that purpose, assume you can name it? What exactly is it, in short, that makes this was seem "necessary"?

Is it just possible that it is only necessary because those participating in it have a complete lack of imagination and are unable to come up with any ccreative remedies short of the completely psycho one of spending billions of dollars on fire power and then shooting it intot he desert sands and the ccupants thereof?

I think it is not only possible but highlyprobable this is the case. In my view war is "necessary" only in the presence of incurable psychosis.

Don't ask whose, because you won't like the answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:45 PM

A character in a novel once offered this piece of advice:   "Don't bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it accomplishes."

Who's profiting by this war?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:02 AM

Dear Bobert:

A victory in Iraq would be, not look like, a diminishment of violence or a period of time that would eventually lead to stability in Iraq and denying terrirosts another operating base.

Of course that is my opinion which probably varies from your opinion. You are welcome to your opinions and you are welcome to express them with out fear of me calling you names because I disagree. I hope you are civil enough to show me the same courtesy.

Amos is by no means stupid or ugly our mean or anything derogatory that I can think of other than wrong. However he is disengenuous when avoiding answers to questions when the answer is contrary to or does not support opinions he echos here.

Now he claims he does not understand the meaning of "terrorist threat"

He engages in defensively calling me names and in the process exposes the fact that he is guilty of the exact same thing he acuses me of. Such as the term "arm waver"

Amos: if you still need to be educated on what a terrorist threat is, perhaps you can get some guidance for a fellow anti war hero here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:11 AM

PS Amos: Watch this guys arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:10 AM

How can a victory in Iraq look like this?

"A victory in Iraq would be, not look like, a diminishment of violence or a period of time that would eventually lead to stability in Iraq and denying terrirosts another operating base."

When before we arrived & invaded Iraq, Iraq was stable & had denieded terrorists any operating base which to work & train from. It's only after we arrived that Iraq had all these problems. Saddam was a problem but he was not our problem & Iraq had a problem but it was not our problem. They became our problems when we decided to invade Iraq for other reasons that we've yet to be told

As far as a terrorist threat Dickey, I'm more concerned with the terrorists that are in our White House than any others. They are more dangerous to our nation & have already done far more damage than any others could've hoped for.

It's not about "we fight them there or we fight them here". They are here, they have been here, they are US, we are them. The world doesn't hate US because we are the good guys, they hate US because we are world wide oppressors, you are with either with US or you are done for.

Victory will never be ours, we don't know who we're fighting nor why we're fighting & a war waged without the support of its' people can not out last the will of the people invaded with whom we wage war against. Aside from it being an excerise in futility it's just plain ignorant of us to try to bring OUR freedom to another nation at the point of a gun but we all know that's not what this was all about. Now we have created a civil war, we must be doing something right, right & now we're gonna choose side in this civil war right, right again, how wrong can we be.

Barry


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

Dickey:

I don't think the terrorist threat in this country has any of the dimensions that you think it has, in scale or power.

The terrorism shtick should be vigorously prosecuted as acts of crime. They should not be elevated into melodramatic causes by being dignfiied as grounds for war. But they should be traced to source and individual prosecutions of the severest sort pursued.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 01:11 PM

Regarding what is humorously referred to as "The Don Imus and Nancy Pelosi Show" -- two concurrent flaps involving the characterization of women -- in an interesting essay from The Globalist:

..."The Imus saga is as deplorable as it is over-covered by now. The man belongs into a corner of the museum of radio history, like an old and tired and outdated steam engine past its last economically useful puff.

While ostensibly clad in pure foreign policy reasons, Republican criticisms of Speaker Pelosi are soaked with sex-based type-casting.



The more interesting saga concerns Nancy Pelosi, a woman who rose all the way from sitting at her father's lap in her days as a young girl (when he served as mayor of Baltimore, then a significant U.S. city) to Speaker of the House — in her own right and not on any quasi-inherited track.


Outwardly, her critics describe the outing to Damascus where she sat down to talk with Bashar Assad to discuss bilateral issues alternatively as an act of impertinence, amateurism — and, yes, treason.


Going where no woman has gone before


As those fierce critics have it, she was stabbing the sitting President of the United States in the back. She was undermining his chosen course of foreign policy.


After all, legend has it, the debate over the course of U.S. foreign policy stops at the water's edge. Once abroad, all U.S. policymakers are supposed to sing from the same songbook — lest they risk misrepresenting the United States.


Representing the people


The doctrine about the water's edge is not part of the world of a modern democracy. Rather, it is part and parcel of a constitutional monarchy. And that is the real debate worth having soon.


Trouble is, Speaker Pelosi was hardly claiming to represent the President of the United States. But she certainly represents the majority of the American people — and, as her luck would have it given the report of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, U.S. elites.


The latter had argued in favor of a foreign policy strategy stressing dialogues — rather than empty, or desperate, threats of bombs.


Certainly, for an administration such as Mr. Bush's, it is curious to want to muzzle the Speaker of the primary U.S. parliamentary body at a time when the Bush team so ardently fervors bringing democracy and the right to free political speech to the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.


Going against Pelosi


It is no less surprising to read those same arguments muzzling — if not mugging — Speaker Pelosi on the very editorial pages which have stood with Mr. Bush's grand designs all along.


Truth be told, Mrs. Pelosi may not be the greatest of all diplomats — but it is surely disgraceful to the image and ideals of the United States to treat her in such a high-handed way.


Bad foreign policy


Pelosi was hardly claiming to represent the President of the United States. But she certainly represents the majority of the American people.


After all, most Americans — not to mention the rest of the world — by now believes that President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's foreign policy has been an outright fiasco.


At such a pivotal moment in time, it is key for the American people to show to the outside world in a hands-on fashion that there is a diversity of opinion at home.


And given the fact that Mr. Bush and his entire team are showing themselves completely inflexible and unwilling to talk with Syria, there is no law or rule that makes this disdainful course wise "...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 01:33 PM

Bush will not talk with Iran. Bush will not talk with North Korea. Bush will talk with Congress, but he will not negotiate.

He doesn't want to govern. He wants to rule.

Someone has to try diplomacy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 01:55 PM

The Surge: First Fruits

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 13, 2007; Page A17

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.


The World Bank,
Stuck In the Mud
» Sebastian Mallaby | There is no moral clarity emanating from the World Bank right now. Instead, there is demoralizing scandal.
Robinson: Why Imus Had to Go
Ignatius: Bush's Power Outage
Dionne: Saying No to Fox


OPINIONS: Think Tank Town
On Faith | PostGlobal

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Neptunus Lex - The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy.
UNCoRRELATED
Granite State Pundit


Full List of Blogs (17 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook



The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner."

Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now."

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements in Iraq while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton-- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:28 PM

Barry:

"Victory will never be ours" You do not want victory.

"we don't know who we're fighting nor why we're fighting" Speak for your self.

Amos:

"I don't think the terrorist threat in this country has any of the dimensions that you think it has, in scale or power. "

How do you know what the scale is? Is Bush guilty of underestimating the power and scale before 9/11 and now guilty of overestimatimng the power and scale?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:29 PM

bruce, are you up on the Wolfowitz scandel in which he gave a girlfriend a special salary from the World Bank??

Employees of the WB had a meeting and verbally scorned Wolfowitz in one of the most heated and shouting meetings the World Bank has seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:38 PM

Wolfowitz Apologizes for 'Mistake'
At World Bank, Jeers Over Pay for Girlfriend

By Karen DeYoung, Al Kamen and Krissah Williams
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 13, 2007; 12:44 PM

World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz publicly apologized on Thursday for the "mistake" of personally orchestrating a high-paying job and guaranteed promotions for a bank employee with whom he is romantically involved, as new details of his role in the arrangement emerged and staff members angrily demanded his resignation.

The bank's board said in a statement released Friday morning that it was examining "all relevant governance implications" of Wolfowitz's involvement in a $50,000 a year raise and career advancement plan established for his longtime companion, Shaha Riza.

Bank executive directors spent Thursday reviewing the matter, and said this morning that the governing board is "continuing to investigate the facts concerning a staff member closely associated with the President." They are expected to consult with finance ministers, arriving from around the world for the bank meeting, before reaching a conclusion.

The bank, which is charged with alleviating global poverty, also released documents today related to Riza's promotion and salary increase. The documents included a memo from Wolfowitz outlining pay and career plans for his companion -- but also expressing "deep unhappiness" that he had not been allowed, as requested, to recuse himself from discussions about Riza's future.

Questions surrounding Riza's salary and career advancement have added to already tense relations between Wolfowitz and staff at the bank.

Wolfowitz, a former Pentagon official, attempted to address about 200 staffers gathered in the bank's central atrium on Thursday but left after some began hissing, booing, and chanting "Resign. . . . Resign." He had approached the gathering after holding a news conference in which he said, "I made a mistake for which I am sorry."

Bank insiders confirmed reports from the bank's staff association that Wolfowitz directed personnel officials to give Riza an automatic "outstanding" rating and the highest possible pay raises during an indefinite posting at the State Department, as well as a promotion upon her return to the bank. The Financial Times had previously reported portions of the agreement.

When he took over as bank president in June 2005, Wolfowitz insisted not only that Riza -- then a senior communications officer at the bank -- retain her job but also that he maintain "ongoing professional contact" with her, according to a knowledgeable source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal issues involved.

But the bank ethics committee, citing conflict of interest regulations, ruled that she had to leave the institution. It agreed to give her a pre-departure promotion to compensate for the career disruption. Until yesterday, Wolfowitz and his aides had insisted that "all arrangements concerning Shaha Riza were made at the direction of the bank's board of directors."

In its statement, however, the bank board said that a group appointed to examine the incident concluded that neither the bank's ethics committee, the bank's chairman or members of its board had "commented on, reviewed or approved" Riza's employment plan.

On Thursday, Wolfowitz said "I take full responsibility for the details of the agreement and did not attempt to hide my actions or to make anyone else responsible." He said that he had found himself in a "painful personal dilemma . . . trying to navigate in uncharted waters."

Riza left the State Department last year for a position at the U.S. government-funded Foundation for the Future. She remains on the bank payroll with a net salary of $193,590. Although the relationship between Wolfowitz and Riza -- a Tunisian-born British citizen -- and her eventual State Department posting were publicly known in 2005, the current controversy arose late last month after The Washington Post reported on her compensation package.

Page 2 of 2   < Back      

Wolfowitz Apologizes for 'Mistake'

During a meeting Thursday morning with the board, Wolfowitz said: "I proposed to them that they establish some mechanism to judge whether the agreement reached was a reasonable outcome. I will accept any remedies they propose."

After meeting with Wolfowitz, the board spent the day considering the report of a committee investigating his actions and considering his future. One bank source said that Ana Palacio, the former Spanish foreign minister Wolfowitz appointed as general counsel after her predecessor resigned in late 2005 over the Riza issue, was asked to leave the room during the panel's deliberations.

As its discussions continued Thursday night, the board received a letter from Wolfowitz asking, "in the interest of transparency," for the "immediate public release of all documents related to the Board's current review of the case involving myself and Ms. Riza," according to a senior bank official. The official said Wolfowitz believes that the documents support his statement in a news conference that he was the one who first raised the conflict of interest issue on his arrival at the bank two years ago and that he had also asked to be recused from consideration of the issue.

Wolfowitz said he had presented the question to the ethics committee and then taken its advice to "promote and relocate Ms. Shaha Riza."

Although few bank insiders suggested that Wolfowitz's job is in jeopardy, several speculated that his future will depend largely on continued support from the bank's leading contributor, the United States.

"Of course President Wolfowitz has our full confidence," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "His leadership is helping the bank accomplish its mission of raising living standards for poor people throughout the world. In dealing with this issue, he has taken full responsibility and is working with the executive board to resolve it."

But the Bush administration's point man on World Bank matters on Thursday did not offer similar backing. "There is a mechanism in place, and I am going to allow that mechanism to work rather than inject myself into the middle of it," said Timothy D. Adams, Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that other governments have remained publicly silent. "They're looking to see if it gets any worse and if we're going to really fight hard for him or let him fight for himself," the official said. But "his relationship with the staff is really bad, and I don't know if it's recoverable."

Wolfowitz bemoaned that the controversy threatens to overshadow the official agenda of the bank's annual spring meeting opening here today -- including ratification of a global anti-corruption strategy and funding to reduce poverty in Africa.

"In the larger scheme of things," he said, "we have much more important things to focus on." But as revelations and rumors swept the bank's corridors and the board remained huddled behind closed doors, there was little talk at the bank of anything else.

Bank staffers called to the atrium by the staff association -- which represents most of the World Bank's 7,000 Washington employees -- said that Wolfowitz appeared shaken when he stood before them. "There was not a warm and fuzzy feeling in the crowd," reported one staff member, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

Wolfowitz was passing near the gathering after his news conference as the association's president, Alison Cave, was reading a statement demanding that he "act honorably and resign."

Cave invited Wolfowitz to the microphone. He repeated his apology and said he would abide by the board's decision, and he left as staff members began hissing and chanting. Hundreds of comments criticizing Wolfowitz, posted on the organization's internal Web site, were released by the Government Accountability Project, a whistle-blower organization.

Cave asked that the board release all documents related to the issue, the same step that Wolfowitz requested last night. Among the documents, Cave said, is a 2005 memo from Wolfowitz to the vice president for human resources detailing the terms of Riza's outside assignment, including promotion upon her return to the bank from an upper-middle position to a level equal to bank vice president, "depending on the length of her external service." The agreement said the promotion would be subject to a performance review by a "panel whose membership would be mutually agreed" by human resources officials and Riza.

Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM

ok

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:27 PM

Dear Mister President/


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:40 PM

Hello, America!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:42 PM

Hello America really made me think.

Can someone please tell me one good thing that George Bush has contributed to the World or to America?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 11:44 PM

Ummmm....

Hmm.

This is a tough one.

Hmmm.

Really tough.

Give me till tomorrow...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 12:50 AM

Well, Molly Ivins, who knew him personally, said that he was a lot of fun at a barbeque.

What a lovely thought! I keep thinking of him with an apple in his mouth. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:05 AM

"The terrorism shtick should be vigorously prosecuted as acts of crime. They should not be elevated into melodramatic causes by being dignfiied as grounds for war. But they should be traced to source and individual prosecutions of the severest sort pursued."

That was the Clinton policy that lead to 9/11. Not prevention but prosecution after the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:34 AM

You are a pure party dweeb if you think that, Dickdock. The policies that led to 9-11 were not Clinton's.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 08:35 AM

"The policies that led to 9-11 were not Clinton's"

Really? Care to give any idea how you justify that statement????

I guess all that training and planning before Bush took office was just in case he won.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 10:07 AM

U.S. POLICY ON COMBATING TERRORISM
Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies' Efforts to Implement National Policy and Strategy
(Chapter Report, 09/26/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-254).
Appendix I

      This unclassified abstract of Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD 39) is reproduced verbatim. The National Security Council (NSC) reviewed and approved it for distribution to federal, state, and local emergency response and consequence management personnel.

      1. General. Terrorism is both a threat to our national security as well as a criminal act. The Administration has stated that it is the policy of the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, defeat and respond to all terrorist attacks on our territory and resources, both people and facilities, wherever they occur. In support of these efforts, the United States will:

          o Employ efforts to deter, preempt, apprehend and prosecute terrorists.
          o Work closely with other governments to carry our counterterrorism policy and combat terrorist threats against them.
          o Identify sponsors of terrorists, isolate them, and ensure they pay for their actions.
          o Make no concessions to terrorists.

      2. Measures to Combat Terrorism. To ensure that the United States is prepared to combat terrorism in all its forms, a number of measures have been directed. These include reducing vulnerabilities to terrorism, deterring and responding to terrorist acts, and having capabilities to prevent and manage the consequences of terrorist use of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons, including those of mass destruction.

            a. Reduce Vulnerabilities. In order to reduce our vulnerabilities to terrorism, both at home and abroad, all department/agency heads have been directed to ensure that their personnel and facilities are fully protected against terrorism. Specific efforts that will be conducted to ensure our security against terrorist acts include the following:

                + Review the vulnerability of government facilities and critical national infrastructure.
                + Expand the program of counterterrorism.
                + Reduce vulnerabilities affecting civilian personnel/facilities abroad and military personnel/facilities.
                + Reduce vulnerabilities affecting U.S. airports, aircraft/passengers and shipping, and provide appropriate security measures for other modes of transportation.
                + Exclude/deport persons who pose a terrorist threat.
                + Prevent unlawful traffic in firearms and explosives, and protect the President and other officials against terrorist attack.
                + Reduce U.S. vulnerabilities to international terrorism through intelligence collection/analysis, counterintelligence, and covert action.

            b. Deter. To deter terrorism, it is necessary to provide a clear public position that our policies will not be affected by terrorist acts and we will vigorously deal with terrorist/sponsors to reduce terrorist capabilities and support. In this regard, we must make it clear that we will not allow terrorism to succeed and that the pursuit, arrest, and prosecution of terrorists is of the highest priority. Our goals include the disruption of terrorist-sponsored activity including termination of financial support, arrest and punishment of terrorists as criminals, application of U.S. laws and new legislation to prevent terrorist groups from operating in the United States, and application of extraterritorial statutes to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend terrorists outside of the United States. Return of terrorists overseas, who are wanted for violation of U.S. law, is of the highest priority and a central issue in bilateral relations with any state that harbors or assists them...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:19 AM

We will not allow terrorism to succeed and that the pursuit, arrest, and prosecution of terrorists is of the highest priority. Our goals include the disruption of terrorist-sponsored activity including termination of financial support, arrest and punishment of terrorists as criminals, application of U.S. laws and new legislation to prevent terrorist groups from operating in the United States, and application of extraterritorial statutes to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend terrorists outside of the United States...

is not a policy which "lead to 9-11". And the implication itself is despicable.   

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:22 AM

So there is a terrorist threat or did it go away after 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 11:31 AM

Sure there is. The question is, how big, how widespread, what lielihood.

This is nothing new -- there has been a terrorist threat in this country since the 1800's.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 12:19 PM

Amos: How big, how widespread, what is the likelihood?

Has anything been learned from 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM

Maybe "attack the correct target?" or "get someone with brains to run the response team....".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM

Well, Amos is correct in his observations that the policies of Clinton, who BTW, I didn't like much more than Bush, weren't those of the pre-9/11 Bush administrations...

Richard Clark's testimoney before the 9/11 Commission painted a Bush administration that didn't take "terrorism" as serious as the former administration...

Revisting his testimoney (in it's entirity) will shed light on the specifics transitional actions he tried to get the new Bush team involved with that weren't acted upon...

Hisotians will get this one right though I fully understand why pure partisans will make every attempt to gloss over Clark's testimony because it doesn't jive with their never ending attempt to revise a story that is painfully clear to everyone else...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM

An email from former Alberto Gonzales staffer D. Kyle Sampson, sent last January, may blow holes in the White House's claim that most of last year's U.S. attorney firings went through with no specific replacements in mind ... or at least that's what all the papers are saying. The email names five of the attorneys who were later fired and mentions possible replacements. Justice staffers previously acknowledged favoring replacing Arkansas U.S. attorney H.E. "Bud" Cummins III with Karl Rove staffer Timothy Griffin, but claimed the other attorneys were removed without specific replacements lined up. None of the other four attorneys mentioned in the email was replaced by a name on the list. Administration critics claim the email shows the Justice Department planned to replace certain U.S. attorneys with department insiders. Sampson's defenders say that the email is just an initial list of possible candidates, not pre-selected replacements. The documents also contain evidence that staffers kept track of attorneys' GOP bonafides, including tracking memberships in the Federalist Society. Perhaps most interestingly, the later emails give a rare window into how a modern White House spins a scandal, with aides discussing ever evolving rationales for the firings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:25 PM

WASHINGTON -- The fight over documents has gone to red alert. The White House acknowledges it cannot find four years' worth of e-mails from chief political strategist Karl Rove. The admission has thrust the Democrats' nemesis back into the center of attention and poses a fresh political challenge for President Bush.

The administration has acknowledged that some e-mails missing from Rove's Republican party account may relate to the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors last year. The Democratic-run Congress is investigating whether the firings resulted from political pressure by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House.

For Democrats, the missing Rove e-mails is one more chance to pound away at their favorite target, the architect of Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential victories and all-around White House political fixer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:28 PM

You know, Amos... I believe that the American people are in ***over-load*** with just how currupt the Bush administration is... I must confess that I am no longer surprised by anything that comes out... Yeah, I still don't like it but, geeze Louse...

...I have become weary with the new revelations...

This is like Watergate X 100...

And, just a thought, if I can become weary with new news of more corruption I'm wondering just how folks who aren't as passionate are feeling???

Too bad we don't have those folks to ask here in Mudville... I'd be real curious...

I mean, there does come a time when everyone knows the game is won ot lost, the last punch has been thrown and folks just go on with the rest of their lives... Everyone, with the exception of the "true believers", knows that Bush and his buds are as corrupt as America has ever seen and I kinda get the feeling that manybe a fan gets in the 4th quarter when his team is up or behind by 100 points...

Yeah, I slog away at Bush on the war but (horrors) I am getting bored with the corruption...

Maybe I just need a short vacation...

Maybe I'll fell different tomorrow...

Right now, Jan. 21, 2009 can't come fast enough...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 08:24 PM

I concur, amigo, but I am dubious that the cure will be quick. They have rattled the bones of th einfrastructure and rotted the timbers of the ship of State. There will needs be replanking, some kind of copper bottom laid on, and rewiring thrughout. The canvas is rotten in places and will need replacing. The spars have been abused and torqued and may need the same.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:23 PM

Glad it ain't juts me who is weary of corruption.... I mean, I almost hate to buy yet another newspaper and find yet more lies and more stuff tthat makes Watergate look like someone forgettin' to put the salad fork to the left of the dinner fork...

I feel like a prisoner on one hand and an observer to an exection on the other and don't much like either...

It's like the nightmare that just won't end... Every day thers are more lies discovered... More corruption... Hey, the old me would have started a thread about Wolfowitz's girlfriend but...

...why???

I kinda think of it as a coach who is winning a football game 64-0 with two minutes left to go and on the opponent's 5 yard line with 30 seconds left to play... I don't want to score again... I'm tired of scoring thou Bush and his cronnies are such patsies that I know if I call any play I'm going to score...

But, hey, I guess I'd rather be on my side than the poor losing side... Yeah, I feel for the folks here in Mudvilles who have so valiently defended Bush and his folks... No, I commend them but it's time for all of us to just let some of this corruption slip on by, let the historians sort it out and start countin' the days until Bush and his guys (and gals) are history...

But, hey, it's painfull to watch and it's painfull to wait for these crooks to get outta power...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:21 AM

Crooks in the Whitehouse?

Published on Sunday, March 11, 2001 in the Baltimore Sun
Democrats, Who Needs Them?
Oligarchy: The Marc Rich scandal shows how Clinton and his followers raked in big bucks from the rich and dumped working people, the poor and grass-roots activists.
by Jeff Cohen

THE conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton's fall from grace over the pardon hysteria has hurt the Democratic Party. In fact, Clinton's disgrace is a blessing in disguise for Democrats, at least for those who want the party to stand for social justice and economic fairness. Had Clinton exited the White House cleanly, his continued leadership would have enriched the party financially but burdened it politically and morally.

When Clinton pardoned a fugitive financier on his last day in office, he appeared to end his administration in the manner he had governed for eight years - by obliging the well-heeled and well-connected, and by figuring that his rhetorical gifts and charisma would obscure the absence of principle. (There were only a few pardons for the thousands of nonviolent drug offenders, largely poor and minority, who fill America's prisons.)

In assessing Clinton's impact on his party, it's worth remembering that when he entered the White House, Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate 57-43, the U.S. House 258-176 and the country's governorships 30-18. Under his leadership, the party has gone from majority to minority status.

Another legacy for the Democrats is money-saturated politics that values party donors more than activists, weighing policy in terms of fund-raising potential. Clintonism is a zig-zagging ideology that seeks the votes of liberals and racial minorities while borrowing Republican policies in an effort to hew to "the center," seldom straying far from the interests of corporate America.

Since corporate dollars flow more naturally toward Republicans, the grubbing of the Clintonites for this same cash has caused not only ethical lapses but corruption of Democratic positions. In 1993-94, when they controlled the White House and Congress, it was the Democrats who blocked campaign finance reform. In 1996, it was the Clinton-Gore campaign that widened the soft-money loophole into a canyon that obliterated campaign finance laws.

Give the Clintonites credit for achieving the seemingly impossible: They've allowed Republicans to pose as the party of campaign finance rectitude.

The sad truth about the Marc Rich pardon is that it was not atypical for Clinton to succumb to the entreaties of major donors and their high-powered lawyers and lobbyists. Indeed, it was business as usual in the Clinton-Gore administration, like the corporate-drafted trade deals the White House championed and the 1996 giveaway to media conglomerates known as Telecommunications Deregulation. (Al Gore bragged about supporting media deregulation on his presidential campaign Web site.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:10 AM

Wow--a critical piece on Clinton from 6 years ago. Of course! Just the thing to examine the Bush Administration.

Clinton was a very political animal, but he was not a tenth as corrupt as the current gang of tombraiders and scalawags.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

Thee Times opines:

...The more we learn about the White House's purge of United States attorneys, the more a single thread runs through it: the Bush administration's campaign to transform the minor problem of voter fraud into a supposed national scourge.

When the public first learned about the firing of eight United States attorneys, administration officials piously declared that many of the prosecutors had ill served the public by failing to aggressively pursue voter fraud cases (against Democrats, naturally). But the more we examine this issue, the more ludicrous those claims seem.

Last week, we learned that the administration edited a government-ordered report on voter fraud to support its fantasy. The original version concluded that among experts "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud." But the publicly released version said, "There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud." It's hard to see that as anything but a deliberate effort to mislead the public.

Sound familiar? In President Bush's first term, a White House official, who had been the oil industry's front man in trying to discredit the science of global warming, repeatedly edited government reports to play down links between climate change and greenhouse gases. And then there was the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which turned reports on old, dubious and false tales about weapons of mass destruction into warnings of clear, present and supposedly mortal dangers.

It's obvious why the Bush administration would edit those documents, but why the voting report? Because charges of voter fraud are a key component of the Republican electoral strategy. If the public believes there are rampant efforts to vote fraudulently, or to register voters improperly, it increases support for measures like special voter ID's, which work against the poor, the elderly, minorities and other disenfranchised groups that tend to support Democrats. Claims of rampant voter fraud also give the administration an excuse to cut back prosecutions of the real problem: officials who block voters' access to the polls.

There is one big catch, as Eric Lipton and Ian Urbina reported in The Times last week. After a five-year crackdown, the Justice Department has not turned up any evidence that voter fraud actually is a problem. Only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud crimes as of last year — most of them Democrats and many on trivial, trumped-up charges.

The Bush administration was so determined to pursue this phantom scourge that it deported a legal Florida resident back to his native Pakistan for mistakenly filling out a voter registration card when he renewed his driver's license. And it may well have decided to fire most of the eight federal prosecutors because they would not play along.

It is vital that Congress get to the truth about these firings. Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

The only solution is to get these issues out into the open. It is good that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will finally testify in the Senate this week. But Mr. Rove, who seems to be at the heart of this affair, should also be required to testify under oath — and in public. Even the Wizard of Oz eventually came out from behind the curtain....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM

I see that others feel pretty much the way I do about the state of the State. Just plain weary with it all. I think the next election is going to make or break this country. If the Repubs win again, I'll figure that there is no informed electorate, save for a few pockets of rationality here and there, and we can just write the whole thing off. If the Dems win, it's still not a slam-dunk, but there might be a chance.

Isn't there some other planet out there that we could get to and see if we can do it right this time?

One thing that I'm beginning to find either amusing or disgusting (a little of both, actually) is that when the current administration comes under criticism, the Bush apologists' knee-jerk reaction is to try to drag Clinton back into the discussion.

Hell, that's all they've got!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:04 PM

What we need is a party like Superma -- interested only in using their powers to supprt Truth, Justice, and what was once called The American Way, back when there at least an imaginary moral code for kids to learn about. Post modernism has turned the American Way into the Barbarian Way, and we are thrashing about trying to find some Civilized Folk to hammer down the gates. But it is a tough row to hoe, no matter whose job it is. Infested with metastasized greed and a kind of ethical scleroderma, making the nation into a flexible, positive-oriented political whole is a daunting proposiiton. Some kind of explosive revival of spiritual earnestness without the luggage imposed by the neo-Con charade is in order, but God only knows where such an impetus could come from.

But you never know -- a new kind of lollipop, a sudden rise to fame of a single op song, a single movie with the right subtext, can swing a nation the way The Wizard of Oz and "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" seemed to do back in the 30's. Seventy years seems like an awfully long time, though.
A lot of ruinous politics under the bridge since then....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 09:31 AM

Paul Krugman makes some interesting points about party dynamics in this editorial (Times subscription):

..."But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party's base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party's leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Iraq is the most dramatic example. Strange as it may seem, Democratic strategists were initially reluctant to make Iraq a central issue in the midterm election. Even after their stunning victory, which demonstrated that the G.O.P.'s smear-and-fear tactics have stopped working, they were afraid that any attempt to rein in the Bush administration's expansion of the war would be successfully portrayed as a betrayal of the troops and/or a treasonous undermining of the commander in chief.

Beltway insiders, who still don't seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush, fed that fear. For example, as Democrats began, nervously, to confront the administration over Iraq war funding, David Broder declared that Mr. Bush was "poised for a political comeback."

It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn't mean to suggest that the president be given "carte blanche.")

But the public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Mr. Bush's leadership and doesn't believe anything the administration says. Iraq was a big factor in the Democrats' midterm victory. And far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support: according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

Health care is another example of the base being more in touch with what the country wants than the politicians. Except for John Edwards, who has explicitly called for a universal health insurance system financed with a rollback of high-income tax cuts, most leading Democratic politicians, still intimidated by the failure of the Clinton health care plan, have been cautious and cagey about presenting plans to cover the uninsured.

But the Democratic presidential candidates — Mr. Obama in particular — have been facing a lot of pressure from the base to get specific about what they're proposing. And the base is doing them a favor.

The fact is that a long time has passed since the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the public is now demanding that something be done. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed overwhelming support for a government guarantee of health insurance for all, even if that guarantee required higher taxes. Even self-identified Republicans were almost evenly split on the question!

If all this sounds like a setting in which Democrats could win big victories in the years ahead, that's because it is. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:34 AM

"..In the poll, 67 percent said they believed the prosecutors were fired by the Justice Department for political reasons, not on the basis of their performance. About eight in 10 Democrats and two-thirds of independents said they saw political motivations behind the firings of the U.S. attorneys, an attitude shared by 53 percent of all Republicans surveyed.

Overall, nearly six in 10 Americans disapproved of the way Gonzales has handled the issue. Among Republicans, 47 percent expressed disapproval of how the Republican attorney general has handled the matter, with 35 percent approving and 18 percent having no opinion.

With widespread public skepticism about the firings and low approval of how the attorney general has handled the matter -- 24 percent approved in this poll -- 45 percent of Americans said the attorney general should lose his job over the issue. Fewer, 39 percent, said he should remain in place; 16 percent expressed no opinion...."

Washington Post, 4-16-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:35 AM

"The facts are not in dispute. When Mr. Wolfowitz was appointed he was in a personal relationship with a woman employed there. Since working under Mr. Wolfowitz's supervision would violate the bank's conflict-of-interest rules, she was reassigned to the State Department, where she initially worked under Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter.

She remained on the bank's payroll, and it now turns out that Mr. Wolfowitz helped arrange for her to receive a whopping $60,000 raise. Mr. Wolfowitz has launched a full rearguard action, apologizing to the staff, pledging full cooperation with any investigation, and appealing to staff members not to hold his "previous job" against him.

The issue isn't his previous job. Mr. Wolfowitz had already created enough turmoil in his current job to raise serious questions about his stewardship. The directors and the staff were especially incensed about the cavalier way in which he pursued his anticorruption agenda, paying little heed to anyone save a tight circle of advisers he brought in with him. What might Mr. Wolfowitz himself say if he discovered that a government receiving World Bank loans was making similar sweet arrangements for the personal friends of its president? There is no way Mr. Wolfowitz can recover his credibility and continue to be effective at the bank. "...

(From today's NY Times.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:49 AM

Wolfie's girlfriend was making more than Condi!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 02:31 PM

She was making it with Condi? No wonder we haven't heard much from her lately, she's finally been satisfied.

Barry

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 06:21 PM

Its really cashew butter with truffles and imported century old champagne jelly from France.

---------------------


They blew up their (Pat Tillman) poster boy.
said Pat Tillman's mom today.

In this respondsible free administration there is no one who is to blame for the Pat Tillman fiction.
Even the 4 authors of the official military Silver Star citation said that they did not know who inserted the made for TV version of Tillman's death.

Whenever some one in our goverment does claim respondsibility for something it is the respondsibility to vigorously investigate themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:20 AM

"what changed when" What Clinton said will not change. It reflects the attitudes toward Saddam Hussein and beliefs of his WMDS. Now everybody is allowed to backpedal but Bush and his administration.

A double standard, according to the World Book Dictionary, is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:00 AM

Total Bull, amigo.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:49 AM

"Bush argues: "An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, 'Just wait them out.' It would say to the Iraqis, 'Don't do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,' and it would be discouraging for our troops."

The reality is just the opposite.

The American occupation itself means that the Iraqis — both the warring groups and the government — can procrastinate all they like. American troops become both the targets of all and the excuse for doing nothing.

The only thing that will thoroughly concentrate Iraqi minds on confronting the challenges of a postwar Iraq is to put those challenges right in their face through a pullout timetable.
Philip G. Cerny

Newark, April 24, 2007
(Letter to the NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:22 AM

Excerpt from a story in Bloomberg concerning the scandal rising up aroound the coverup of Pat Tilman's death from friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004. IT does seem that lying to the public is a standard and primary instinct in the current Administration, who value appearance and message over substance and understanding over and over:

"April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials told ``deliberate and calculated lies'' to conceal that Army Ranger Pat Tillman, a former professional football player, was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire, not during a heroic battle against U.S. enemies, his brother told lawmakers today.

Tillman's death, during an April 22, 2004, night patrol in Afghanistan, occurred in the wake of reports about the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and was ``yet another political disaster,'' Kevin Tillman said in Washington. ``So the truth had to be suppressed.''

``Pat's death at the hands of his comrades is a terrible tragedy,'' Tillman told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``But the fact that the Army, and what appears to be others, attempted to hijack his virtue and his legacy is simply horrific.''

The committee is investigating how ``accurate information from the battlefield was delayed, distorted or suppressed'' to serve public relations goals, said Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the panel.

Tillman, 27 when he died, left the Arizona Cardinals to join the U.S. Army Rangers after the Sept. 11 attacks, leaving behind a new bride and a $3.6 million National Football League contract. He was one of the most prominent fatalities of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was celebrated as a war hero by the Pentagon and the National Football League.

Ordered Not to Tell

Specialist Bryan O'Neal, who was with Tillman when he died, said he was ordered not to tell Tillman's brother that the death was the result of friendly fire.

``I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened,'' O'Neal said. ``I was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak to Kevin, I was ordered not to tell him what happened.''

Defense Department Inspector General Thomas Gimble said in a March 26 report that Army commanders recommended Corporal Tillman for the Silver Star for gallantry in action, while withholding evidence of friendly fire from his family for five weeks.

Gimble recommended that the Army examine for possible punishment nine senior officers involved in three ``deficient'' probes of the 2004 incident in Afghanistan and in a false citation for the Silver Star. The failure to follow Army regulations in those investigations contributed to ``perceptions of concealment,'' Gimble said last month.

A Series of Mistakes

Gimble said he found a series of mistakes rather than any attempt to cover up the truth of Tillman's death.

A document released by the committee, written to Army General John Abizaid seven days after Tillman's death, said it was ``highly possible'' Tillman was killed by friendly fire. It warned that President George W. Bush shouldn't refer to how Tillman was killed in a speech he was to deliver on May 1.

``I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public,'' Major General Stanley McChrystal wrote.

According to Gimble, Abizaid said he didn't find out about the friendly fire suspicions until sometime between May 6-13, because he was in Iraq. Still, Bush made no mention of the way Tillman died in his speech two days after the memo was dated.

Representative Henry Waxman, the panel' chairman, said today that he will continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding Tillman's death and how his family was informed that he had been killed by friendly fire.

`Eliminate Evidence'

``These aren't things that are done by mistake, there had to be a conscious attempt to put a story out and keep with that story and eliminate evidence to the contrary and distort the record,'' Waxman said.

The hearing also examined the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq. Early news of Lynch's capture included misleading reports that she was shot and stabbed after fighting off attackers until she ran out of ammunition. Lynch was injured when her Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, and she later said she never fired her weapon because it jammed.

``I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend when the real heroics of my fellow soldiers that day were, in fact, legendary,'' Lynch said ``The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals for heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales.''

---

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:36 AM

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps


From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

Tuesday April 24, 2007
The Guardian

"As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise."

Ms Wolf's Ten Symptoms, in brief:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

See link above for her description of Bush's effect on each of these planks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:02 AM

The Times reports on another dubious firing of an attorney general adding fuel to the embarassing charges of Executive branch manipulation of Justice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:04 AM

"If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believe the belligerently partisan and misleading things they have been saying about Congress's war spending bill, their grip on the few options left in this disastrous war is even more tenuous than we'd guessed. The sooner Mr. Bush and his allies drop the pretense that military victory is still possible in Iraq and their charges of "defeatism" against those who know better, the closer the nation will be to rescuing what can still be rescued from the debacle.

Obviously, the White House and Congress will eventually have to arrive at some kind of compromise. But that compromise cannot be on the "my way or the highway" terms Mr. Bush is demanding. The fact is, Congress has served the country well by finally forcing open debate about how America can best extricate itself from Iraq while minimizing the long-term damage to itself and the Iraqi people.

The "dramatically different" military strategy Mr. Bush now claims to be carrying out in response to the frustrations voters expressed in last November's election is nothing fundamentally new at all. It is just an escalated version of the failed approach — 99 parts military — that the administration has clung to for the past four years. "

(TImes editorial, New York, 4-26-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:23 AM

Two letters from citizens:

To the Editor:

The president accuses Democrats of making military decisions that should be left to the generals, but isn't that what he and his team have done since the war planning started and a large reason we're in the mess we're in now?

And why should anyone listen to the president or his supporters? They've had more than four years to resolve the situation and have done nothing but botched it, with no end in sight.

Calvin Hilton
Jacksonville, Fla., April 25, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Given the low regard in which President Bush has historically held bills passed by Congress with his signing statements, I am mystified by his sudden desire to start respecting the legislative process.

If he disagrees with only the timetable part of the bill, why does he suddenly hesitate to single out this provision with a signing statement, as he has with every other legislative provision that has not been to his liking?

The president's sudden appreciation for process strikes me as both cynical and ineffective in the face of public opinion.

Elizabeth Statmore
San Francisco, April 25, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:06 PM

From: Amos - PM
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:00 AM

Total Bull, amigo.

When I critique your echo chamber postings I detail the reasons.

You evidently feel so superior that you do not need to explain anything like Rameses. "When he told a joke you would chortle for days"


Perhaps you can explain where the "bull" is? What changed when? Why does the date of an article change anything? How old is our constitution? is it old and therefore not in force? Do you ever quote Jefferson?

Please explain where the "Bull" is.

    "Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 450 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); as a "podcast," and on the internet.

    The DCTV Center The program is hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and produced out of the Downtown Community Television Center, a community media center in New York City's Chinatown.

    Democracy Now!'s War and Peace Report provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S.corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. In addition, the War and Peace Report hosts real debates - debates between people who substantially disagree, such as between the White House or the Pentagon spokespeople on the one hand, and grassroots activists on the other."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:17 PM

Vermont House votes no on impeachment

April 26, 2007 By Daniel Barlow Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER – The Vermont House rejected a resolution calling for President Bush and Vice President Cheney's impeachment in an 87-60 vote Wednesday, a move that puts that chamber at odds with the Senate's actions last week.

House lawmakers supporting the resolution were almost entirely Democrats and Progressives, although 41 Democrats broke ranks on the hotly partisan issue and joined the Republicans in opposing the symbolic impeachment resolution.

"One of the lessons we learned from the Clinton impeachment is that it should not be treated lightly," said Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town. "It ought to be reserved for the most egregious, most urgent high crimes and misdemeanors. It should not be about whether or not you support the president or the war."

Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, a strong impeachment supporter in the House, said Wednesday's vote was a statement that Vermonters are disappointed with the Bush administration...."

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/NEWS01/704260369/1002

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

Yeah, we shouldn't get all stirred up about impeachment on minor issues, like slaughter, warmongering, lying to the American public, constitutional malfeasance, and such trifles. We should save the big guns of impeachment for more important things...sexual relations, things like that. Eh, Mister Dick?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

"...William Glaberson reported in The Times yesterday that the Justice Department had asked a federal appeals court to remove some of the last shreds of legal representation available to the prisoners.

The government wants the court to allow intelligence and military officers to read the mail sent by lawyers to their clients at Guantánamo Bay. Lawyers would also be limited to three visits with each client, and an inmate would be allowed only a single visit to decide whether to authorize an attorney to handle his case. Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay have a history of masking their identities, so the rule would make it much harder than it already is to gain the trust of a prisoner.

Perhaps the most outrageous of the Justice Department's proposals would allow government officials — on their own authority — to deny lawyers access to the evidence used to decide whether an inmate is an illegal enemy combatant. Not even the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through in the last days of the Republican-controlled Congress, goes that far.

The filing, with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., says lawyers have caused unrest among the prisoners and improperly relayed messages to the news media. The administration offered no evidence for these charges, probably because there is none. This is an assault on the integrity of the lawyers, reminiscent of a former Pentagon official's suggestion that they are unpatriotic and that American corporations should boycott their firms.

The Justice Department also said lawyers had no right to demand access to clients at Guantánamo Bay because the clients are "detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country."

The Supreme Court has already rejected that argument, and President Bush can hardly be worried about the sensibilities of Fidel Castro's government. (The camp is on land leased to Washington after the Spanish-American War.)

It's obvious why the administration is attacking the lawyers. It does not want the world to know more than it already does about this immoral detention camp. And brave lawyers have helped expose abuse and torture there, as well as detentions of innocent men — who are a large portion, if not a majority, of the inmates at Guantánamo Bay. The Bush administration does not want these issues aired in public, and certainly not in court.

Mr. Bush thinks that he has the right to ignore the Constitution when it suits him. But this is a nation of laws, not the whims of men, and giving legal rights to the guilty as well as the innocent is a price of true justice. The only remedy is for lawmakers to rewrite the Military Commissions Act to restore basic rights to Guantánamo Bay and to impose full accountability for what has happened there."

NEw York Times editorial, April 27, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:03 AM

On the Pat Tilman fratricide coverup:

"...At a House hearing, a buddy who witnessed Corporal Tillman's death told of being ordered not to tell his family that "friendly fire" was the cause. (An early report by this witness was doctored by someone in the military — who? — in awarding Corporal Tillman the Silver Star.) The truth was evident, yet the family was not told for five weeks — until after the corporal was mourned in a nationally televised funeral as a soldier killed by terrorists.

The pain inflicted by the Pentagon's mendacious account was evident in the maternal gaze of Mary Tillman as she pleaded at the hearing for investigators to search unstintingly up the chain of command to track the cover-up that victimized her son. The truth remains elusive and eats at so many other tales of war. Ms. Tillman properly asks whether her son was exploited through official lies to offset such bad war news as prisoner abuses by the military. The Army has singled out a number of officers, including four generals, for possible disciplinary action, but says the cover-up goes no higher.

Congress must press forward, particularly in tracking an officer's memo sent to superiors in Washington a week after the tragedy to ask that word of the likely finding of friendly fire be quietly passed on to White House and Pentagon officials. The nation, like the Tillman family, deserves nothing less than the full truth of war."

(NYT, 4-27-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM

"Bush tries to kill all the Gitmo lawyers: "We should not forget this central point: The Justice Department is trying to do everything possible to prevent Guantanamo detainees from having any rights at all," writes Yale law professor Jack Balkin at the group legal blog Balkinization. "It wants to get as close as it can to what it the Bush Administration sought before [the Supreme Court decisions in] Rasul and Hamdan — a law-free zone. But the more the Justice Department tries to eliminate procedural protections and basic elements of fairness for the detainees, the more it undermines its argument that the detainees have a remedy that is just as good as habeas." Balkin continues:
The Bush Administration wants what it has always wanted — a legal black hole, a place where it can seize any non-citizen, declare them an enemy of the state and hold them without any means of redress. It wants, in other words, the very absence of law.
Although we have been momentarily distracted by the scandals over Alberto Gonzales, we should remember that the Administration's policies on detention and interrogation — all devised and approved by Justice Department lawyers — are the real reason why this Administration, and this Justice Department, have been such a disgrace to our country and to our traditions of government."

NYT, 4-27-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:24 AM

"WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a "serious debate" about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, "At the Center of the Storm," is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president's inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, "was there ever a significant discussion" about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:28 PM

"...The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased. (There was some plagiarism here. The Clinton folks took this argument from the Bush administration lawyers who'd first defended the camp...."

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/19783.html

Where was the Pious Jack Balkin during the Clinton administration?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:33 PM

Even if Clinton was/is at fault for everything that has gone wrong for the last 16 years...

Ya gotta hand it to em. He managed to go to war and still end up with a surplus in the treasury.

Of course he didn't hire expensive; Halliburton, Blackwater USA, Aegis and security guards to fight the war.

He used the US military.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 03:40 PM

After Clinton gutted the military to produce a budget surplus, who you gonna call?

Yeah, he reinvented government and privatized Military support activities to Halliburton with LOGCAP. Now Hallibuton is the evil boogey man.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:06 PM

Well that tears it then
IMPEACH CLINTON !

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:16 PM

At the risk of being accused of repeating myself. . . .

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

Didja hear that George Tenet just released a 'Cheney Dearest' tell all book that he wrote.

Dick made him do it
He also said that he thought long and hard about getting his meadal of freedom award.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 05:49 PM

Desperately Seeking Defeat in Iraq 27/04/2007 Amir Taheri

Without meaning to do so, Senator Harry Reid, leader of the Democrat majority in the US Senate, has pushed the debate over the war in Iraq away toward a new direction.
    Senator Reid claims that the war is lost and that US has already been defeated. By advancing that claim the senator has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it. Reid is no longer interested in establishing the Bush administration's supposed guilt in manipulating intelligence data and ignoring the United Nations. Reid has distanced himself from such early anti-war figures as Howard Dean and Michael Moore.
    At the same time, Reid has parted way with other Democrat leaders, such as Senator Hillary Clinton who supported the war but now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean by implication is that a Democrat president would do better than George W Bush, and win the war. Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democrat president would not be able to ensure American victory in Iraq. For him Iraq is irretrievably lost.
    Some anti-war analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.
    Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified the US as the loser, is required to name the winner. And, this is what Reid cannot do.The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, the US and its Iraqi allies, that is to say the overwhelming majority of the people of Iraq, remain the only objective victors in this war.
    Reid cannot name Al Qaeda as the winner because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It has not been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates.
    In military terms, Al Qaeda has failed to win any territory, and has lost the control it briefly exercised in such places as Fallujah and Samarra. More importantly, perhaps, Al Qaeda has failed to develop a political program, focusing instead on its campaign of mindless terror....
.....Despite continued violence, the US and it Iraqi allies are winning this third war as well. Their enemies are like the man in a casino, who wins a heap of tokens at the roulette table, but is told at the cashier that those cannot be exchanged for real money.
    The terrorists, the insurgents, the criminal gangs, and the chauvinists of all ilk are still killing lots of people in Iraq. But they cannot translate those killings into political gain for themselves. Their constituencies are shrinking, and the pockets of territory where they hide are becoming increasingly exposed. They certainly cannot drive the Americans out. No power on earth can. Unless, of course, Harry Reid does it for them."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM

GEORGE W BUSH RECEIVES PURPLE HEART MEDAL !

A US soldier who had honorably been awarded a purple heart felt that George W Bush was facing so much criticism and has suffered so many slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune that he offered his medal to the President. After a few go betweens a small ceremony was performed at the White House and the president was bestowed with his very own purple heart medal.




I'm not kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 09:48 AM

Your article raises a profound issue. It's not Reid's fault he can't name a winner. The entire operation is not a war in the normal sense, has no defined enemy, and was not declared against any nation. Mister Terror is not going to come out and surrender. The asininity of this situation is certainly not Reid's doing, but Bush's.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

Democratic presidential candidates debate where to wage war next
By Jerry White
28 April 2007

In the first debate between candidates for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination, the leading contenders made clear that whatever their differences with the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, they are all committed to maintaining the US occupation of the oil-rich country and that, if elected president, they would not hesitate to use US military power anywhere in the world to defend the geo-political interests of American imperialism.

The debate, which was broadcast by MSNBC television from South Carolina State University, included ostensible front runners New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, as well as Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Also included were Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska senator Mike Gravel.

The debate was overshadowed by the deep crisis over the war in Iraq and the growing popular hatred of for the war—particularly among Democrat voters, who according to a poll released this week are 78 percent in favor of total withdrawal and 54 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal.

While all of the candidates did their best to feign opposition to the war, the debate began just hours after the Senate approved a supplemental spending bill that will provide the White House with an additional $124 billion to continue the fighting and occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of those on the platform sought to cast the funding bill as an "antiwar" measure because of the toothless and non-binding timetable in the bill for the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq. "The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war," Clinton declared....."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 12:49 PM

The Times opines:

"Surely no one beyond a handful of the most self-deluded Republicans in Congress was surprised at the disclosure by George Tenet, the former intelligence director, that there was never a serious debate in the Bush administration about whether Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.

It has long been evident that President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are Americans still in the dark about the details of that campaign?

For that matter, why don't Americans know the full truth about Mr. Bush's illegal domestic spying program or his decisions on how to handle prisoners of the war on terror? And now there are new questions begging for answers — about the purge of United States attorneys and about campaign pep rallies in executive branch agencies that might well have violated federal law.

For six years, the Republican majority in Congress ignored the administration's power grabs, misdeeds and incompetence or, worse, pushed through laws that gave legislative cover to some of Mr. Bush's most outrageous abuses of power. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they have opened the doors of government in welcome ways. But the list of questions just seems to grow.

We hope Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, enforces the subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss prewar claims about Saddam Hussein's long-gone weapons programs. Ms. Rice, who was national security adviser before the war, says she has answered every possible question. Actually, we don't have room for all our questions.

Just a few: Did she vet the briefing Mr. Bush got from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's rogue intelligence shop on Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium? The Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department thought, correctly, that the report was false. So why did Ms. Rice permit the president to repeat it to the world? Or did Mr. Bush also know what he was claiming was wrong?

The same applies to other claims about Iraq, including a false report about the purchase of aluminum tubes for bomb building, talk of mushroom clouds and fairy tales about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When it became clear the intelligence was false, why didn't Ms. Rice make sure the public found out? Before the war, Ms. Rice was not in a post requiring Senate confirmation, but she is now. If she refuses to testify, the House should hold her in contempt...."

(Nyew York Times editorial 4-29-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:09 PM

For that matter, why don't Americans know the full truth about Mr. Bush's illegal domestic spying program or his decisions on how to handle prisoners ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This question is worth answering.

While it is ostensibly true that the Bush House is commiting the equivalent of a Watergate scandal every second 24/7.

Nixon had only federal departments to engage in illegal activities for his own benefit.

W has family (President dad, Govenor Jeb, WTC Marvin).
W has privatized covert military units. W has Diebold.
W has PNAC(Cheney Rumsfeld etc).
W has FOX. W has all of Reagan's Iran conspirators.
W has the NSA. W has the Supreme Court. W has a new Homeland Security.

W has a war which he considers a mandate to ignore the Constitution.

W has loyalty from those who know that loyalty is their get out of jail free card.

Bush has an Ace kicker 9-11, whether it was LIH or MIH.

W also has friends, something Nixon did not.


No wonder that George is AWOL, he doesn' need to be there except for photo ops.

He is insulated distanced bubbled and has plausible deniability by ignorance alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Who will bring down his house of Cards?

Andrew Card
Ray McGovern
Paul Roberts
Lt. Bob Bowman
Tenent
and 3 others I can not name here.

You will see how one little card among many at the bottom of this huge house of cards will weaken the whole structure much like WTC7.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:43 PM

Th LA Times, Sunday, 4-29-07:

"...GOP has uphill climb for cash and candidates
The party feels the drag of investigations and minority status in Congress. And then there's Bush.
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer
April 29, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush's unpopularity and a string of political setbacks have created a toxic climate for the Republican Party, making it harder to raise money and recruit candidates for its drive to retake control of Congress.

Some of the GOP's top choices to run for the House next year have declined, citing what Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) called a "poisonous" environment. And Republicans' fundraising edge, an important advantage over the last five years, has dwindled.

With GOP clout diminished after November's election losses, the Republicans' national committee and their House and Senate campaign committees together raised the same amount as the Democrats in the first quarter of the year — and Democrats ended the period with more cash in the bank. At this point four years ago, Republicans had more than twice the money Democrats did.

"The reality is the Republican brand right now is just not a good brand," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent Oregon pollster. "For Republicans, the only way things really get better … is if somehow, some way, Iraq turns around."

Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report said the party was "desperately in need of some Prozac."

The problems can be seen in such places as Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which hugs the coast north of Fort Lauderdale. Republicans held that House seat for a quarter-century. But since losing it last year, the party has had trouble finding a top-tier candidate for it.

Two of the GOP's choices, both state legislators, declined to run. A third, Boca Raton's mayor, said he was weighing whether a Republican had any hope of retaking the district.

"You have to sort of lay a bet down now on what will be the environment in 18 months," said Mayor Steven Abrams, who must leave his current office because of term limits.

Though Republicans have recruited many solid candidates in their effort to retake Capitol Hill — and they have more than 18 months to improve their fortunes — the environment could get worse.

Damaged by ethics scandals in 2006, the GOP in recent weeks has seen FBI raids at businesses or homes connected to two of its congressmen. A federal agency last week began an investigation into Bush advisor Karl Rove's political operation, and congressional panels authorized a flurry of subpoenas related to White House political activities and the run-up to the Iraq war.

Three-term Rep. Rob Simmons of Connecticut, who lost his seat last year by 83 votes, said he turned down an appeal from the GOP to run again in 2008, partly because of the dismal political climate. In a district dominated by Democrats, he said, it has become impossible for even a moderate Republican like himself to win — especially since he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Republicans in recent days said they had found a solid candidate to run in Simmons' place: the former commander of the area's naval base.

In Colorado, Republican Sen. Wayne Allard's decision not to seek reelection set the stage for one of the nation's most competitive 2008 races. But the top choice of party leaders, former Rep. Scott McInnis, has taken a pass, citing family reasons. McInnis had nearly $1 million stockpiled for the race.

Broader signs of Republican distress also are turning up across the country.

When voters five years ago were asked which party they identified with, neither Democrats nor Republicans held an advantage. Now 50% of voters say they are aligned with the Democrats, and 35% with Republicans, according to a survey released last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

And in New Hampshire, nonpartisan pollster Dick Bennett said the atmosphere was so sour that he was having a tough time getting Republicans to participate in surveys. The war, high gas prices and unhappiness with the Bush administration have dampened their interest sharing opinions, he said.

A few years ago, "they would make arguments in favor of the president, and they don't anymore," Bennett said. "They don't defend the president on anything."

Republicans do hold some advantages in the 2008 congressional elections, including district lines for many contested House seats that are drawn in their favor.

More than 60 Democrats will have to defend seats in districts where voters backed President Bush in 2004, Republicans say, suggesting that many of those incumbents will be too liberal to win. By contrast, only seven Republicans are defending seats in districts that went for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, they say.

Moreover, GOP officials say conditions are likely to improve once the party settles on a presidential nominee — who they believe will eclipse Bush in the public eye and diminish his drag on Republican prospects...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM

An interesting array of comments on Bush's stance on the budget bill and his promise to veto same, in the Times.

I would say there is a pretty angry population out there. But read it for yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM

from the Washington Post:

The Right Man for the World Bank

By Andrew Young
Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A15

"Daddy King" -- the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. -- was always reminding us that "hate is too great a burden to bear." Even after a childhood of racist oppression and the cruel assassination of both his son Martin by white men and his wife by a deranged black man as she sat at the organ of Ebenezer Baptist Church playing the Lord's Prayer, he daily affirmed that we must never stoop to hate.

Yet I came closer to hating Paul Wolfowitz than I ever came to hating Bull Connor, the Ku Klux Klan or the killers of Martin Luther King Jr.

You see, I saw Wolfowitz as the neocon policy wonk who led us into a war in Iraq but who had never even been in a street fight himself. My personal fantasy was to catch him alone and give him a good thrashing.

It seems our European friends are now indulging my fantasy. But I've come to realize how wrong that impulse is and how right Archbishop Desmond Tutu is when he says there's "no future without forgiveness."

I've also come to believe that the impatience of Wolfowitz and others with Saddam Hussein's violence grew from a more massive destruction than the world could ignore -- Hussein's murder of more than a million Shiites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians, even without possessing atomic weapons. I was in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of 1990. I saw the horror and bloodshed of their occupation, and I knew Hussein had to be restrained. I may disagree with the means that were used, but not with the problem.

At the World Bank, however, an aggressive impatience with the evils of disease and poverty is exactly what is needed.

I first spent time with Paul Wolfowitz in Anacostia in 2005, when I participated in a program of the Operation Hope financial literacy initiative. In reading the program notes, I discovered that his PhD from the University of Chicago concerned the politics and economics of water resources management and that George Shultz had been his mentor at the State Department. When he was Treasury secretary, Shultz took me on my first trip to Africa as a congressional delegate to a World Bank gathering in Nairobi. Shultz also opened the diplomatic dialogue with the African National Congress at a time when much of Europe and America wrote off Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki as hopeless communist terrorists.

I therefore decided to work with Paul Wolfowitz as a brother, and I have not been disappointed. We were together in Nigeria in 2006 for a Leon H. Sullivan Summit. I saw his effectiveness and warmth at work in a setting of 12 heads of state and 2,000 delegates from 22 countries.

His commitment and aggressiveness in promoting African development, as well as his abhorrence of needless bureaucratic "CYA" behavior, have been welcomed by those who love Africa and the developing world as well as by those willing to admit the complicity of the haves in the crisis of the have-nots.

It is my sincere hope that our European friends and allies can make the distinction between the U.S. Defense Department and the World Bank. While we still abhor the mismanagement and hubris of the Iraq invasion, we can share an aggressive impatience with poverty, disease, illiteracy and bureaucratic nitpicking and get on with our efforts to prevent the future wars and environmental crises.

France, Norway and the Netherlands have always been at the forefront of this struggle. I'm hopeful they will see the greater good of working together at the World Bank on these present evils and allow history, the World Court or the United Nations to judge Wolfowitz on his role in our previous conflicts.

We must get beyond the current crisis at the World Bank, a careful examination of which will show that Wolfowitz was operating in what he felt was the best interest of the institution and with the guidance of its ethics committee.

This crisis also should not redound to the detriment of Wolfowitz's companion, Shaha Riza, a British Muslim woman who is an admired World Bank professional and a champion of human rights in the Muslim world.

I am a Protestant Christian minister, a product of America's excessive Puritanism. I've always looked to Europe for sophistication, temperance and the tolerance the world needs to survive. It is my appeal that we offer Paul Wolfowitz the same chance to learn from the misjudgments of the past and move on together to construct a more just, prosperous and nonviolent world.

Andrew Young has served as executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, as mayor of Atlanta and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is co-chairman of Good Works International, a consulting firm offering advice in emerging markets in the Caribbean and Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:41 AM

Iraq's al-Qa'ida head killed
May 01, 2007

THE leader of al-Qai'da in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed today in an internal fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said. Brigadier-General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Reuters: "we have definite intelligence reports that al-Masri was killed today".

Another source in the ministry also said Masri had been killed. Khalaf said the battle happened near a bridge in the small town of al-Nibayi, north of Baghdad...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 10:11 AM

Giventhat he was killed by insurgents, Dickey, why is this germane to this thread? Or are you just in a cluttery sort of mood today?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 04:05 PM

I think this al-Masri fellow, like you, held a very dim view of the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 04:32 PM

Your conflation is subtle beyond all words, Mister D.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:57 PM

(05-01) 16:00 PDT -- President Bush carried through on his often-repeated threat today and vetoed a war spending bill that called for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, but on Capitol Hill key Republicans started moving away from the administration's hard line against compromising with Democrats.

"Setting a deadline for withdrawal will be setting a date for failure and that's unacceptable,'' Bush said in a televised statement this afternoon from the White House.
Moments before Bush had vetoed the $124.2 billion bill, which would have provided about $100 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, but would also have set a Democratic-backed goal of withdrawing almost all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 2008.

Bush said the legislation, only the second bill he has vetoed, was dangerous because it "substitutes the opinion of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders.''
Democratic leaders, who had appealed to Bush to sign the bill up until the moment he vetoed it, said the president was denying the will of American voters who last November elected an anti-war Democratic majority in Congress.

"The president wants a blank check and Congress is not going to give it to him,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said to reporters just minutes after Bush's veto.
"We had hoped the president would have treated with the respect that a bipartisan majority of both houses supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people deserved,'' she added.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released late last week showed voters back the congressional withdrawal plan 56 to 37 percent. The poll also found that 55 percent said victory in Iraq -- a war that has lasted more than four years and claimed more than 3,350 American lives -- is no longer possible.

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., vowed to press on. "If the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq he is mistaken,'' Reid said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 09:28 PM

Conflation is when a convict eats too many beans right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 09:44 PM

Iraqis: Dems can't force pullout
Many think Bush will get funds, informal poll finds

By Chris Kraul
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published April 28, 2007

BAGHDAD -- An informal poll of Iraqis suggests many think President Bush holds the upper hand in the struggle with the U.S. Congress over funding the Iraq war and doubt that Democrats can force a phased withdrawal of troops as a condition of passing a spending bill.

"Bush is a fox who knows how to play the game and turn it to his own advantage," said Razaq Hobi Karreem, a 40-year-old laborer in Baghdad, confident that Bush will get his way on the budget.

Karreem was one of 20 Iraqis in several cities interviewed Friday on the spending battle and the outcome's effect on their future. They were about 4-to-1 in favor of coalition troops staying until Iraq's security forces are ready to take over.

Muhammad Abdul-Ameer, a university lecturer in Najaf, said a U.S. withdrawal would cause a "catastrophe" because the Iraqi army and police are not ready to shoulder security. The U.S. military is here for the long haul, he and others said, if for no other reason than to protect American economic interests and keep chaos from enveloping the region.

"After all our security has broken down and our infrastructure smashed, the Americans want to leave now? That's not going to work. They would give terrorists and militias the green light to prevail," said Dhia Saleem, a worker at a Baghdad restaurant.

"There would be no security, and regional battles would follow with outside countries interfering," said Isam Mohammed Ali, a 33-year-old merchant in Basra...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 09:45 PM

Wow! An interesting and relevant counterpoint, Mister Dickey!! Thank you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:37 AM

Hot tamale prose from the Redheaded Terror of the Times, Ms. Maureen Dowd (excerpt), in which she lays the soul of George Tenet bare:

"If Colin Powell and George Tenet had walked out of the administration in February 2003 instead of working together on that tainted U.N. speech making the bogus case for war, they might have turned everything around. They might have saved the lives and limbs of all those brave U.S. kids and innocent Iraqis, not to mention our world standing and national security.

It would certainly have been harder for timid Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards, to back up the administration if two members of the Bush inner circle had broken away to tell an increasingly apparent truth: that Dick Cheney, Rummy and the neocons were feverishly pushing a naïve president into invading Iraq with junk facts.

General Powell counted on Slam Dunk — a slender reed — to help him rid the speech of most of the garbage Mr. Cheney's office wanted in it. Slam, of course, tried to have it both ways, helping the skeptical secretary of state and pandering to higher bosses. Afterward, when the speech turned out to be built on a no-legged stool, General Powell was furious at Slam. But they both share blame: they knew better. They put their loyalty to a runaway White House ahead of their loyalty to a fearful public.

Slam Dunk's book tour is mesmerizing, in a horrifying way.

"The irony of the whole situation is, is he was bluffing," Slam said of Saddam on "Larry King Live" on Monday night, adding, "And he didn't know we weren't." Mr. He-Man Tenet didn't understand the basics of poker, much less Arab culture. It never occurred to him that Saddam might feign strength to flex muscles at his foes in the Middle East? Slam couldn't take some of that $40 billion we spend on intelligence annually and get a cultural profile of the dictator before we invaded?

If he was really running around with his hair on fire, knowing the Osama danger, shouldn't he have set off alarms when W. and Vice went after Saddam instead of the real threat?

Many people in Washington snorted at his dramatic cloak-and-dagger description of himself to Larry King: "I worked in the shadows my whole life."

He was not Jason Bourne, lurking in dangerous locales. He risked life and limb on Capitol Hill among the backstabbers and cutthroat bureaucrats — from whom he obviously learned a lot. He spent nine years on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, four as staff director. When Bill Clinton appointed him to run the C.I.A. in 1997, the profile of him in The Times was headlined "A Time to Reap the Rewards of Being Loyal." It observed that old colleagues had said "he had an ability to make many different superiors feel at ease with him."

Six former C.I.A. officials sent Mr. Tenet a letter via his publisher — no wonder we're in trouble if spooks can't figure out the old Head Spook's home address — berating him for pretending he wrote his self-serving book partly to defend the honor of the agency and demanding that "at least half" of the profits be given to wounded soldiers and the families of dead soldiers (there needs to be a Son of Slam law). One of the signers, Larry Johnson, told CNN that Slam "is profiting from the blood of American soldiers."

"By your silence you helped build the case for war," the former C.I.A. officials wrote. "You betrayed the C.I.A. officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld."

They also said, "Although C.I.A. officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered Bin Laden an enemy ... you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda. ...

"In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence." They concluded that "your tenure as head of the C.I.A. has helped create a world that is more dangerous. ... It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated."

Thus endeth the lesson in our class on "The Ultimate Staff Guy." If you have something deadly important to say, say it when it matters, or just shut up and slink off. "


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:28 AM

Some letters in response to an article inthe Times called "Bridging the Divide in Wartime":

May 1st,
2007
1:11 pm I don't believe it's fair to compare President Bush with other past presidents. it's almost like comparing a group of champion swimmers with a kid that can slow across the pool alone. President Bush has proven himself completely out of league of past presidents, plunging the presidency into its darkest days ever. Incompetence, cronyism and cynicism have been the gifts this White House has brought the American people. But we have only ourselves to blame. When you elect an inexperienced frat boy to the most important elected office in the world should anyone be surprised that he doesn't know how to communicate and work with others? working with others requires confidence, courage and foresight all characteristics Bush's public record shows as absent.

— Posted by Kamau
9.May 1st,
2007
1:37 pm Bush is not capable of making the thoughtful kinds of decisions Lincoln and FDR had to make. Nor are his true believer companions. As a man of ignorance and hubris, he may never understand the tragedy and suffering he has wrought.

This war is an ideologue's war, a pre-emptive armchair war hatched in the isolated planning rooms of Washington without the tests of reality required to balance fantasy and preconceived notions against the real consequences of real war. And we see the result.

— Posted by James Costello
10.May 1st,
2007
1:42 pm From the outset, it has been a conceptual error to characterize the situation in Iraq as a "war." Unlike Kuwait, 9/11 was not Pearl Harbor redux in which one sovereign nation attacked another and international redress was indicated.

George Bush and his coterie chose to wage aggression in both Afghanistan and Iraq against people rather than other nations. As such, the situation in the Middle East most closely resembles a Crusade rather than a legitimate war, and Bush himself actually put the proper, but politically incorrect, name on it early in the day.

The Bush administration had perpetrated a series of blunders who consequences will plague our nation and the world at least for decades, probably generations, and perhaps centuries.

The fundamental blunder was failure to understand at any level the realities of the Middle East and the Muslim World and from that to grasp the enormity and futility America's intervention there would entail.

Arguably, George Bush has been the wrongest person in the wrongest place at the wrongest time in all of American history and, having foolishly opened Pandora's box, there can be no redemption for him.

— Posted by Tom Billings
11.May 1st,
2007
1:47 pm Bush 43 is making Nikita Khruschev look very good! So far as I am concerned, a Harvard MBA is meaningless since the institution gave one to Bush.

Before his first term, Bush was billed as a "bridge builder." It sounded good at a time when there was significant polarization in the U.S.

Now,we have deeply entrenched and well financed positions on everything from Global Warming, to guns, to Immigration…you name it. Consensus on anything is totally out of the question.

Show me a man who never admits an making a mistake and I will show you a man who makes no intelligent decisions whatsover. The same man will also cast blame for his many failures on others…the perfect narcissist. He is not a decider…he is a derider. He believes that, but portraying a tough guy, he can bluff forever. He sure bluffed the media for 6 years. They were his lapdogs.

History will treat this man brutally, and deservedly so.

Ed

— Posted by Ed Boyle
12.May 1st,
2007
2:00 pm The Republicans led by Bush and his neocon friends own this war. No matter how they try to twist history we all know who started the war and who is trying to stop it. The American people clearly spoke in 2006 but Bush did not hear. In 2008 he will hear and any Republican running for office will hear loud and clear. Bush is the best thing for Democrats to get elected that could have possibly been imagined. What we are going to see in 08 is a complete wipeout of any Republican who dares run. Unfortunately we cannot share political power as we once could in this country because we no longer deal with people of honor who keep their
word. When someone tells a lie now we call it, "Bushing it"
Jim

— Posted by Jim Denton
13.May 1st,
2007
2:15 pm PLEASE: Just impeach him before he does any further damage. He doesn't have the depth to understand what and who he disagrees with. He is a mental midget and dangerous. Will the media make up for it's past mistakes by coming out and calling for his impeachment? Our lives and the lives of our children are at stake and cannot remain in his or his administrations hands.

— Posted by gfaigen

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:43 AM

Spying on Americans




Published: May 2, 2007

For more than five years, President Bush authorized government spying on phone calls and e-mail to and from the United States without warrants. He rejected offers from Congress to update the electronic eavesdropping law, and stonewalled every attempt to investigate his spying program.

Suddenly, Mr. Bush is in a hurry. He has submitted a bill that would enact enormous, and enormously dangerous, changes to the 1978 law on eavesdropping. It would undermine the fundamental constitutional principle — over which there can be no negotiation or compromise — that the government must seek an individual warrant before spying on an American or someone living here legally.

To heighten the false urgency, the Bush administration will present this issue, as it has before, as a choice between catching terrorists before they act or blinding the intelligence agencies. But the administration has never offered evidence that the 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, hampered intelligence gathering after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Bush simply said the law did not apply to him.

The director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell, said yesterday that the evidence of what is wrong with FISA was too secret to share with all Americans. That's an all-too-familiar dodge. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is familiar with the president's spying program, has said that it could have been conducted legally. She even offered some sensible changes for FISA, but the administration and the Republican majority in the last Congress buried her bill.

Mr. Bush's motivations for submitting this bill now seem obvious. The courts have rejected his claim that 9/11 gave him virtually unchecked powers, and he faces a Democratic majority in Congress that is willing to exercise its oversight responsibilities. That, presumably, is why his bill grants immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated in five years of illegal eavesdropping. It also strips the power to hear claims against the spying program from all courts except the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret.

According to the administration, the bill contains "long overdue" FISA modifications to account for changes in technology. The only example it offered was that an e-mail sent from one foreign country to another that happened to go through a computer in the United States might otherwise be missed. But Senator Feinstein had already included this fix in the bill Mr. Bush rejected.

Moreover, FISA has been updated dozens of times in the last 29 years. In 2000, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, who ran the National Security Agency then, said it "does not require amendment to accommodate new communications technologies." And since 9/11, FISA has had six major amendments.

The measure would not update FISA; it would gut it. It would allow the government to collect vast amounts of data at will from American citizens' e-mail and phone calls. The Center for National Security Studies said it might even be read to permit video surveillance without a warrant.

This is a dishonest measure, dishonestly presented, and Congress should reject it. Before making any new laws, Congress has to get to the truth about Mr. Bush's spying program. (When asked at a Senate hearing yesterday if Mr. Bush still claims to have the power to ignore FISA when he thinks it is necessary, Mr. McConnell refused to answer.)

With clear answers — rather than fearmongering and stonewalling — there can finally be a real debate about amending FISA. It's not clear whether that can happen under this president. Mr. Bush long ago lost all credibility in the area where this law lies: at the fulcrum of the balance between national security and civil liberties.
...

(Times editorial 5-2-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 12:32 PM

Four years to the day after President Bush made his now-infamous landing on the aircraft carrier, lawmakers observed the anniversary with the dignity Americans have come to expect of their leaders.

"Today is the fourth anniversary of the president of the United States announcing 'Mission Accomplished,' " Rep. Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.) proclaimed on the House floor. These days Bush "has been channeling Warren Zevon, who said, 'I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Send lawyers, guns and money,' " Cohen said, paraphrasing the rest just a little: " 'The Shiites have hit the fan.' "


All parties in Washington had their goals for yesterday's remembrance of that day back in 2003, when an unduly optimistic Bush donned a flight suit and stood beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The Democrats' objective: Draw attention to their efforts to end the Iraq war by forcing Bush to veto their legislation on the awkward anniversary. The result: Mission Accomplished.

The Republicans' objective: Complain about the Democrats' cheap political stunt at their own cut-rate political event. The result: Mission Accomplished.

Bush's goal: Make the bad memory go away. The result: Well, two out of three ain't bad. ...

(WaPo, 5-2-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 12:59 PM

Also from WaPo, an interesting editorial column concerning the observation that there was never any due deliberation about pros and cons in the ramp up to war in Iraq. An excerpt:

"No Doubts, Then and Now

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, April 30, 2007; 2:28 PM

As President Bush drove the country to what has turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq, did he ever have any doubts about whether it was the right call? Did he ever even consider there might be another way?

The new book by former CIA director George Tenet adds more evidence to the conclusion that once the president's mind was made up, there was no looking back. Inside the White House, the only debate about the war would appear to have been about how to sell it.

The administration's response to this latest charge has been angry -- yet vague. Bush's defenders are still unable to offer up one concrete piece of evidence suggesting that the costs that could (and would) be suffered by American troops and the Iraqi people weighed heavily enough upon the president that he ever seriously questioned his initial decision.

Credibility is Bush's biggest problem these days across the board, whether it's related to his continued assertions about progress in Iraq, his stealthy transformation of the tools of government to partisan purposes, or the trustworthiness of his top aides.

So his certainty about something that went so wrong is not ancient history. It's context.

"

Details and particulars at above link.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:04 PM

Tara wrote:
The majority of Americans honestly have absolutley no clue what is really going on in Iraq and why exactly our troops are there. The middle East has been at war over religion for hundreds of years; obviously if they haven't been able to solve it on their own to this day, they most likely never will be. That is where America steps in. If we want to remain the leading country, we have to do just that: LEAD the world! And that involves taking risks and spending large amounts of money and risking the lives of incredibly brave soldiers to help out another country that is in desperate need. Americans are so wrapped up in themselves and too worried about gas prices increasing by one dollar when there are MUCH bigger issues at hand going on the world. We are the richest country and naturally the most selfish country. Our poorest communities don't even come close to comparing to the poverty in entire COUNTRIES in the middle east. Their women are treated like slaves and their children are raised at the age of 4 to be martyrs! How can our country prosper when the entire world is at stake??? Everyone has this false hatred for Bush, but when you ask them why they hate him, they have no substantial supporting reasons; they are just basing their opinion off of what the majority of the nation thinks. Everyone thinks we are in Iraq for the oil, but that is not entirely true. Bush has to tell white lies; just like every normal president does. He has to say things in order to obtain support from the people with the money. And the only way he will get financial backing from those people is if they are under the impression that they are going to get something out of it. So yes, maybe we are there for some oil; but Bush's main goal is to first establish a democracy and liberate the women and children so that in the future, we will never have to fear another terrorist attack like 9/11. My parents were frustrating me the other day because they were complaining about the rising costs of gas in the U.S. and they were blaiming everything on Bush and saying how terrible of a President he is, so I had to bring them back to reality. I said to them, "Listen to yourselves! You have three cars, a beautiful home with no mortgage payment, a brand new trailer, a huge back yard, vacations, steady jobs, substantial income, freedom, laughter, love, and all you can moan about is gas prices????" I told them exactly what I am writing to all of those reading this blog! WAKE UP AMERICA! There are way more important issues at hand going on in the world! If we vote for a president that plans to pull out of Iraq, we are in for some hell for the next 4 years or longer! I am not by any means fond of Bush, but we need to give him a break and a little credit sometimes. He has had to lead a nation through some of its toughest times in our nation's history - Hurricane Katrina, Tsunami, 9/11, the world hating him, etc. He can't please everyone; no one can. He has his downfalls, but one thing I am sure of as an American citizen is that we NEED to be in Iraq and the minute we pull our troops out and scratch this whole plan, we are doomed. It will just open the door for more terrorist attacks. So please, I hope that you do some solid research before you make your vote for 2008.

One more thing I wanted to point out is that everyone hates Bush; but the same was the case with Lincoln, and yet today, he is considered one of the best and most influential presidents in US History! At the time of his presidency, Americans hated him for wanted to abolish slavery, but of course now he is a hero and changed the entire world! Maybe 20 years from now, Americans will look back and regret their hatred for Bush and think of him as a hero for his relentless efforts to liberate Iraq and the Middle East!

--Tara
05/02/2007 10:52:28

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:11 AM

Ah -- it's been liberation on his mind all along, has it? Well, he made his goal to liberate Iraq from Saddam and the Baathists. About two years a go. So everything since then has been "leadership"?

Dear lord, spare me from such leadership.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:30 AM

Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Unpopular Iraq compromise looms over congressional Democrats
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior Democratic sources tell CNN that Democratic congressional leaders realize they must drop a timeline for troop withdrawal from an Iraq war spending bill, and that doing so will cost the votes of several anti-war lawmakers.

Congress passed the $124 billion spending bill last week which would have removed most U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008 at the latest, but President Bush vetoed the measure Tuesday.

Democratic leaders find themselves in a bind because they have repeatedly promised not to cut funding for troops already in harm's way, but they realize that doing so requires sending the president a bill that he will sign by the end of the month. Sources say the leaders know full well that that means they cannot send the president another war funding bill with troop withdrawal language.

The sources also say that Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are aware that they will anger their base in the short-term and that a significant number of Democratic legislators will refuse to support a compromise war funding bill that does not include a troop withdrawal plan.

In an effort to calm the outrage among many in their caucus, Democratic leaders are already promising to take up the fight again soon as part of the defense authorization and appropriation bills.

-- CNN Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

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

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:40 AM

'Loss' in Iraq and the Arkin Plan

Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry M. Reid's plan is no way to end the war.

"...Reid decries the current course in Iraq and the prospect of "endless war" under the Bush plan while offering a long list of military adventures and confrontations -- "the challenges we face" -- that he prefers to Iraq: increasing the U.S. force size in Afghanistan, defeating al Qaeda (somewhere else), confronting Iran, intervening in Darfur, addressing Venezuela and even Russia.

Somehow, Reid says, his plan "prevents the jihadists from being able to claim victory over America, and begins to restore America's prestige, power and influence in the region."

He defines a responsible end as one that "protects our strategic interests, strengthens our security, and brings our troops home."

To bolster his position, Reid refers to various "facts on the ground."

"There is no evidence that the escalation is working," Reid says.

But what if there was? Is Reid saying that he could be convinced otherwise? Is he playing a game with his rhetoric?

At the risk of provoking the true Bush haters out there, there isn't a doubt in my mind that everyone, Dick Cheney included wants to bring the Iraq war to what Reid calls a "responsible" end.

Reid's plan sounds to me an awful like the Bush plan. The differences are the embrace of loss and the timetable for withdrawal. The foreign policy blather of some alternative world after removal of combat troops is merely window-dressing for the agenda of withdrawal. And the compromises conceding an ongoing American counter-terrorism and training mission in Iraq could justify pretty much all of what we WERE doing in Iraq before.

In the end, the Reid plan makes no sense as an intellectual articulation of U.S. withdrawal...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:50 AM

The Democrats' Gonzales

"...Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502407.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:19 AM

From a Times oped:

...Even if perjury were not a felony, lying to Congress has always been understood to be an impeachable offense. As James Iredell, later a Supreme Court justice, said in 1788 during the debate over the impeachment clause, "The president must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate." The same is true of the president's appointees.

The president may yet yield and send Mr. Gonzales packing. If not, Democrats may decide that to impeach Alberto Gonzales would be politically unwise. But before dismissing the possibility of impeachment, Congress should recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man. The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases and, when called to account, send an attorney general of the United States to Capitol Hill to commit amnesia on its behalf.

Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:31 AM

Readers write to the TImes from all over:

To the Editor:

As President Bush signed his second veto, you note another seven "Names of the Dead," for a total of 3,344. How many more brave men and women must die before the president and his Congressional allies finally realize that having no exit strategy and no firm benchmarks is the real "prescription for chaos and confusion" in Iraq that marks the ultimate failure of the administration?

The president's continued insistence on a blank check for financing the war after four years is itself completely "irresponsible" and totally unacceptable.

Paul M. Wortman
Setauket, N.Y., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

The president complains that Congress is trying to do his job as military commander in chief for him. If this upsets him, he should do his job himself, and offer well-defined goals for Iraq with specific target dates.

Setting a timeline with clear goals is not "artificial." It is leadership.

Paul Cantrell
Minneapolis, May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

So the president signs his order using a pen given to him by the father of a fallen marine. How facile this vainglorious White House is, putting evocative symbols before the public, trading on Americans' politeness and compassion — and how utterly shameless and hypocritical.

Whether it's posing next to a disabled veteran, a widowed spouse, a disaster victim, a ghetto child, a senior or the bereft parents of a soldier killed in his still-inexplicable failing vanity war in Iraq, President Bush puts form over substance every time. He has served none of the victims with whom he purports to grieve and pray. His obliviousness is the stuff of deposed kings.

Mark Miller
Los Angeles, May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

President Bush defended his veto of the Iraq war spending bill on Tuesday by stating that commanders in Iraq should not be taking "fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C."

Has the president forgotten that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he is also a politician in Washington, D.C., giving fighting directions to commanders in Iraq 6,000 miles away?

Civilian control of our military is one of the most firmly embedded traditions of our democratic system. And civilian control has always meant control by politicians in Washington, in most cases far from the front lines.

The problem with President Bush's current position is that he is shirking his responsibilities as commander in chief. Whether President Bush likes it or not, the decision of whether our country should continue the current campaign in Iraq is not and should not be with the commanders in Iraq. That decision rests quite properly with politicians in Washington.

Jorge L. Baron
Seattle, May 2, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 07 - 12:36 PM

from the Washington Post:

The Road to a GOP House

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A25

Tom Cole earned a PhD in British history from the University of Oklahoma, intending to become a college professor, but he came to his senses and to a zest for politics, and now, in just his third term in the House of Representatives, he is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. As such, he is charged with recruiting the candidates and honing the tactics that will transform Speaker Nancy Pelosi back into House minority leader. "We are looking," says Cole, speaking unminced words about the Republican Party, "like a beaten-down stock." Nevertheless, he is sanguine regarding 2008: "The positioning is good for us" because "we don't have to conquer new territory, we have to reclaim old territory."

That is, 61 Democrats represent districts that George W. Bush carried in 2004. A 16-seat gain in 2008 would restore Republican control to the House.

Consider the Second Congressional District in Kansas. Jim Ryun held the seat easily for five terms. In 2006, he lost to Nancy Boyda, who won with just 50.6 percent. In 2008, President Bush will not be, as he was in 2006, a burden at the top of the ticket. And Kansas's popular Republican senator, Pat Roberts, will be on the ticket. And Kansas's popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who helped Democrats down the ballot in 2006, will be in the middle of her second term.

Might Democrats gain some seats they nearly won in 2006 -- for example, the then-open Chicago area seat previously held for 16 terms by Republican Henry Hyde? The Democrats' novice candidate, Tammy Duckworth, who lost both legs in the Iraq war, got 48.65 percent against Republican Peter Roskam. Cole says he hopes the Democrats will throw resources at that seat because they will be wasting dollars, given that they could not win it as an open seat. He is too polite to add that they could not win it with Bush as a weight in Republican saddles.

Although Cole is playing to win, and expects to win, in 2008, retaking the House may be, he says, "a two-step dance for us." He thinks Republicans have a good chance of winning control even if they do not win the White House. He notes that after Republicans lost 48 House seats in 1958, they gained 21 seats in 1960, when John Kennedy was narrowly elected president. And if Republicans do not win control of the House in 2008 and a Democrat is elected president, they have a really excellent chance of capturing the House in 2010, because the party that wins the presidency usually loses House seats in the next midterm election.

Cole wishes he "could make every [Republican] donor watch C-SPAN," to see what House Democrats are doing. He can't, but he savors such attention-riveting events as Pelosi's trip to Syria, which he thinks was so "wonderful" for Republicans that he would gladly finance a trip by her to Iran.

The last time House Republicans suffered a defeat as large as they did in 2006 (30 seats lost) was in the 1974 post-Watergate election (48 seats lost). That was the year their third-ranking leader was born -- Florida's Adam Putnam, the House Republican Conference chairman.

Still, Democrats have their smallest House majority since 1955. And Republicans still hold 10 more seats than they did at their peak during Ronald Reagan's presidency. This, in spite of the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and his winning margin of 2.5 points in 2004 was the smallest in history for a reelected president.

Cole is planning as though Republicans will have to retake the House the unusual way they did in 1994 -- forming a majority without the help of a Republican president and perhaps without much help from the Republican presidential candidate. Because perhaps 21 states are going to hold presidential primaries on Feb. 5, 2008, some states that "we are not going to carry" in the 2008 presidential election (he does not list any, but surely he has in mind such states as Illinois and New York) are going to be important in selecting the Republican nominee.

But Republican House candidates may get considerable help from the Democrats' presidential candidate. Cole thinks that Democrats, who he says have more litmus tests for their presidential candidates than Republicans do, are so convinced that they are going to win the White House, they are not resisting what they enjoy surrendering to -- the tug from the party's left.

Americans seem to like the government at least somewhat divided. They are apt to have that for a while.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:32 PM

Seems to me that he'd be better off preparing a huge reform campaign to oust corruption and undo the moral turpitude that has characterized so many of the Republican principals and their cronies. Something about their approach to getting things done inevitably leads them to the sewer.

Maybe its the fanatacism, or the practiced ignoral and lack of compassion, or the carefully sequestered and compartmented sense of responsibility, that drives them to act so weird. I dunno. But this partisan saber-rattling is not what the nation needs right now.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:16 PM

"But this partisan saber-rattling is not what the nation needs right now."

As opposed to the Democratic saber-rattling? Or your own, as seen by the majority of posts here?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:36 PM

I have condemned a lot of things in my posts, here, Bruice, which struck me as stupid, destructive or inhumane.

But I have no saber to rattle, and if the Republicans proposed to the Democrats some sort of bilateral, rational discourse to jointly revitalize the ideals and heal the bruised sanity of the nation, I'd be completely behind it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:01 PM

Amos: Why don't you get together with al-Qaeda and end the war bilaterally? And make sure you go unarmed. You don't want them to perceive you as a threat, just a nice guy who wnats peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:44 PM

Revenue Blow Out

The U.S. Treasury Department reported a gusher of tax revenue last week. Tuesday alone, the Treasury received $48.7 billion from individual taxpayers as their final tax payment for 2006, an all-time single-day record, and one-third higher than the same day last year.

Based on information available through Friday, we estimate federal receipts at about $390 billion in April. This would be the largest tax take for any month in American history, up 25% versus last April, and up 18% versus the previous record high in April 2001.

With incomes and profits growing rapidly, the U.S. budget deficit will fall to about $145 billion during the twelve months ending in April. To put this in perspective, the deficit was $455 billion as recently as three years ago (the twelve months through April 2004).}
the rest

Apparently the administration is doing something right.

The deficit problem is not in the collection of taxes, it is in CONGRESS. Since the dems have taken over congress, have the earmarks subsided? I think not!!

It is damn easy to spend money that is not your own. Especially when these jerks are competition to see who can spend the most.
It does not matter if it is a republican or democrat,both with fiddle while entitlement dollars creep higher and higher.
Do even one of the so called "PUBLIC SERVANTS" GIVE A DAMN?
We need a few honest folks in congress.We need the reincarnation of folks like Sen.Proxmire that will expose congress for what it really is...

http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&convId=199652

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:48 PM

"...Our deficit projections show that the US is slightly ahead of the actual 1990s deficit path. In 1996 – almost six years into recovery – the deficit was still 1.4% of GDP. The first surplus arrived in 1998. We expect the deficit to be just under 1% of GDP for Fiscal 2007 (almost six years into the recovery), with surpluses arriving in 2009 or earlier.

As in the 1990s, revenue is being lifted by a productivity-driven surge in incomes, profits, and rising equity prices. As people earn higher incomes, a larger share of their income gets taxed at higher marginal rates – a tax hike without new legislation. Those who argued that the tax cuts in 2001-03 would create deficits as far as the eye could see are being proven wrong. And, unlike the 1990s, the budget will be balanced without the help of a post-Cold War "peace dividend."..."

http://www.ftportfolios.com/Common/research/economicresearch-317.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:36 PM

Mebbe 'tis so. and mebbe not, Dickey. But taking too steps backl and then one forward is not a good definition of progress.

If it turns out to be true, well and good. Huzzah, even.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:55 AM

Rewriting History

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

George Tenet has a very mixed legacy. On the one hand, he presided over the two biggest intelligence failures of this era -- Sept. 11 and the WMD debacle in Iraq. On the other hand, his CIA did devise and carry out brilliantly an astonishingly bold plan to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Tenet might have just left it at that, gone home with his Presidential Medal of Freedom and let history judge him.

Instead, he's decided to do some judging of his own. In his just-released book, and while hawking it on television, Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on going to war, slam dunk or not.

Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example: "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."

Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, " Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent" -- and he was not one of them. That in a post-Sept. 11 world, we cannot wait for tyrants and terrorists to gentlemanly declare their intentions. Indeed, elsewhere in the book Tenet concedes that very point: "It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise."

Tenet also makes what he thinks is the damning and sensational charge that the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, had been focusing on Iraq even before Sept. 11. In fact, he reports, Cheney asked for a CIA briefing on Iraq for the president even before they had been sworn in.

This is odd? This is news? For the entire decade following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the single greatest threat in the region and therefore the most important focus of U.S. policy. U.N. resolutions, congressional debates and foreign policy arguments were seized with the Iraq question and its many post-Gulf War complications -- the weapons of mass destruction, the inspection regimes, the cease-fire violations, the no-fly zones, the progressive weakening of sanctions.

Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Bill Clinton ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD installations that lasted four days. This was less than two years before Bush won the presidency. Is it odd that the administration following Clinton's should share its extreme concern about Iraq and its weapons?

Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent past. One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories) about the Iraq war -- that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a small band of neoconservatives -- also lives blissfully detached from history.

The decision to go to war was made by a war cabinet consisting of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. No one in that room could even remotely be considered a neoconservative. Nor could the most important non-American supporter of the war to this day -- Tony Blair, father of new Labor.

The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely "realist." On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd-- voted yes.

Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neoconservative Weekly Standard but -- to select almost randomly -- the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the center-right Economist. Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum -- from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan. And the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."

Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 08:41 PM

ANopen letter from the Campaign to Defend the Constitution:

"Yesterday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that promises to extend protection from violent or discriminatory acts of hate to gay and lesbian Americans.

In a shocking turn of events, even for this administration, President Bush has threatened to veto this anti-hate bill. With the overwhelming congressional and public support for this legislation, many are asking who the President could possibly be serving with such a commitment; the answer unfortunately is the religious right.

Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 19841, Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is "contrary to our heritage and our values,"2 and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, "there's a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian - if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality - you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime."3

Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?

This notion is preposterous and simply goes to show just how out of touch the religious right is, not only with real American values, but with mainstream Christian values as well.

While most Americans see the religious right's campaign for what it is -- an attempt to make gay and lesbian Americans second class citizens -- their bigoted views have found audience with at least one man, President Bush."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 07 - 08:51 PM

Like King Canute, George W. Bush stands on the shore and orders the tide to recede.

Didn't work then. Won't work now.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 07 - 10:31 PM

I INDICT YOU! You know who you are.

I listened to the actual neocons, war contractors and PNAC think tank people in the same room, what I heard was an amazing pattern of congratulating each other on what they perceived to be the "strength" in which something was said
AND NEVER QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF WHAT IS SAID

After someone said something, you heard a quick "that was strong" or "yes that had power", when in fact what was said was nonsense in the light of cultural understanding, historic fact and common sense.

After listening for 10 minutes, a voice inside me said "everything these guys have learned, they learned in junior high school".



It makes me terribly sad to see how this country is controlled by shallow egos, shallow thinkers and shallow ethics.

It makes me angry that a arch criminal like Ossama bin Laden can see the predictable cowboy mentality of our administration and manipulate our "leaders" with a prophetic clarity of thought and systematically bankrupt and isolate the United States of America.

Any numbers of people on this forum know this to be true. We knew this to be true 6 years ago.



Now we are being told that we acted with the best of intentions or that mistakes were made but "we must deal with where we are now"

They were either cowards or active war criminals then, and they are cowards and war criminals to this day.

We began this fiasco touting 21st century weapons of surgical precision guided by satellites in space...

and now we use 1st century walls and medieval torture.

We drive young men around until they get blown up so that we can locate the enemy.

We all know this.

Some of us know the real threat to national security is the coming global warming droughts, floods, famines, fires and a frozen Europe who will evacuate to the south.

What is our civilized response to these events?

Our response is similar to the war criminals.

We are cowards and criminally negligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:14 AM

From CNet.com:

"MONTREAL -- President Bush is backing a proposed law that would pull the plug on lawsuits alleging telephone companies illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency in its warrantless wiretap program.

We've written about this before, such as when the House Judiciary committee approved the measure last year as part of a bill to rework the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

At the time, last September, one backer of the measure said it would effectively "eliminate the 60 or more lawsuits filed because companies complied with government orders," such as the one brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T. Rep. Chris Cannon, the amendment's sponsor, said that without such protection in place, "an individual or company will be reluctant to cooperate with any government authorized surveillance program, which will severely undercut government's efforts (to prevent terrorist attacks)."

But it's worth noting again now for two main reasons. First, EFF's lawsuit is at a crucial stage right now before the 9th Circuit, as EFF attorney Lee Tien described at the 2007 Computers Freedom and Privacy conference here on Thursday afternoon. Second, the bill is back in play this year and now's the time to pay attention to it again...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:48 AM

Budget deficit in '07 could dip to $150-billion

By TIMES WIRES Published May 5, 2007

The federal budget deficit could go as low as $150-billion [near the 1995 level] this year, congressional analysts said Friday. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had earlier seen a deficit for 2007 of about $200-billion, but continued strong revenue growth has led the CBO to lower its estimates. The CBO's estimate is necessarily imprecise since Congress and President Bush are wrestling over a $124-billion Iraq war funding bill [containing $20B of pork]. The CBO says the deficit might still reach $200 billion, though recent trends suggest a lower figure. Impressive tax receipts during the April filing season prompted the more optimistic estimates. This year's April receipts ran $70-billion higher than last year. Through the first seven months of the budget year, which ends Sept. 30, the government has posted an $83-billion deficit, about $100-million less than during a comparable period last fiscal year. The government registered a $248-billion deficit in 2006...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 02:33 PM

Nice, if true. Wonder when all this affluence is going to trickle down to the folks who foot the bills?

"While the White House and Democratic congressional leaders try to reach a compromise on supplemental Iraq War funding, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has shown no signs of slowing her attacks on President Bush.

Appearing in Chicago Friday at Rep. Jan Schakowsky's "Ultimate Women's Power Lunch," a fundraiser hosted by the North Shore Democratic congresswoman at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, Pelosi called the war "the biggest ethical issue facing our country."

Pelosi questioned whether it was ethical to send troops into war "under a false pretense without a strategy for success," without proper equipment and training and without "demanding accountability from the Iraqi government while we dishonored our commitment to our veterans here at home."

"In the elections, when the American people were calling for a new direction, the one place where they called for it in the clearest possible way was in the war in Iraq," Pelosi (D-Calif.) told an audience estimated at about 2,000 people. "They wanted the war to wind down," Pelosi said. "Instead, the president has escalated it. He has a tin ear in terms of listening to the people and a blind eye as to what is going on in Iraq."

Earlier, Pelosi defended Democrats from GOP criticism that their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental contained a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable that amounted to a script for insurgents or Al Qaeda to take over the country, creating new opportunities for terrorism.

"We'll fight terrorism," she said. "There is absolutely no question about the Democrats commitment to fighting terrorism."

Of warnings from the White House and Republicans that Al Qaeda is actively working in Iraq and threatening the country's stability, Pelosi said that Al Qaeda wasn't present before the U.S. invasion. She said Al Qaeda represents "a small percentage of the insurgents and militias and those who are fighting there.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:51 PM

Amos:

It is rather strange the way you accept you rhetoric laden (Moron in Chief, outright fiasco, fearmongering, stonewalling, pull the plug, tin ear, blind eye) postings without question but question the validity of anything to the contrary.

It is my understanding that truth does not need to be supported with rhetoric and namecalling.

"Your honor, this Moron in Chief created an outright fiasco with fearmongering and stonewalling. He pulls the plug on lawsuits, has a tin ear and a blind eye. It's obvious as a case of dripping clap on a priest"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 05:00 PM

I quite concur about the truth, Dickey. I plead guilty to having a certain amount of passion about Bush's lying, ignorant, uncurious and unintelligent management of his office, as well as a number of other moral lapses I believe far too serious to ignore in a post as consequential as his.

Sorry I am not dispassionate enough for you, but at least I am not being covert about it, like some folks are.

I have included many reports in this thread that were simply summations of fact, often to find them rejected because of something Bill Clinton said....the epitome of illogic. So it gets a bit trying after a while.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:08 AM

Speaking of truth, Mr Rich, Times columnist, has some remarks about the circle of blame now being danced by the power crowd on thehill:

"IF, as J.F.K. had it, victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan, the defeat in Iraq is the most pitiful orphan imaginable. Its parents have not only tossed it to the wolves but are also trying to pin its mutant DNA on any patsy they can find.

George Tenet is just the latest to join this blame game, which began more than three years ago when his fellow Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Tommy Franks told Bob Woodward that Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's intelligence bozo, was the "stupidest guy on the face of the earth" (that's the expurgated version). Last fall, Kenneth Adelman, the neocon cheerleader who foresaw a "cakewalk" in Iraq, told Vanity Fair that Mr. Tenet, General Franks and Paul Bremer were "three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots." Richard Perle chimed in that the "huge mistakes" were "not made by neoconservatives" and instead took a shot at President Bush. Ahmad Chalabi, the neocons' former darling, told Dexter Filkins of The Times "the real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz."

And of course nearly everyone blames Rumsfeld.

This would be a Three Stooges routine were there only three stooges. The good news is that Mr. Tenet's book rollout may be the last gasp of this farcical round robin of recrimination. Republicans and Democrats have at last found some common ground by condemning his effort to position himself as the war's innocent scapegoat. Some former C.I.A. colleagues are rougher still. Michael Scheuer, who ran the agency's bin Laden unit, has accused Mr. Tenet of lacking "the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss." Even after Mr. Tenet did leave office, he maintained a Robert McNamara silence until he cashed in.

Satisfying though it is to watch a circular firing squad of the war's enablers, unfinished business awaits. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the fourth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi "turning point" precipitated by "the emergence of a unity government." Since then, what's emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death toll. That's why Americans voted in November to get out.

The only White House figure to take any responsibility for the fiasco is the former Bush-Cheney pollster Matthew Dowd, who in March expressed remorse for furthering a war he now deems a mistake. For his belated act of conscience, he was promptly patronized as an incipient basket case by an administration flack, who attributed Mr. Dowd's defection to "personal turmoil." If that is what this vicious gang would do to a pollster, imagine what would befall Colin Powell if he spoke out. Nonetheless, Mr. Powell should summon the guts to do so. Until there is accountability for the major architects and perpetrators of the Iraq war, the quagmire will deepen. A tragedy of this scale demands a full accounting, not to mention a catharsis.

That accounting might well begin with Mr. Powell's successor, Condoleezza Rice. Of all the top-tier policy players who were beside the president and vice president at the war's creation, she is the highest still in power and still on the taxpayers' payroll. She is also the only one who can still get a free pass from the press. The current groupthink Beltway narrative has it that the secretary of state's recidivist foreign-policy realism and latent shuttle diplomacy have happily banished the Cheney-Rumsfeld cowboy arrogance that rode America into a ditch.

Thus Ms. Rice was dispatched to three Sunday shows last weekend to bat away Mr. Tenet's book before "60 Minutes" broadcast its interview with him that night. But in each appearance her statements raised more questions than they answered. She was persistently at odds with the record, not just the record as spun by Mr. Tenet but also the public record. She must be held to a higher standard — a k a the truth — before she too jumps ship.

It's now been nearly five years since Ms. Rice did her part to sell the Iraq war on a Sept. 8, 2002, Sunday show with her rendition of "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Yet there she was last Sunday on ABC, claiming that she never meant to imply then that Saddam was an imminent threat. "The question of imminence isn't whether or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow" is how she put it. In other words, she is still covering up the war's origins. On CBS's "Face the Nation," she claimed that intelligence errors before the war were "worldwide" even though the International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei publicly stated there was "no evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and even though Germany's intelligence service sent strenuous prewar warnings that the C.I.A.'s principal informant on Saddam's supposed biological weapons was a fraud.

Of the Sunday interviewers, it was George Stephanopoulos who went for the jugular by returning to that nonexistent uranium from Africa. He forced Ms. Rice to watch a clip of her appearance on his show in June 2003, when she claimed she did not know of any serious questions about the uranium evidence before the war. Then he came as close as any Sunday host ever has to calling a guest a liar. "But that statement wasn't true," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. Ms. Rice pleaded memory loss, but the facts remain. She received a memo raising serious questions about the uranium in October 2002, three months before the president included the infamous 16 words on the subject in his State of the Union address. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a phone call of warning from Mr. Tenet.

Apologists for Ms. Rice, particularly those in the press who are embarrassed by their own early cheerleading for the war, like to say that this is ancient history, just as they said of the C.I.A. leak case. We're all supposed to move on and just worry about what happens next. Try telling that to families whose children went to Iraq to stop Saddam's nukes. Besides, there's a continuum between past deceptions and present ones, as the secretary of state seamlessly demonstrated last Sunday.

On ABC, she pushed the administration's line portraying Iraq's current violence as a Qaeda plot hatched by the Samarra bombing of February 2006. But that Qaeda isn't the Qaeda of 9/11; it's a largely Iraqi group fighting on one side of a civil war. And by February 2006, sectarian violence had already been gathering steam for 15 months — in part because Ms. Rice and company ignored the genuine imminence of that civil war just as they had ignored the alarms about bin Laden's Qaeda in August 2001.

Ms. Rice's latest canard wasn't an improvisation; it was a scripted set-up for the president's outrageous statement three days later. "The decision we face in Iraq," Mr. Bush said Wednesday, "is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11." Such statements about the present in Iraq are no less deceptive — and no less damaging to our national interest — than the lies about uranium and Qaeda- 9/11 connections told in 2002-3. This country needs facts, not fiction, to make its decisions about the endgame of the war, just as it needed (but didn't get) facts when we went to war in the first place. To settle for less is to make the same tragic error twice.

That Ms. Rice feels scant responsibility for any of this was evident in her repeated assertions on Sunday that all the questions about prewar intelligence had been answered by the Robb-Silberman and Senate committee inquiries, neither of which even addressed how the administration used the intelligence it received. Now she risks being held in contempt of Congress by ducking a subpoena authorized by the House's Oversight Committee, whose chairman, Henry Waxman, has been trying to get direct answers from her about the uranium hoax since 2003.

...

No wonder the most galling part of Ms. Rice's Sunday spin was her aside to Wolf Blitzer that she would get around to reflecting on these issues "when I have a chance to write my book." Another book! As long as American troops are dying in Iraq, the secretary of state has an obligation to answer questions about how they got there and why they stay. If accountability is ever to begin, it would be best if those questions are answered not on "60 Minutes" but under oath."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:25 AM

Nor does the Times lighten the pressure on the Gonzales scandal:

"New reports of possible malfeasance keep coming fast and furious. They all seem to make it more likely than ever that the firings were part of an attempt to turn the Justice Department into a partisan political operation. There is, to start, the very strong appearance that United States attorneys were fired because they were investigating powerful Republicans or refused to bring baseless charges against Democrats. There is reason to believe that Carol Lam of San Diego, who put Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman, in jail, and Paul Charlton of Arizona, who was investigating Representative Rick Renzi, among others, were fired simply for their nonpartisan pursuit of justice.

The Justice Department opened an internal investigation last week into whether Monica Goodling, a former senior adviser to Mr. Gonzales, applied a political screen to applicants for assistant United States attorney positions. That kind of political test would violate department policy, and possibly the law. Ms. Goodling, who has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, was also a key player in the United States attorney firings.

The National Journal brought to light an "internal order" in which Mr. Gonzales gave Ms. Goodling and his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, the power to hire and fire many of the department's top officials. His willingness to hand this authority off to two young, highly political staff members is further evidence that partisanship and not professionalism was the driving force in hiring and firing.

More testimony has also emerged that undermines the department's weak claim that the prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. James Comey, who was deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005, told a House committee last week that all but one of the prosecutors were worthy of remaining in office. He called Ms. Lam "a fine U.S. attorney" and Mr. Charlton "one of the best."

Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Sampson and the others have given so many conflicting, barely credible stories for the firings that it is impossible not to suspect a cover-up. Some of the fired prosecutors strengthened that impression last week in written statements to Congress, in which they described being pressured by Michael Elston, an aide to the deputy attorney general, not to talk about their dismissals. John McKay, of Seattle, said his impression was that "Mr. Elston's tone was sinister" and that he was "prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal."

...Ms. Lam said that she was given just weeks to pack up, and that Justice Department officials told her that her dismissal came "from the very highest levels of the government."

It is long past time for President Bush to fire Mr. Gonzales. But Congress, especially the Republicans who have dared confront the White House on this issue, should not be satisfied with that. There are strong indications that the purge was ordered out of the White House, involving at the very least the former counsel, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove.

It is the duty of Congress to compel them and other officials to finally tell the truth to the American people."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:31 AM

In an interesting counterpoint, Frederick Kagan details the progress occurring in Iraq . AMong other things, he says:

"The strategy now under way in Iraq — we are providing an increased number of American forces, working closely with Iraqi troops, to establish and maintain security in Baghdad as a precondition for political, economic and social progress — will change the situation in Iraq significantly, whether or not it succeeds in its aims.

In fact, it has already done so, and for the better: the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has apparently fled to Iran; American and Iraqi forces have killed or captured more than 700 key leaders and allies of his Mahdi Army, causing the movement to fragment; sectarian killings in Baghdad in April were about one-third of the level in December."

Fair and balanced, that's us... :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:42 AM

An excerpt from a review of Ronald Reagan's recently released diaries from his years in the White House:

"The lasting spellbinder proves to be Reagan the speech maker, not the diarist. "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," he once declared, setting one of the worshiped pillars of Reaganism. It was a facile turn of rhetoric that has so sadly been turned into fact by this administration."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 09:49 AM

"as J.F.K. had it," Foul! Out of bounds! This is ancient history and does not have any bearing on the present state of affairs according to the Amos rules of debate.

Chapter 3, page 14 "Nothing that was done by a previous adminstration has any bearing on the horrible things that are being done by this administration."

Exception #1 "If history supports arguments against the current administration, it is allowable."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:30 AM

Objection overruled. The excerpt provides a current comment on the current view of the present administration, and is therefore germane and within bounds.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 12:35 PM

Bob Woodward gives an interesting review of Tenet's accounts of recent history recently published in Tenet's "Reaping the Whirlwind". Special focus is, of course, on the Cheney/Bush distortions and the decision to go to war.

Tenet does not believe the decision for war on Iraq predated 2003, which I find ingenuous, but I wasn;t there, either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:41 AM

Overruled because of Exception #1 "If history supports arguments against the current administration, it is allowable."

The inherant double standard, not written into the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:59 AM

Wrong. Read the post again.



A

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

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert writes that Paul Rieckhoff believes that "part of the problem is that too many civilians have little or no understanding of what war is really like, and of the toll it takes beyond the obvious toll of the dead and wounded."

I would suggest that a great deal of the problem is that those who took us to war in Iraq — President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest — have little or no understanding of what war is really like. That is at least part of the disconnect.

If our "leaders" are oblivious to the real human cost of war, how can we expect ordinary citizens (who have no relatives or friends fighting this war) to be engaged?

Barbara B. Gilbert
Diamondhead, Miss., May 3, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert's column made for difficult, sad reading. The disillusionment of one articulate veteran in his book, "Chasing Ghosts, " speaks for many in the armed forces who do not understand our society's ignorance of what their brutal role in Iraq has been.

What is difficult for all of us to realize is that the war was a wrong, misguided undertaking from the start. What is sad is that idealistic young men and women who wanted to serve their country with honor are caught in the quagmire.

A majority of Americans now realize our country's tragic mistake. What are our veterans to think?

Martha G. Little
Baltimore, May 3, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:05 AM

Lambs of mercy sakes, when God tells people what to do it's our job to get out of the way or get in line and do the lords will.

Criticizing the lords messenger is as bad as questioning your faith.
They don't have Nixon to kick around anymore so they are picking on George.
Now for those who bash Bush, my dear, how can we judge lest we be judged ourselves? And if you were to be judged it is clear you will be cast into the lake of fire. You will have plenty of company like members of the World Court.

Oh my goodness gracious our lord and leader doesn't have a quit bone in his body. He is a straight shooter like his vice president and will not quit until God's work is done.

Who wants our lord to quit? oh I don't know, could it be SATAN?

Raise my rent and sack my museum, I don't for the life of me know how anyone can condemn our President.
Do you have a long lens of history?
I didn't think so.

If we knew what we didn't know now but knew what we didn't know that we were going to know tomorrow, we could count our blessings that God has told our strong leader what to do and tell us what our opinion should be.

So cheer up neighborlydidoo, there is no need to make things more complicated than they are...

It's simply God's will

and he has plans for you.

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

Awesome! Inspiring!! I swan, Mister Donuel, you gonna make a BLEEFER outta me!!


A

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

A train of thought:

One could ask, my feather-headed friend, for an honest, forthright President who lived within and under the law, sought prosperity, avoided violence except as a last resort, lead by example rather than by decree, protected and defended the Constitution rather than an elite base, and considered truth to be senior to political slickness.

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.

during WWII FDR 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.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:48 PM

Dear Dickey:

You have to get over this. When I said FDR had some virtues, that did not state that he had all of them. When I described an ideal candidate, I did not say FDR had all those qualities. Finally, for you to compare the situational values of WW II with Bush's invasion of Iraq is disingenuous in the extreme, and lacks merit.

If you continue to rebut things that have not been said and attack positions no-one has actually taken, you will fly in smaller and smaller circles until you disappear.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 01:16 PM

In other words, nobody can fit your idealistic expectations of a president.


Does the magnitude of a war indicate the level of "spying" a president can use?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 02:03 PM

By definition, ideal descriptions are ideal. Doh!

I would say it certainly does, apropros of your second question. If MCKinley had tried Bushian incursions on civil liberties during the Spansih American war he would have been impeached, Willie Randolph Hearst or no Willie Randolph Hearst, I suspect. Especially since Congress has not declared war in the present instance, merely abdicated its reserved right to do so in a pusillanimous "authority to use force" without bounds or limits, driven by a false scenario and panic-mongering by Rice, Cheney, Bush and their gang.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 03:24 PM

One soldier's perspective.


A

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

Amos: Would you like sonme examples of "panic-mongering" by other members of the government who agreed with the administration, voted for the war and are now backpedaling and scapegoating the administration?

You don't have to look far. Mr Tenet receltly said he did say "it was a slam dunk". But he weasles out of any responsibilty for making that statement by saying it was not "pivotal" in the decision to go to war like the administration tried to claim. I don't recall any such claim by the administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:54 AM

Dickey:

Let's talk about responsibility. The signature on the martching orders, the promoition of links between All Qeda and Iraq where none existed, the insistence on imminent threat, the announcement of the false datum about Niger's uranium, and a thousand other little pellets of piss-poor political propoganda came directly from the leadership and management of the Bush adminitration. To do this they repeatedly had to ignore data, ignore reason, override the voices of others trying to point out errors, and accuse of disloyalty anyone who quesitoned their irrationality.

They never came up with a straight story, they never spoke honestly and plainly, and they spun everything that came their way to support warmongering.

The amount of sheer brazen misdirection and distortion that came through thier media pipeling boggles the imagination.

And they have only made the skimpiest acknowledgement of the errors and lies, never owned up or apologiuzed for anything, and kept right on running and lying.

There are two threads of this title alone, which point to many of these affronts.

There are a dozen others as well, and in those threads are pointers to a hundred links with scores of pages documenting these points.

If you cannot studyt these things for yourself, don't ask someone else to do your homework for you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:00 AM

Excerpt from some remarks on Condolezza :

"It's now been nearly five years since Ms. Rice did her part to sell the Iraq war on a Sept. 8, 2002, Sunday show with her rendition of "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Yet there she was last Sunday on ABC, claiming that she never meant to imply then that Saddam was an imminent threat. "The question of imminence isn't whether or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow" is how she put it. In other words, she is still covering up the war's origins. On CBS's "Face the Nation," she claimed that intelligence errors before the war were "worldwide" even though the International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei publicly stated there was "no evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and even though Germany's intelligence service sent strenuous prewar warnings that the C.I.A.'s principal informant on Saddam's supposed biological weapons was a fraud.

Of the Sunday interviewers, it was George Stephanopoulos who went for the jugular by returning to that nonexistent uranium from Africa. He forced Ms. Rice to watch a clip of her appearance on his show in June 2003, when she claimed she did not know of any serious questions about the uranium evidence before the war. Then he came as close as any Sunday host ever has to calling a guest a liar. "But that statement wasn't true," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. Ms. Rice pleaded memory loss, but the facts remain. She received a memo raising serious questions about the uranium in October 2002, three months before the president included the infamous 16 words on the subject in his State of the Union address. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a phone call of warning from Mr. Tenet.

Apologists for Ms. Rice, particularly those in the press who are embarrassed by their own early cheerleading for the war, like to say that this is ancient history, just as they said of the C.I.A. leak case. We're all supposed to move on and just worry about what happens next. Try telling that to families whose children went to Iraq to stop Saddam's nukes. Besides, there's a continuum between past deceptions and present ones, as the secretary of state seamlessly demonstrated last Sunday.

On ABC, she pushed the administration's line portraying Iraq's current violence as a Qaeda plot hatched by the Samarra bombing of February 2006. But that Qaeda isn't the Qaeda of 9/11; it's a largely Iraqi group fighting on one side of a civil war. And by February 2006, sectarian violence had already been gathering steam for 15 months — in part because Ms. Rice and company ignored the genuine imminence of that civil war just as they had ignored the alarms about bin Laden's Qaeda in August 2001.

Ms. Rice's latest canard wasn't an improvisation; it was a scripted set-up for the president's outrageous statement three days later. "The decision we face in Iraq," Mr. Bush said Wednesday, "is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11." Such statements about the present in Iraq are no less deceptive — and no less damaging to our national interest — than the lies about uranium and Qaeda- 9/11 connections told in 2002-3. This country needs facts, not fiction, to make its decisions about the endgame of the war, just as it needed (but didn't get) facts when we went to war in the first place. To settle for less is to make the same tragic error twice.

That Ms. Rice feels scant responsibility for any of this was evident in her repeated assertions on Sunday that all the questions about prewar intelligence had been answered by the Robb-Silberman and Senate committee inquiries, neither of which even addressed how the administration used the intelligence it received. Now she risks being held in contempt of Congress by ducking a subpoena authorized by the House's Oversight Committee, whose chairman, Henry Waxman, has been trying to get direct answers from her about the uranium hoax since 2003.

Ms. Rice is stonewalling his investigation by rambling on about separation of powers and claiming she answered all relevant questions in writing, to Senator Carl Levin, during her confirmation to the cabinet in January 2005. If former or incumbent national security advisers like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski could testify before Congress without defiling the Constitution, so can she. As for her answers to Senator Levin's questions, five of eight were pure Alberto Gonzales: she either didn't recall or didn't know.

No wonder the most galling part of Ms. Rice's Sunday spin was her aside to Wolf Blitzer that she would get around to reflecting on these issues "when I have a chance to write my book." Another book! As long as American troops are dying in Iraq, the secretary of state has an obligation to answer questions about how they got there and why they stay. If accountability is ever to begin, it would be best if those questions are answered not on "60 Minutes" but under oath."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:36 AM

Is Bill Clinton an apologist?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:57 AM

Just goes to show ya, D -- he's a heap more gentleman, IMHO, than Bush will ever be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:10 AM

dear dickey dickey dickey


Bill Clinton has a penis. There were news conferences and news releases regarding his penis based upon the observations of the white house physician during a physical exam. IT was reported to be normal.

There has been no mention or evidence of George Bush's penis.

EVER!

Unlike Dick Cheney, the cut of Geroge Jr's pants reveals nothing.

From W's behavior he does seem to be trying to over compensate for either a teeny weeny or no dick at all.

oooo he calls himself the war prisident, the decider, the commander guy and dresses up in uniforms. Methinks he is trying to prove he has balls even if he has a small penis and brain to match.

George is a dickless wonder and a puppet to the worst coup to occur in this country since FDR and the assasination of JFK.



so put up or shut up. Before you invoke even one more blame against Bill, prove that George has a dick Dickey.


ps
25 year old twins don't count, a needle can perform that trick.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:22 AM

The case of the missing presidential penis.

This is a case for Dickey or McGruff.

I bet McGruff solves this mysterious disappearence first.



Exactly why did W never shower with the other soldiers in the National Guard?

Was he AWOL?

or just too embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:14 PM

Donuel: Why are you so interested in dicks?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:55 PM

One might ask the RNC the same question, Sir Dick.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:15 PM

Remember the male prostitute (blogger journalist) granted full access to the W White House?

Remember Ted Haggert's weekly meetings with the White House?

Doesn't Rove look a little swishy to you?

Haven't you thought George wears to many mountain cowboy hats and clears a bit too much brush?

Ever seen Bohemian Grove?

These guys can't reach across the aisle but they sure can reach around.

W never looks happier than when he is with Tony.

Yeah 5 million missing emails but George never emails. I bet those missing emails would make Mark Foley look like a saint.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 02:04 AM

A lesson in history, from the NY Times:

"May 7, 2007, 6:36 pm
The Peace Presidents

By Jean Edward Smith

On Feb. 8, 2004, George W. Bush proudly proclaimed to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," "I am a war president." Like an 8-year-old playing with toy soldiers, Bush, an Air National Guard dropout, looked at war with vicarious enthusiasm. Contrast the attitude of the nation's "peace presidents" – supreme commanders who led the nation to victory in the greatest wars the country faced: men who had experienced the grim reality of battle and wanted no part of it.

Ulysses S. Grant condemned war as "the most destructive and unsavory activity of mankind." Surveying the carnage at Fort Donelson during the Civil War, he told an aide, "this work is part of the devil that is left in us."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, another former general, was equally outspoken: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, as only one who has seen its brutality, its futility and stupidity…. War settles nothing."

Both Grant and Eisenhower were elected with expectations that they would put a victorious end to conflicts in which the country was then engaged. Both presidents did end the fighting. But not in ways that their bellicose supporters anticipated. ...

..."In 1956, when Britain, France and Israel colluded to invade Egypt, Eisenhower forced them to withdraw, toppling Anthony Eden's government in London and threatening financial reprisals against Israel. That repudiation of what Ike called "old fashioned gunboat diplomacy" not only kept the peace but enhanced American prestige throughout the world.

George Bush and the neocons have no monopoly on glorifying military adventure. Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's secretary of state, caused General Colin Powell a case of near cardiac arrest when she asked at a meeting of the National Security Council, "Why do we have an Army if we are not willing to use it?"

War is not an instrument of policy. It is an act of desperation. "Any course short of national humiliation or national destruction is better than war," Grant told Prince Kung of China in 1879. "War itself is so great a calamity that it should only be invoked when there is no way of saving a nation from a greater [one].""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 10:01 AM

The Democrats' Pledge

(NYT Editorial)

Published: May 9, 2007
Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation's history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation's justice system and global image.

But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.

Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.

President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.

But let's be clear. There is nothing "conservative" or "tough on terrorism" in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda's propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.

Consider some of the other wild-eyed liberals calling on Congress to restore habeas corpus: William Sessions, director of the F.B.I. under the first President Bush; David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union; the National Association of Evangelicals; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, founded by the Rev. Billy Graham; a long list of other evangelical leaders and scholars; and nearly two dozen sitting and retired federal judges.

...The Democratic majority has a long list of wrongs to right from six years of Mr. Bush's leadership. We are sympathetic to their concerns about finding a way to revive habeas corpus that won't die in committee or be subject to a presidential veto of a larger bill. But lawmakers sometimes have to stand on principle and trust the voters to understand.

This is one of those times."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 08:19 PM

IF the State of the Union was re-written for complete honesty, it might sound like this. :D

(Youtube link).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 01:19 AM

Bush Told War Is Harming The GOP
A Warning on Eve Of Vote on New Bill
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 10, 2007; Page A01

"House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

The meeting, which ran for an hour and a half Tuesday afternoon, was disclosed by participants yesterday as the House prepared to vote this evening on a spending bill that could cut funding for the Iraq war as early as July. GOP moderates told Bush they would stay united against the latest effort by House Democrats to end U.S. involvement in the war. Even Senate Democrats called the House measure unrealistic.

But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate "Tuesday Group," included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).

"It was a very remarkable, candid conversation," Davis said. "People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 09:24 AM

"As the United States attorney scandal grows, so does the number of prosecutors who seem to have been pushed out for partisan political reasons. Another highly suspicious case has emerged in the appointment of Bradley Schlozman, a controversial elections lawyer, to replace a respected United States attorney in Missouri. From the facts available, it looks like a main reason for installing Mr. Schlozman was to help Republicans win a pivotal Missouri Senate race"...

Another slice of immorality from the Gonzalez wing. Story here (NY Times).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American soldiers are pawns for the politcal ambitions of Democrats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something I recommend.

A

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

We need to "use this" for political purposes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Quinn & Rose XM Radio

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

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

A

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

From the Washington Post:

How the CIA Failed America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times editorializes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chase Chiasson
Boston, May 4, 2007

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

NEW talking points: benchmarks good . Democrats bad.


Bush says he was for BENCHMARKS ALL ALONG.



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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq Leaders Plead for Congress' Support


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dickey:

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

A

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

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

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

A Feeble Performance
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

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

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

Full article here.


A

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

Well, well, well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

B~

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

Bobert:

Hope is good. Defeatisim is bad.

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

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

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

NEW talking points: benchmarks good . Democrats bad.

Bush says he was for BENCHMARKS ALL ALONG.

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

What lies where?

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


By Joseph Curl
The Washington Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mouth service is different from walking the damned walk.


A

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

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

by Dave Lindorff    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




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

What a pathetic joke!



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endless war has become the modus operandi of this administration.

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

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

Nobody in America should either."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush Actions Recall History's Tyrants


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

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


A

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

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

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

---

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

A

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

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

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

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

Heroes And Cowards
By ALICIA COLON
February 20, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope.


A

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

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

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

---

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Some public comments:


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

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

I weep for our Republic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take your time Amos.

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

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

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

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


A

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

I answered your question Amos, but you dodged mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article here (Subscription).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dickey:

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:54 PM

"The women of CodePink are calling for "a Mother of a March" today. Their plan is to surround the Congress in the spirit of anti-war activist, Julia Ward Howe, who in the 1870s, exhorted women to "Say firmly: 'We will not have questions decided by irrelevant agencies." Howe was the founder of Mother's Day.

No doubt the CodePinkers will be met, as protestors (especially women protestors) are usually met, with either silence or condescension. Establishmentarians don't like protestors behaving rudely and breaking up the consensus. Hush Hush they say. Don't be uppity.

The consensus the White House is trying to build right now is consensus around silence and waiting. As summer looms, we're entering the hushing season.

The White House's latest line is that only come September, will we know if the President's troop escalation strategy in Iraq is working. The only progress report that counts, they say, is the one that'll come from General David H. Petraeus, the new top commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, who, we're told will testify on Capitol Hill in September.

Well, the women of CodePink (like Howe before them,) aren't about to hush. And that's because the only the only thing that's certain about September is by then more US soldiers and Iraqi civilians will be dead or maimed, and by September the US presidential campaign will be in full swing, giving ample scope for the White House to dismiss critics and Congressional action as partisan stunts, or political theater.

Unlike the president, who I'm sure plans to take a long summer vacation, war and occupation don't take a break. The time to increase the pressure on W and his Congressional collaborators is now, because we're not in the thick of the 2008 campaign season. Now is the calm before 2008's storm. Now is when the Congress - in the first year of a two-year term – can most legitimately be expected to focus on governing rather than on getting themselves re-elected. Now, not September, is the time to draw the line.

Let's remember the un-hushable Howe: "From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own, it says, "Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."

...From The Nation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:04 PM

Amos thank you for chronicling our times with the examples of the best journalists of our time.

You rarely offer your fact based opinions but your opponent often offers his opinion based facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:35 PM

May 15, 2007 2:00 AM PDT

Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement

Posted by Declan McCullagh

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.

"To meet the global challenges of IP crime, our criminal laws must be kept updated," Gonzales said during a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy.

...

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place. The IPPA would eliminate that requirement. (The Justice Department's summary of the legislation says: "It is a general tenet of the criminal law that those who attempt to commit a crime but do not complete it are as morally culpable as those who succeed in doing so.")

* Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights.

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture has become popular among police agencies in drug cases as a way to gain additional revenue, and it is problematic and controversial.

* Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention regulations. Criminal violations are currently punished by jail times of up to 10 years and fines of up to $1 million. The IPPA would add forfeiture penalties.

* Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes. Certain copyright crimes currently require someone to commit the "distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of at least 10 copies" valued at more than $2,500. The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution.

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder, such as photographers, playwrights or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment.

A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America told us: "We appreciate the department's commitment to intellectual-property protection and look forward to working with both the department and Congress as the process moves ahead."

What's still unclear is the kind of reception this legislation might encounter on Capitol Hill. Gonzales may not be terribly popular, but Democrats do tend to be more closely aligned with Hollywood and the recording industry than is the GOP. (A few years ago, Republicans even savaged fellow conservatives for allying themselves too closely with copyright holders.)

On behalf of Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Judiciary subcommittee that focuses on intellectual property, a representative said the congressman is reviewing proposals from the attorney general and others. The aide said the Hollywood politician plans to introduce his own intellectual-property enforcement bill later this year but that his office is not prepared to discuss any details yet.

One key Republican was less guarded. "We are reviewing (the attorney general's) proposal. Any plan to stop IP theft will benefit the economy and the American worker," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary committee. "I applaud the attorney general for recognizing the need to protect intellectual property."

Still, it's too early to tell what might happen. A similar copyright bill that Smith, the RIAA and the Software and Information Industry Association enthusiastically supported last April never went anywhere.

From here.

---

The breathtaking stupidity and destructiveness of Bush's Bully Boys gets more wild with every passing month. Making a crime carrying life imprisonment for an attempt at somthing -- even if it were something grossly harmful -- would by itself be a wrenching violation of our traditions. It imposes on jury and judge, by implication, the task of interpreting an individual's state of mind to a degree to which no human can routinely succeed. It violates the much deeper and more important evidentiary principle of demonstrating guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

As such it is, legalistically speaking, cheap trash.

But it makes the Bizheads and the RIAA puppies happy, I guess. Heckuva job, Gonzo!


A

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

:examples of the best journalists of our time"


Posted by: Nellie

Posted by: braultrl

Posted by Declan McCullagh

Declan McCullagh is a photographer who lives and works in San Francisco, California

The Christian Science Monitor reports: Christian Science is a group that does not believe in medical treatment which results in the unnecessary death of children.

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) Offical news paper of Louis Farrakahn's Nation of Islam. Farrakhan's bigoted and anti-Semitic rhetoric has included statements calling whites "blue eyed devils" and Jews "bloodsuckers" that controlled the slave trade

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

I am delighted to see one of the usual critics of the Bush Administration go to some trouble to point out the positive aspects of George's work:

"As Paul Wolfowitz is to the World Bank, the U.S. is becoming to the world.

We should look at the battle unfolding at the World Bank not as the story of one man falling to earth, but as a moral tale of the risks the U.S. faces unless the Bush administration spends more time rebuilding bridges it has burned all over the world.

Mr. Wolfowitz genuinely aspired to help Africa develop, but he ended up isolated, friendless and vulnerable; receiving no credit for his genuine accomplishments; and unable to make progress on the issues he cares about. And the U.S. is in a similar position today.

The similarity arises in part because although President Bush's best-known role has been as a conservative hawk — and everything he has done in that role has been a disaster — he has also aspired to fight poverty and help Africa. And Mr. Bush has genuinely scored some major accomplishments as a humanitarian.

O.K., pick yourself off the floor: It's true. In the world of foreign aid, Mr. Bush has done better than almost anyone realizes — or gives him credit for. It's his only significant positive legacy, and it consists of four elements.

First and most important, Mr. Bush started Pepfar, his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in Africa — the best single thing he has done in his life. It's a huge increase over earlier programs and will save more than 9 million lives. Granted, it has been too ideological about promoting "abstinence only" programs, but at the grass-roots level it is increasingly pragmatic (don't tell the White House, but the U.S. still gives out far more condoms than any other country).

Second, Mr. Bush started a major new foreign aid program, the millennium challenge account. This involves giving large sums to countries selected for their good governance and from top to bottom reflects smart new approaches to foreign aid.

Third, the Bush administration elevated sex trafficking on the international agenda. Mr. Bush spoke about it to the U.N., and he appointed a first-rate ambassador for the issue, John Miller, who until his resignation late last year hectored and sanctioned foreign countries into curbing this form of modern slavery. (Alas, since Mr. Miller left, the administration's anti-trafficking efforts have faltered.)

Fourth, Mr. Bush has begun to focus attention and funds on malaria, which kills more than 1 million people a year in poor countries and imposes a huge economic burden on Africa in particular.

So why doesn't Mr. Bush get any credit for these achievements? Partly, I think, because he never seems very interested in them himself. And partly because, like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bush's approach to governing is to circle the wagons rather than build coalitions; they both antagonize fence-sitters by coming across as unilateralist, sanctimonious, arrogant and incompetent.

In December, the White House held an event to call attention to malaria. But Mr. Bush's staff barred me from attending: They apparently didn't want coverage of malaria if it came from a columnist they didn't like.

I can't recall an administration as suspicious and partisan as this one, one so disinclined to outreach, one that so openly adheres to the ancient Roman maxim of Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate, so long as they fear.

So Mr. Bush, unwilling to concede any error, unwilling to reach out, unwilling to shuffle his cabinet, staggers on. And the U.S. itself has been tainted by the same haughtiness; long after Mr. Wolfowitz has gone, and even after Mr. Bush has gone, the next president will have to detoxify our relations with the rest of the world.

Moreover, even in those areas where Mr. Bush has done well, like foreign aid, our strained relations with the rest of the world have undermined our ability to succeed. Indeed, Bill Clinton (who wasn't nearly as generous with foreign aid as Mr. Bush when he was in the White House) has shown in recent years how much can be accomplished when a leader cooperates with partners on issues like AIDS and development. If Mr. Clinton were pursuing Mr. Bush's development agenda, it would be in a flurry of meetings and visits and multilateralism that would be far more effective in seeing that agenda put in place.

But instead the international stage is riven in ways that mirror the World Bank itself. And it looks as if we're drifting toward the end of a failed presidency of the United States that parallels Mr. Wolfowitz's failed presidency of the World Bank."

---

Sorry about the long quote -- links won't work as it is a subscription piece, by Nicholas Kristov.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:37 AM

new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement


Gasp, I foresee dozens of screen writers being rounded up and taken to jail for thinking about doing a remake of a past movie or TV series.   The Dukes of Hazzard movie writers should be first to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:38 AM

"There were many fascinating threads to the testimony on Tuesday by the former deputy attorney general, James Comey, who described the night in March 2004 when two top White House officials tried to pressure an ailing and hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft into endorsing President Bush's illegal wiretapping operation.

But the really big question, an urgent avenue for investigation, is what exactly the National Security Agency was doing before that night, under Mr. Bush's personal orders. Did Mr. Bush start by authorizing the agency to intercept domestic e-mails and telephone calls without first getting a warrant?

Mr. Bush has acknowledged authorizing surveillance without a court order of communications between people abroad and people in the United States. That alone violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Domestic spying without a warrant would be an even more grievous offense.

The question cannot be answered because Mr. Bush is hiding so much about the program. But whatever was going on, it so alarmed Mr. Comey and F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller that they sped to the hospital, roused the barely conscious Mr. Ashcroft and got him ready to fend off the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, and Mr. Bush's counsel, Alberto Gonzales. There are clues in Mr. Comey's testimony and in earlier testimony by Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Ashcroft's successor, that suggest that Mr. Bush initially ordered broader surveillance than he and his aides have acknowledged. ...

Pressed by Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, Mr. Gonzales said Mr. Comey's concerns "dealt with operational capabilities" that were not part of the program Mr. Bush has acknowledged. Mr. Gonzales would not describe those capabilities, of course. Yesterday, Mr. Schumer wrote Mr. Gonzales and asked him to reconcile Mr. Comey's account with his own.

The Republican-controlled Congress did a disservice to the nation by refusing to hold Mr. Bush to account for the illegal wiretapping. The current Congress should resume a vigorous investigation of this egregious abuse of power
..."

---

This points up a clear and compelling basis for impeachment.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:51 AM

wire tap them all and let fearless leader sort them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:16 PM

From the well-known Wonkette blog,commenting on current turmoil at the even better known Free Republic (Freep) blog:

Members of Free Republic, the beloved wingnut online forum, have a message today for George W. Bush and his great new immigration plan for The Mexicans. They've got lots of messages, actually.

"We need to have a vote of 'no confidence' on Bush," wrote one commenter. "He just spoke and looked so proud of himself. He couldn't wipe that crappy grin off his face."

After the jump, we'll hear from some of the other hundreds of furious "freepers" who just figured out George W. Bush could give a shit what they think.:

dEPORT tHE pRESIDENT aND cLOSE tHE bORDERS.

---

We still have Tancredo, Hunter and Fred Thompson on our side. This bill wont go anywhere when our representatives start receiving our faxes

---

The rule of law has just been thrown out the window. I agree that impeachment is in order.
And the SELL OUT of the AMERICAN people begins!

---

Bring my Step-Son home from Iraq now El Presedente. You don't deserve his service.

---

Bush blasphemy! Shameful leader!

---

I'm done with him on this and many other issues. I'll never vote for him again. Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.

---

"BUSH SUCKS" And the leftists blogs are now PROUD of this fool! What a dichotomy.

---

I just said the same thing to my husband - my nephew has been ordered back for the second time after being home for only 10 months. I want them home now, why fight and die for this country of Mexico.

---

I just can't believe I worked so hard to get this man elected not once but twice. NEVER AGAIN - no more money and no more volunteer hours for the grand ole GOP

---

His brother Bill was the first black president, now we have the first Hispanic president.

---

The conservative movement has now been set adrift….like so much jetsam. Our champion has become our betrayer, IMHO.

---

My husband just recently retired and we where planning on going back to Texas but we are now seriously considering Australia. It looks better and better each minute. Our kids want to leave also !!! And you are right, we have been betrayed.

---

An thus the united States of America is being sold out by those that claim to love her. May they rot before they die. I see the end of my great nation, the shining star in a morass of mediocre to outright scum countries.

---

This is what happens when you kill 40 million unborn US citizens.

---

I pray he gets IMPEACHED. This is a dark day in America.

---

I have long thought that BJBilly was the worst president in history, now I am not so sure………..At least Clinton stuck to BJs instead of trying to f*ck the entire country, like Jorge.

---

Apparently the basis of all this rancour is a recent development in the immigration law dialogue:

"Senate, White House agree on a compromise immigration bill
By Dave Montgomery

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - Ending three months of closed-door deliberations, Senate negotiators unveiled a massive immigration bill Thursday that would enable more than 12 million illegal immigrants to step out from their shadow existence to live and work in the United States legally.

The bipartisan bill, which includes a temporary guest-worker program and an employee verification system that ultimately would affect all employers and U.S. workers, now heads toward an uncertain outcome in the Senate, which is scheduled to begin debate on the measure late Monday afternoon.

"I don't care how you to try to spin it, this is amnesty," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., echoing the central opposition theme that began befalling the bill even before it was officially released."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:25 PM

Wolfowitz has been forced out of office at the World Bank. For an interesting summary of the rise and fall of the bright star of Shaha Riza, his long-term POSLQ, see this write-up in Salon. Very interesting stuff.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:36 PM

Senate passed non-binding resolution calling for Iraq funding
by Brendan McKenna
May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Senate found something its members could agree on Wednesday: U.S. troops need more money to support their efforts in Iraq and they should get it before the end of the month.

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., introduced a non-binding amendment to a water projects bill expressing the "sense of the Senate" that Congress should send President Bush a war spending bill that he can sign into law no later than May 28.

The amendment was passed on a voice vote after an 87 to 9 vote to cut off debate on the matter – far more than the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. The underlying bill, authorizing roughly 600 federal projects, eventually passed 91 to 4.


http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=36581

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:51 AM

"Rose Garden Charade
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: May 18, 2007
Confronted with soaring gasoline prices, a Congress growing more restless by the day about oil dependency and a Supreme Court demanding executive action on global warming emissions, President Bush stepped before the cameras in the Rose Garden the other day and said, essentially, nothing.

He announced that he had ordered four federal agencies to "work together" to devise regulations reducing greenhouse gases. He also renewed his call for greater investments in alternative fuels. But neither he nor the cadre of designated briefers who followed him provided any detail, so nobody knows whether he will in fact end up asking for more efficient cars or what sort of alternative fuels he has in mind or, more broadly, what sort of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions he hopes to achieve.

What we did learn was that he has chosen to make the process as cumbersome and time-consuming as possible. We also learned that nothing concrete will happen until the regulatory process is completed at the end of 2008 — a mere three weeks before Mr. Bush walks out the White House door. As Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, aptly noted, this "will leave motor vehicle fuel economy stuck in neutral until Bush's successor takes office."

This is, in short, yet another of Mr. Bush's faith-based energy strategies, in which the operative words are "trust me." The White House says that good regulations need time to develop. That is true, but we would be more inclined to cut Mr. Bush some slack if not for the fact that speedier routes are readily available.

For one thing, he could have simplified matters by letting the Environmental Protection Agency run the whole regulatory show, which is what the Supreme Court had in mind. He could also have ordered the E.P.A. to grant California the permission it has been seeking for more than two years to impose its own emissions standards on cars and light trucks, which it can do under the Clean Air Act once it gets a federal waiver. But the automakers desperately do not want California or the 11 other states that plan to imitate California to get that authority, and Mr. Bush is obviously in no hurry to grant it.

What we are seeing is the obligatory response of a president who finds himself boxed into a corner by Congress and the court and forced to appear to be doing something. At bottom, his administration doubts the urgency of the climate change issue and remains deeply averse to mandates and regulatory timetables."


(Times editorial, 5-17-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 09:48 AM

The Icing Is Iglesias
His firing is reason alone for Congress to impeach Gonzales.
By Frank Bowman
Posted Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 6:18 PM ET


"Congress could and should impeach Alberto Gonzales. One ground for doing so, as I have previously suggested (subscription required), is the attorney general's amnesiac prevarication in his testimony before the Senate and the House. But if Congress wants more, it need look no further than the firing of David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico. The evidence uncovered in Gonzales' Senate and House testimony demonstrates that he fired Iglesias not because of a policy disagreement or a management failure, but because Iglesias would not misuse the power of the Department of Justice in the service of the Republican Party. To fire a U.S. attorney for refusing to abuse his power is the essence of an impeachable offense. (...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:22 AM

Paul Krugman remearks:

"Mr. Bush got us into the Iraq quagmire by conflating Saddam with Al Qaeda, treating two mutually hostile groups as if they constituted a single enemy. Well, Mr. Romney offers more of that. "There is a global jihadist effort," he warned in the second debate. "And they've come together as Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda with that intent." Aren't Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, not coming together? Nevermind.

What about the administration's state of denial over Iraq, its unwillingness to face up to reality? None of the leading G.O.P. presidential contenders seem any different — certainly not Mr. McCain, who strolled through a Baghdad marketplace wearing a bulletproof vest, accompanied by more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees while attack helicopters flew overhead, then declared that his experience proved there are parts of Baghdad where you can "walk freely."

Finally, what about the Bush administration's trademark incompetence? In appointing unqualified loyalists to key positions, Mr. Bush was just following the advice of the Heritage Foundation, which urged him back in 2001 to "make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second." And the base doesn't mind: the Bernie Kerik affair — Mr. Giuliani's attempt to get his corrupt, possibly mob-connected business partner appointed to head the department of homeland security — hasn't kept Mr. Giuliani from becoming the apparent front-runner for the Republican nomination.

What we need to realize is that the infamous "Bush bubble," the administration's no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there's a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job — and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:30 AM

A Letter to the Editor of the Times:

"...I, for one, have a great mistrust of the conservative movement, Republican Revolution, or whatever you want to call it. Not because I lean more independent/liberal, but because conservatives have been anything but truthful. President Bush claimed to be a compassionate conservative and a uniter; he turned out to be divisive, incompetent and uncaring.

The far right has promoted an aggressive policy of forcing democracy on other nations and using force instead of diplomacy, much to the detriment of the world. The depth of hypocrisy and corruption in the Republican Party is in stark contrast to the Republican claim of bringing honesty and integrity to government after the Clinton era.

The Republicans have acted exactly the opposite of their claims of honesty and integrity. Time has shown that those claims were just words with no substance. It's going to take more than a policy shift for me to believe that the Republican Party is acting in our country's best interests.
Portland, Ore., May 15, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:41 AM

The New York Times, in its editorial page, has some pointed remarks about the Bush administration's lust for corporate privelege:

"Appointed Hobblers of Government

Published: May 18, 2007

Across six years, the Bush administration has mocked all standards of conflict of interest by choosing private industry zealots for high regulatory posts — where they worked to roll back hundreds of rules on transportation, workplace and mine safety, the environment and other issues. The latest in this subversive chain must surely take the fox-in-the-henhouse statuette: President Bush has nominated Michael Baroody, lobbyist for the powerful National Association of Manufacturers, to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If approved by the Senate, Mr. Baroody would be in charge of regulating corporate members of his association that have run up millions of dollars in civil fines for violating the commission's safety rules affecting millions of consumers.

As if the White House's colossal sellout to business power was not evident enough, Mr. Baroody's executive friends at N.A.M. are sending him off with a lucrative forget-me-not — a $150,000 severance payment. Compensation experts find this extraordinary for someone supposedly volunteering for government service in behalf of taxpayers.
..."

Full article here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 11:02 AM

Bush as lord and president is wavering.
Like the disappearing support of Ted Haggert, George will be forgotten by many Chritians who thought they were in holy hands but now walk away mumbling they hate the sin but love the sinner.

Yet I suspect there are plans for an evangelical inquisition to avenge the suffering of George W Bush at the hands of non believers.
People of faith will root out those who tried to destroy George.


Yes an army of God will begin to target individuals with far more firepower than slander.


Sometimes I muse that Islam is undergoing their version of the Catholic Inqusition. It is horrid to remember that the Christian Inquisition lasted about 400 years. It is even more revolting to realize that an Islamic Inquisition now includes nuclear weapons.


I do not intend that the Catholic Inquistiion tortured and killed only Jews. The Inquisition morphed to include the murder of Lutherans and the growing protestants that railed against the Holy Roman Christian Church. The Holy Inquision did their wrok hand in hand with the authoirty of the State. It was a religious state with royal kings and queens who did whatever evil the church decreed but on paper the ruling family was a secular power.

Every religion creates an offshoot with a new twist that grows out of an existing religion. Usually the mother religion is villified by the new offshoot. Today the Protestants are beng absorbed by the evangelicals...just as christians grew out of Judaism.

The media and politicaly driven evangelicals as created by Jerry Falwell, and even earlier Billy Graham, differ with fundamentalists who want to recede from the corrupt media worldliness.

I am seeing how certain evangelicals are just a cunt hair away from becoming an organized violent army ready to kill for their gospel of hate.
Instead of Jews as their target it will be homosexuals, but when Jews object they too will become evangelical targets. They will not call their acts terrorism a holy war like Muslims use the word jihad, but rather a new rightiously clean term will be invented. Right now they are using "God's Soldiers" for the kids who go to Jesus Camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:53 PM

First of all I do not know what to make of the link below.
IT seems too impossible to be true but as they say truth is stranger than fiction.


This historical research is presented in a rather suspenseful way

however

this is probably the most bizarre explanation of who W's grandfather really was. The claim is that the original family name was Schref.

Since I think mostly in pictures, I see this as a most entertaining spy movie in black and white with excellent science fiction political intrigue.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 07 - 09:40 AM

The Justice Department is no ordinary agency. Its 93 United States attorney offices, scattered across the country, prosecute federal crimes ranging from public corruption to terrorism. These prosecutors have enormous power: they can wiretap people's homes, seize property and put people in jail for life. They can destroy businesses, and affect the outcomes of elections. It has always been understood that although they are appointed by a president, usually from his own party, once in office they must operate in a nonpartisan way, and be insulated from outside pressures.

This understanding has badly broken down. It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so. The firing offenses of the nine prosecutors who were purged last year were that they would not indict Democrats, they investigated important Republicans, or they would not try to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups with baseless election fraud cases.

The degree of partisanship in the department is shocking. A study by two professors, Donald Shields of the University of Missouri at St. Louis and John Cragan of Illinois State University, found that the Bush Justice DepartmeThe Justice Department is no ordinary agency. Its 93 United States attorney offices, scattered across the country, prosecute federal crimes ranging from public corruption to terrorism. These prosecutors have enormous power: they can wiretap people's homes, seize property and put people in jail for life. They can destroy businesses, and affect the outcomes of elections. It has always been understood that although they are appointed by a president, usually from his own party, once in office they must operate in a nonpartisan way, and be insulated from outside pressures.

This understanding has badly broken down. It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so. The firing offenses of the nine prosecutors who were purged last year were that they would not indict Democrats, they investigated important Republicans, or they would not try to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups with baseless election fraud cases.

The degree of partisanship in the department is shocking. A study by two professors, Donald Shields of the University of Missouri at St. Louis and John Cragan of Illinois State University, found that the Bush Justice Department has investigated Democratic officeholders and office seekers about four times as often as Republican ones.

It is hard not to see the fingerprints of Karl Rove. A disproportionate number of the prosecutors pushed out, or considered for dismissal, were in swing states. The main reason for the purge — apart from hobbling a California investigation that has already put one Republican congressman in jail — appears to have been an attempt to tip states like Missouri and Washington to Republican candidates for House, Senate, governor and president.

nt has investigated Democratic officeholders and office seekers about four times as often as Republican ones.

It is hard not to see the fingerprints of Karl Rove. A disproportionate number of the prosecutors pushed out, or considered for dismissal, were in swing states. The main reason for the purge — apart from hobbling a California investigation that has already put one Republican congressman in jail — appears to have been an attempt to tip states like Missouri and Washington to Republican candidates for House, Senate, governor and president.

From a NY Times editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 07 - 10:08 AM

Carter: Bush administration "worst in history"
17:07' 21/05/2007 (GMT+7)

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has lashed out at George W. Bush's presidency, calling his administration "the worst in history" in international relations.


"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," said Carter in an interview with The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette released Saturday.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2002 came down hard on the Iraq war, saying Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies."

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said.

Carter criticized Bush for having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other presidents.

The White House declined to comment on Saturday, but on Sunday fired back.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

Carter has been an outspoken critic of Bush, but the White House has largely refrained from attacking him in return. Sunday's sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.

In a separate BBC interview Saturday, Carter also lashed out at British prime minister Tony Blair.

"Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient," Carter said when asked how he would characterize Blair's relationship with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 21 May 07 - 10:42 AM

The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry

by Steven F. Hayward

America's best ex-president? Only if you're not bothered by the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (which started on his watch), the shamefaced foreign policy of Bill Clinton and John Kerry (ditto), and think that ex-presidents should travel the world coddling dictators and bad-mouthing America à la Jesse Jackson.

Jimmy Carter has been given a free ride from the liberal media, liberal historians, and even the American people, who excuse his political delinquencies and disasters on the grounds that he is a "good" man. But as bank robber

Willie Sutton said of Carter: "I've never seen a bigger confidence man in my life, and I've been around some of the best in the business." It's time to set the record straight. Finally, an honest historian-Steven F. Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan-demolishes the myth of "Saint" Jimmy and exposes how he created today's leftist Democratic party of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Jimmy Carter's laundry list of failures aren't just accidents of history: They're rooted in Carter's deeply flawed character and ideology-a smugly pious arrogance matched with a profound distrust of America. The Real Jimmy Carter reveals:

• Carter as meddling ex-president: Why a Time magazine columnist wrote that some of Carter's "Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason"

• How Carter befriended North Korea during the Clinton administration, appeasing the communist regime and giving it cover for its nuclear weapons program

• How Carter made direct contacts with Soviet officials to try to subvert President Reagan's anti-communist policies

• The shocking extent of Carter's clandestine efforts to sabotage the first Gulf War in 1990 and how he used Gulf War II to publicly question the Christian faith of America's commander in chief

• How Carter befriended Yasir Arafat-making himself an enemy of Israel

• Carter as politician: a vicious campaigner-and even race-baiter

• The Carter White House during the disasters of the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua, the energy crisis and stagflation, the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and the invasion of Afghanistan

• How Carter, the failed president, remade himself as Carter the humanitarian and freelance foreign policy critic of America

• How a Nobel official inadvertently revealed that Carter's Nobel Prize was actually meant as a slap at America The Real Jimmy Carter is a shocker, showing why the peanut president should never have left his farm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 07 - 11:28 AM

Jaysus, Dickey, that's pretty mindless blathering, ya know. Its possible you don't notice the difference between the rhetorical invective of Hayward, and the rhetorical invective of Carter. Carter tells what he thinks and why he thinks it; Hayward resorts to innuendo and implication, using highly emotive words like treason and sweeping categorical propositions which are unprovable and histrionic.

If you really intend to lodge a charge of treason against Carter, could you find the moral courage to state your particulars? I would that make you look like an idiot?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 07 - 11:44 AM

An interesting segue:

"May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said remarks he made about Republican President George W. Bush's foreign policy were ``careless or misinterpreted.''

Carter, a Georgia Democrat, had previously called Bush's record on international relations ``the worst in history'' in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette published May 19.

``My remarks were maybe careless or misinterpreted, but I wasn't comparing the overall administration and I was certainly not talking personally about any president,'' the 39th president said in an interview on NBC's ``Today Show'' this morning.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said today that Carter's explanation ``highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words.'' Fratto spoke at a briefing in Crawford, Texas, where Bush stayed through the weekend.

Bush's policies represent an ``overt reversal of America's basic values'' as established by previous administrations, including those of his father, George H.W. Bush, and other Republican presidents, Carter had told the newspaper.

Carter, 82, said today his characterization of Bush's policies came in response to a question about former President Richard Nixon. ``This administration's foreign policy, compared to President Nixon's, was much worse,'' Carter said on NBC. ``I wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history but just with President Nixon's.''

Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, also said he's ``been very careful, and still am, not to criticize any president personally.'' "

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 04:24 AM

Amos:

You got it backward. Hayward was not deemed the worst president and trying to claim someone else is a worse president.
Carter is and he us dumping on GWB.

If you watched the news, Carter was backing off of his criticisim of Bush already.

But then, you would repeat what three year old or Howdy Doody said if it was negative.

Carter backs off criticism of Bush's administration, policy

May 21, 2007

ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA — Former President Jimmy Carter said today that his remarks about President George W. Bush's administration being the "worst in history" because of its impact around the world were "careless or misinterpreted."

Speaking on NBC's "Today," Carter appeared to retreat from a statement he made to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that said: "I think, as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." The comment was in a story published Saturday.

Carter said today that when he made the comment, he was responding to a question comparing the Bush administration's foreign policy to that of former President Richard Nixon.

"I think this administration's foreign policy compared to president Nixon's was much worse," Carter said. But he said he did not mean to call it the worst in history.

"No, that's not what I wanted to say. I wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 10:25 AM

"The administration's pursuit of unilateralism abroad, Mr. Gore says, has isolated the United States in an ever more dangerous world, even as its efforts to expand executive power at home and "relegate the Congress and the courts to the sidelines" have undermined the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The former vice president contends that the fiasco in Iraq stems from President Bush's use of "a counterfeit combination of misdirected vengeance and misguided dogma to dominate the national discussion, bypass reason, silence dissent and intimidate those who questioned his logic both inside and outside the administration."

He argues that the gruesome acts of torture committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq "were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity — encouraged, authorized and instituted" by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. And he writes that the violations of civil liberties committed by the Bush-Cheney administration — including its secret authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on calls and e-mail messages between the United States and other countries, and its suspension of the rights of due process for "enemy combatants" — demonstrate "a disrespect for America's Constitution that has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of democracy."

Similar charges have been made by a growing number of historians, political analysts and even former administration insiders, and President Bush's plummeting approval ratings have further emboldened his critics. But Mr. Gore writes not just as a former vice president and the man who won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but also as a possible future candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 race for the White House, and the vehemence of his language and his arguments make statements about the Bush administration by already announced candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton seem polite and mild-mannered in contrast.

And yet for all its sharply voiced opinions, "The Assault on Reason" turns out to be less a partisan, election-cycle harangue than a fiercely argued brief about the current Bush White House that is grounded in copiously footnoted citations from newspaper articles, Congressional testimony and commission reports — a brief that is as powerful in making its points about the implications of this administration's policies as the author's 2006 book, "An Inconvenient Truth," was in making its points about the fallout of global warming."

(Book Review from the NY Times, excerpted)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 10:55 AM

Dicky:

If you were not blinded by your fixed idea about my negativity you would have noticed that I added Carter's back-step to this thread five hours before youdid.

Sigh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 12:35 PM

May 22, 2007 11:51 a.m. EST


Shaveta Bansal - AHN Staff Writer
New York, NY (AHN) - The governors of California and Connecticut on Monday criticized the Bush administration for blocking their way to impose mandatory tailpipe emissions standards in their respective states and 10 other states that are poised to follow the league. The outrage comes a week after President Bush issued an executive order giving the federal agencies until 2008 to draft rules to cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The states have long demanded the federal government to give them permission to enact their own air pollution standards, but despite a Supreme Court ruling in April that considered carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants, President Bush sought some more time last week to deal with the demands from the states.

"Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way," Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post on Monday.

"To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable," they wrote.

Under the Clean Air Act, the states can enact their own air pollution standards, but for that they need to be exempted from federal laws by Environment Protection Agency.

Now California is seeking a waiver to curb emission from vehicles and EPA was scheduled to hold the first of two hearings on the waiver request on Tuesday, but in the Washington Post article, the governors expressed their fears that the agency may delay an action.

"If it fails to do so, we have an obligation to take legal action and settle this issue once and for all," they wrote....

From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 07 - 11:38 AM

May 24, 2007, 6:22 pm
Repairing the Damage Done
By Jules Witcover
WASHINGTON — More than three decades ago, Nixon White House Counsel John Dean called the Watergate cover-up "a cancer on the presidency." Another one exists today, posing a challenge for the next president to restore the office as a credible voice in foreign policy.

President Bush's detour in Iraq off the multilateral track adhered to throughout the Cold War years has caused a deep drop in American prestige abroad, requiring extensive repair by his successor regardless of which party wins in 2008.

While Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has been the immediate trigger for the decline of American influence, just as significant was his original failure to capitalize on the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to mobilize a truly collective global response.

The outpouring of empathy for the United States in the wake of those events was quickly short-circuited by the invasion. In diverting the American military from its legitimate focus against the real perpetrators of the attacks, Bush left the primary job undone in Afghanistan, in order to chase a more ambitious dream of superpower dominance.

A decade earlier, neoconservative theorists in the Republican Party saw in the collapse of the Soviet Union an invitation for America to assume a vastly more assertive, unilateral role in imposing its power and political ideology elsewhere.

Among these theorists at the Pentagon was Paul Wolfowitz, deputy undersecretary to Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who worried that with the demise of Soviet communism the strongest rationale for a muscular national defense was gone. Yet serious threats remained, from nuclear ambitions in North Korea and the determination in Iran and Iraq to assure control of their vast oil resources essential to American power. ..

---

The balance of this well-written essay can be found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 07 - 11:49 AM

George W. Bush to Replace Will Shortz as NYT Crossword Puzzle Editor

Posted by admin on 2007/5/16 12:16:20 (2126 reads)
By Ion Zwitter, Avant News Editor
New York and Washington, D.C., January 3, 2009
from Avant News

In a development that has surprised political pundits and puzzle enthusiasts alike, The New York Times announced today that President George W. Bush will be replacing retiring puzzle-master Will Shortz as the crossword puzzle editor for The New York Times.

Will Shortz, who has edited the famous New York Times crossword puzzle page since 1993, announced several months ago that he is "bored unto death with squares and letters. Across, down, X, Y, Z… who the hell cares?"

Upon his retirement, Mr. Shortz said he plans to fulfil a lifelong ambition to pursue a second career in marine biology with a special focus on the elusive Bent-billed sea snail.

"I've always been fascinated by the species, but never had the time to properly explore it," Mr. Shortz said. "Now's my chance to actually 'take the plunge', if you will."

President Bush, unbeknownst to most beltway observers, has long been an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast. A White House aide who asked not to be identified said Mr. Bush "never takes a powder-room break without his copy of the Dell E-Z Puzzles for Juniors book, which he's been working through for the past eight years, and a number two pencil with a big, fat eraser on the tip."

Milt Rafferty, associate arts and entertainment editor for The New York Times, said the news organization had begun considering an attempt to enlist Mr. Bush's services following the enormously popular public reaction to an earlier crossword puzzle edited by fellow enthusiast President Bill Clinton. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 07 - 11:56 AM

Accepting Bush as a monumental failure
May 23, 2007 - 7:23am.
Bush Leagues

Conservative Republicans finally realize they've been had

By MARTIN SCHRAM (Capitol Hill Blue)

Today we are news-trackers, hot on the trail of tomorrow's Page One, prime-time news.

And it appears that tomorrow's news may be a glimmer of good news at last for conservative Republicans who have been bitterly disappointed with what they concede, mostly in private, but occasionally in public, is the overwhelming failure of the Bush presidency: The misconduct of the Iraq war, a series of political and intelligence leadership blunders that has trapped America's brave, volunteer military in a combat mission that is not yet lost, but may never be won.

Evidence has surfaced, not on Page One or in prime time, but on page A15, the op-ed page of the May 22 edition of The Washington Post, that President Bush is reportedly working, belatedly but finally, to come up with a post-surge strategy, the so-called Plan B the administration hadn't gotten around to devising.

Post columnist David Ignatius, who is of the school that prefers hard reporting to soft punditry, wrote of this new development after talking with senior administration officials who now clearly want to get out the word that they have begun discussing what to do after the so-called surge of more than 20,000 combat troops. Soon the news will make its way to the 24/7 cable news. The surge was supposed to last just a few months, to see if it was possible to secure, at least, Baghdad.

Time-out: You are probably thinking that commons sense should have dictated that a Plan B had to be developed months, if not years. ago. You are of course right, but you are of course not president. The fact that Bush never ordered it has infuriated many former generals, conservative think-tank experts and members of Congress who supported Bush in two elections.

"The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available," Ignatius wrote. "The revamped policy, as outlined by senior administration officials, would be premised on the idea that, as the current surge of U.S. troops succeeds in reducing sectarian violence, America's role will be increasingly to help prepare the Iraqi military to take greater responsibility for securing the country."

Time-out Again: You are probably thinking that training Iraqi troops to take over was what we've been told was already America's main effort in Iraq. You are of course right, but by now you know that Page One and prime-time news scoops are not always all that new. Journalists are just pleased to have been leaked upon.

Balance of article here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 07 - 02:27 PM

NEW YORK When asked which Bush-administration official should be sacked next, Doonesbury.com visitors are opting for Karl Rove.

The online poll has drawn more than 3,400 votes so far, with Rove getting 53%, Alberto Gonzales 39%, and Paul Wolfowitz 7%. (The survey began before the news that Wolfowitz would leave the World Bank. After that, few people voted for the ousting of someone who was already leaving his post.)

Voters were given these descriptions with their three choices:

-- Wolfowitz. A blackmailer ("If they f--- with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to f--- them too") running the World Bank is a bad idea. As was his earlier contribution to the World -- the rationale for invading Iraq. The hubris train stops here.

-- Gonzales. His uber-loyalty to Dubya clearly outweighs his loyalty to the law, as the sickbed strong-arming of Ashcroft on illegal surveillance only clarifies. Wrong man, wrong job, right time to go.

-- Rove. Name a scandal -- from Plamegate to Attorneygate -- his prints are all over it. Come on Dubya, finish strong: You owe yourself 18 Svengali-free months.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 26 May 07 - 09:21 PM

Hey, let's quit pussy footing around here... It's all FDR's fault... It ain't Carter or Clinton's fault that the current administration is failing miserably... It FDR's... Dig the sumabitch up and drag his dead body thru the streets...

(But, Bobert, what about Taft???)

Well, okay, Taft made Bush attack Iraq!!! Dig him up, too, and drag his dead body thru the streets... No, no... Dig his body up and send it to the World Court...

(What World Court, Bobert??? Without the US signing on it has kinda fallen apart....)

Hmmmmmm???... Okay, here's me last idea... Dig all the sumabitchs up and put 'um on the carnival circuit... They could be propped up on them chairs above the dunking tanks and folks could pay 3 'er 5 bucks for 3 balls to throw at the target and dunk their most hated x-president... Heck, I'd prolly go broke trying to put Lincoln in the tank... But it'd be worth it...

Sho nuff would...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 07 - 09:26 AM

Today's New York Times opines:

"The Bush administration's never-ending push to turn federal agencies into favor-filled partisan clubhouses has just been confirmed in red-handed detail at the General Services Administration, the government's main housekeeping agency. Investigators found that Lurita Doan, the Bush appointee running the agency, violated the Hatch Act, which forbids federal workers from politicking on the job.

Last January, Ms. Doan summoned her assistants to a campaign strategy session run by Karl Rove's White House political operation. Tax-paid employees were treated to a PowerPoint briefing and slide show identifying Democrats marked as "2008 House Targets: Top 20." Witnesses recalled Ms. Doan asking the gathering how they could "help our candidates" with G.S.A. favors.

Like so many Bush appointees lately summoned to account by Congress, Ms. Doan repeatedly said she could not recall details of the meeting. In a bit of novelty, she claimed to be engrossed in reading her BlackBerry e-mail messages. Investigators of the United States Office of Special Counsel found no forensic evidence that she was using electronic devices during the meeting. Her other defense — that her accusers were poor-performing malcontents — was also found untrue, with several holding merit citations.

Ms. Doan promises to document errors in the scathing report, which was obtained by The Washington Post. But her credibility now stands as tattered as her memory. Her fate will be in President Bush's hands, who supposedly knows a slam dunk when he sees one. Ms. Doan should be dismissed for violating one of the most hallowed laws of fairness in government service. As for Mr. Rove, who has run this partisan traveling show through other federal agencies, this is only the latest abuse for which he needs to be brought fully and finally to account. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 07 - 01:12 PM

from the Washington Post:

Bush the Neoliberal

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; Page A13

Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.

You recoil, I know. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents, an advocate of limited government, minimal taxes and, when it comes to the quintessentially liberal concern with civil liberties, the man who gave us the twin black eyes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's an appalling record.

But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.

Now, though, not only are such calls no longer heard, but Bush has extended the department's reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act's details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek -- and it did.

Similarly, let's take a look at the much-mocked notion of diversity. Bill Clinton was widely berated for his effort to have an administration that looked like America -- women, African Americans, Hispanics, you name it. Whether by design or not, Bush has also managed that feat. A female education secretary is one thing, but a national security adviser -- the uber-macho post -- is something else, and that went first to Condi Rice. And over at Justice, Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, the son of Hispanic migrant workers and, incidentally, a lawyer with the singular gift of forgetting meetings he attended. (In private practice, did he forget to bill?)

I am not suggesting that any of these appointees -- including Bush's former White House counsel, Harriet Miers -- are what is pejoratively known as affirmative action hires. I am suggesting, though, that Bush has not only diversified his Cabinet and staff but obviously got enormous satisfaction in doing so. You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration -- another liberal sentiment -- or his frequent mention of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a "mushy-headed liberal."

Allow me to make the case that this is also true when it comes to Iraq. I acknowledge that the war is a catastrophic mistake and was incompetently managed. But if you don't think it was waged on behalf of oil or empire, then one reason for our involvement was an attempt to do some good -- rid the world of a really bad guy and make life better for Iraqis and others in the region. This "liberal" intent may have left Dick Cheney cold and found Don Rumsfeld indifferent, but it appealed to Bush and it showed in his rhetoric and body language. Contrast it to the position of the so-called foreign policy realists, exemplified by the first President Bush and his trusted foreign policy sidekick, Brent Scowcroft.

It was their decision -- cold realism at its best -- to end the Persian Gulf War with Saddam Hussein still in power and not to intervene when Hussein later decimated rebellious Shiites in the south. Realistic? Sure. But also sickening.

Bush's neoliberal instincts have come a cropper across the board. His appointees have too often been incompetent, and his well-intentioned education act is underfunded. But it is with Iraq that real and long-term damage has been done. For years to come, his war will be cited to smother any liberal impulse in American foreign policy -- to further discredit John F. Kennedy's vow to "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty." We shall revert to this thing called "realism," which is heartless and cynical, no matter what its other virtues. The debacle of Iraq has cost us -- and others -- plenty in lives. But in the end, it will cost us our soul as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 07 - 09:02 PM

Yeah, I read that one, too, bruce...

Interesting concept...

The problem I have with Cohen's proposition isn't as much about the folks that Bush has hired to do jobs that they couldn't perform as much as a couple he appointed who are beginning to reshape America in a not so neoliberal fashion: Alito and Roberts...

These guys are going to turn back the clock...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 10:54 AM

May 29, 2007, 6:32 pm (NY Times)
Chain Reactions
By Mark Buchanan

The political party that claimed it would restore "honor and dignity to the White House" has done nothing of the sort. Having on false pretenses led us into the disaster of Iraq, the administration and its supporters are now beginning – cravenly and shamefully – to shift blame onto the Iraqi people. The administration continues to hold hundreds of people without charges in secret prisons around the world, while arguing that torture is O.K. and that President Bush can disregard the laws he doesn't like. I haven't even mentioned illegal spying or efforts to keep scientists quiet if they're saying the wrong thing.

Where's the honor and dignity?

In her testimony last week before a House panel, Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, admitted that she had "crossed the line" in using political considerations to judge potential Justice Department employees. She may well have broken laws that forbid political influence over civil service positions. But "crossing the line" has been business as usual for the past six years. Goodling's behavior follows a pattern established across almost all federal agencies, where the administration has sought loyalty over competence at every turn.

Another word for it, of course, is corruption – and it's natural to wonder how we got so deeply mired in it. If the gathering storm of investigations forces Karl Rove and other White House officials one day to testify under oath, we may have some chance of finding out. And I suspect, if we do, that we'll discover that honor and dignity were sacrificed at the very top. It will be a familiar story – of a few power-hungry and largely amoral political operatives, the real drivers, whose actions encouraged and directed a small army of fairly ordinary people, the Monica Goodlings of this world, many of whom were hardly aware they were doing something wrong.

People who engage in corrupt acts often do not see them as such. This much has emerged from studies of corporate scandals and fraud at places like Enron or WorldCom. ...Whether embezzling money, undermining product safety regulations, or even selling completely fake products, the perpetrators rationalize away their responsibility. They deny that they actually had any choice, saying that "everyone was doing it." Or they deny that anyone really got hurt, so there really was no crime: "They're a big company, they can afford to overpay us."...Then there's the popular appeal to higher authority, a mechanism with special relevance, perhaps, to the loyalty-rewarding Bush administration: "I had to do it out of loyalty to my boss."

...People engaged in corruption, the academic researchers suggest, create a kind of psychological atmosphere in which what they're doing seems normal or even honorable. So if congressional oversight does ultimately expose the machinations behind anything from secret prisons to the United States prosecutor purge, brace yourself for a litany of the usual excuses – "We didn't know it was wrong" and "We were told to do it."

But the psychology of rationalization is only part of the story. The other element in all such cases seems to be a chain-like linking together of individual actions that can undermine social norms with surprising speed – or keep them safe, sometimes if just a single person remains strong....... Tiny differences in the group makeup, the presence or absence or a few people of the right type, might be the difference between a few renegade violators and division-wide corruption.

I can't help thinking of the bizarre attempt by then-White House officials Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to get then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, drugged and in the hospital, to sign off on a secret National Security Agency wiretapping program. Ashcroft – who back then I would have thought would rubber-stamp anything Bush wanted – was clearly made of sterner stuff and refused, as did Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey. Again, we won't know how much effect these refusals had – and just how extreme the program was that Bush wanted to authorize – until someone manages to get past White House stonewalling and digs up the real information.

But the fragility of social outcome, its potential sensitivity to the actions of just one person, brings home the profound importance of individual responsibility. Everyone's actions count. The laws and institutional traditions we have were put in place precisely to help us avoid these social meltdowns, and to give people the incentive not to step over the line, especially when lots of others are doing so already. In particular, the laws of the civil service prevent hiring on the basis of political affiliation (at least for many positions), and the routine violation of those laws puts our democracy at risk. Many people went along with it, and so might have many more, had the creeping corruption not been exposed when it was.

Restoring honesty and dignity. One might say of it what Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western Civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 07 - 08:35 AM

Short video on the impeachment of Al Gonzalez.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:58 PM

Japan Welcomes Bush Initiative for Cutting Greenhouse Gases

By Sachiko Sakamaki

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Japan welcomed U.S. President George W. Bush's proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said.

Bush yesterday proposed setting a long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gases, reversing his previous stance opposing setting such targets.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Bush share similar ideas about how to tackle global warming issue, Shiozaki said at a regular press conference in Tokyo.

Global warming will be a major topic at next week's meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Germany. Bush said the talks will establish a new framework for when the Kyoto Protocol on emissions expires in 2012.

Abe on May 24 announced a proposal for the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions in by 2050 as a new framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aILvxFVfBSZQ&refer=japan

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:43 AM

"Following are details of U.S. President George W. Bush's proposal for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, an issue that will confront the leaders of the Group of Eight nations meeting in Germany next week.

* Bush will convene a meeting this fall of around 15 countries that produce the largest amount of greenhouse gases to discuss a long-term goal for curbing emissions.

* The countries would include the G8 major developed economies of the United States, Japan, Germany, Russia, Britain, Italy, Canada and France, as well as fast-growing economies such as China and India. The top emitters are responsible for more than 80 percent of global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

* The meeting would be the first in a series. Other forums would include business leaders from various sectors such as power generation and alternative fuels.

* A long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be set by the end of 2008. Individual countries would also set interim targets to reach that goal.

* The plan proposes cutting tariff barriers to spread environmental technology and promote sustainable forestry and agriculture.

* Bush also called for boosting investment in research and development for energy-efficient technologies."

---

If there' sno more to it than that, we already had all this palaver going on at Kyoto -- this just defers action another round. But it is better than nothing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 10:03 AM

The NY Times reflects on the robustness of Bush's new-found environmental awareness:

"...Given Mr. Bush's history of denial and obstructionism when it comes to climate change, there are good reasons to be cynical about this sudden enthusiasm, coming as it does on the eve of the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations.

Most of these nations — and in particular the meeting's host, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — were deeply offended by the administration's rude rejection of Mrs. Merkel's proposal for deep, mandatory cuts in emissions by midcentury. Cuts of up to 80 percent by 2050 have been recommended by many of the world's top scientists as necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change.

Mr. Bush gave no indication that he is any more sympathetic to Mrs. Merkel's ideas than he was a week ago. Indeed, his spokesmen made clear that he remains as hostile as ever to most of the mechanisms associated with the 1997 Kyoto accord, which included a firm if modest cap on emissions. Many European leaders are still bristling over Condoleezza Rice's 2001 declaration that the treaty was "dead on arrival."

As rhetoric, some of what Mr. Bush had to say was different and heartening. He acknowledged the need for real reductions in greenhouse gases, as opposed to his earlier strategy of allowing increases in emissions as long as they did not exceed the rate of economic growth. He said he found the scientific evidence of a link between climate change and human activity to be increasingly persuasive. He agreed that big developing nations like China and India absolutely had to be part of the solution.

Yet he remains convinced that technology holds most of the answers and that the regulatory restraints that many experts regard as a necessary condition of technological progress are largely unnecessary. He says further that his goal is to produce a common strategy in 18 months. This would coincide, roughly speaking, with his departure from public life, suggesting his real goal is to leave the heavy lifting to his successor. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:35 PM

Singapore leader urges US to stay the course in Iraq until war is won

AP 2007-06-01

SINGAPORE (AP) - Singapore's prime minister Friday urged the United States not to withdraw from Iraq without a clear victory, saying it would embolden extremists in other places.

http://www.pr-inside.com/singapore-leader-urges-us-to-stay-r141211.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 07:34 AM

For all of Mr. Bush's talk about fiscal prudence, $23 billion is only about 2.5 percent of the discretionary spending proposed by Congress for 2008. When it comes to really big money — for wars and tax cuts — Mr. Bush wants more, not less. He is demanding an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon, bringing the national defense budget to $504 billion — over half of Congress's total discretionary budget.

As for the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 they will put some $100 billion into the pockets of the richest Americans. That giveaway will require the government to borrow to make up for the forgone revenue.

Yet, Mr. Bush calls for no restraint on tax cuts. Just the opposite. His administration's biggest criticism of Congress's budget is that it includes a "pay-go" rule requiring future tax cuts to be paid for, either by pairing them with tax increases or with cuts in entitlement spending.

Unable to brook even the possibility that taxes may someday have to go up, Mr. Bush proposes to offset future new spending on Medicare, Social Security and other big entitlements through cuts in other entitlement programs. That would guarantee deeper cuts than would otherwise be required. The Bush budget strategy boils down to never-ending tax cuts for the rich, big increases for the Pentagon and spending cuts for everything else.

When it's suggested that Mr. Bush's approach is overly harsh, the White House insists that the president has other generous impulses. Last February, they note, he recommended that Congress provide more money in 2008 for such areas as international affairs, veterans' hospital care, the National Science Foundation and NASA.

But that brings us back to his veto threat. If he means what he says, Mr. Bush will veto spending by Congress that fails to achieve $10 billion in net cuts, even if those bills include the new money he asked for. The fact remains that Mr. Bush's misguided war and his misguided tax cuts are what stand in the way of responsible, responsive budgeting.

Times editorial 2 June 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:22 AM

"put some $100 billion into the pockets of the richest Americans."

How is this "giveaway" accomplished? Does IRS cut a check and mail it to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 02:01 PM

Dickey--don't you ever read--or is it against your religion? The article specifies exactly-- Bush's tax cuts, which benefit lopsidedly the richest Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:52 AM

Writing in Slate, Anne Applebaum recapitulates how the Bush administration's gaffes and blunders decimated American goodwill in New Europe.

Interesting rear-view mirror.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 04:11 PM

Bush's Fleurs Du Mal

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 27, 2007 (New York Times, Excerpt:

For me, the saddest spot in Washington is the inverted V of the black granite Vietnam wall, jutting up with the names of young men dying in a war that their leaders already knew could not be won.

So many died because of ego and deceit -- because L.B.J. and Robert McNamara wanted to save face or because Henry Kissinger wanted to protect Nixon's re-election chances.

Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. Iraq is in a civil war, with a gruesome bonus of terrorists mixed in. April was the worst month this year for the American military, with 104 soldiers killed, and there have been about 90 killed thus far in May. The democracy's not jelling, as Iraqi lawmakers get ready to slouch off for a two-month vacation, leaving our kids to be blown up.

The top-flight counterinsurgency team that President Bush sent in after long years of pretending that we'd ''turned the corner'' doesn't believe there's a military solution. General Petraeus is reduced to writing an open letter to the Iraqi public, pleading with them to reject sectarianism and violence, even as the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr slinks back from four months in Iran, rallying his fans by crying: ''No, no, no to Satan! No, no, no to America! No, no, no to occupation! No, no, no to Israel!''

W. thinks he can save face if he keeps taunting Democrats as the party of surrender -- just as Nixon did -- and dumps the Frankenstate he's created on his successor.

''The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland,'' he told Coast Guard Academy graduates. ''The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live.''

The president said an intelligence report (which turned out to be two years old) showed that Osama had been trying to send Qaeda terrorists in Iraq to attack America. So clearly, Osama is capable of multitasking: Order the killers in Iraq to go after American soldiers there and American civilians here. There AND here. Get it, W.?

The president is on a continuous loop of sophistry: We have to push on in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we pushed into Iraq. Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops have been dying there. We have to stay so the enemy doesn't know we're leaving. Osama hasn't been found because he's hiding.

The terrorists moved into George Bush's Iraq, not Saddam Hussein's. W.'s ranting about Al Qaeda there is like planting fleurs du mal and then complaining your garden is toxic. ...

(Original article by subscription).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 09:56 AM

From an Op Ed column in the Times:
...You may not remember the presidential debate of Oct. 3, 2000, or how it was covered, but you should. It was one of the worst moments in an election marked by news media failure as serious, in its way, as the later failure to question Bush administration claims about Iraq.

Throughout that debate, George W. Bush made blatantly misleading statements, including some outright lies — for example, when he declared of his tax cut that "the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." That should have told us, right then and there, that he was not a man to be trusted.

But few news reports pointed out the lie. Instead, many news analysts chose to critique the candidates' acting skills. Al Gore was declared the loser because he sighed and rolled his eyes — failing to conceal his justified disgust at Mr. Bush's dishonesty. And that's how Mr. Bush got within chad-and-butterfly range of the presidency.

Now fast forward to last Tuesday. Asked whether we should have invaded Iraq, Mr. Romney said that war could only have been avoided if Saddam "had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction." He dismissed this as an "unreasonable hypothetical."

Except that Saddam did, in fact, allow inspectors in. Remember Hans Blix? When those inspectors failed to find nonexistent W.M.D., Mr. Bush ordered them out so that he could invade. Mr. Romney's remark should have been the central story in news reports about Tuesday's debate. But it wasn't.

There wasn't anything comparable to Mr. Romney's rewritten history in the Democratic debate two days earlier, which was altogether on a higher plane. Still, someone should have called Hillary Clinton on her declaration that on health care, "we're all talking pretty much about the same things." While the other two leading candidates have come out with plans for universal (John Edwards) or near-universal (Barack Obama) health coverage, Mrs. Clinton has so far evaded the issue. But again, this went unmentioned in most reports.

By the way, one reason I want health care specifics from Mrs. Clinton is that she's received large contributions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Will that deter her from taking those industries on?

Back to the debate coverage: as far as I can tell, no major news organization did any fact-checking of either debate. And post-debate analyses tended to be horse-race stuff mingled with theater criticism: assessments not of what the candidates said, but of how they "came across."

Thus most analysts declared Mrs. Clinton the winner in her debate, because she did the best job of delivering sound bites — including her Bush-talking-point declaration that we're safer now than we were on 9/11, a claim her advisers later tried to explain away as not meaning what it seemed to mean.

Similarly, many analysts gave the G.O.P. debate to Rudy Giuliani not because he made sense — he didn't — but because he sounded tough saying things like, "It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror." (Why?)

Look, debates involving 10 people are, inevitably, short on extended discussion. But news organizations should fight the shallowness of the format by providing the facts — not embrace it by reporting on a presidential race as if it were a high-school popularity contest.

For if there's one thing I hope we've learned from the calamity of the last six and a half years, it's that it matters who becomes president — and that listening to what candidates say about substantive issues offers a much better way to judge potential presidents than superficial character judgments. Mr. Bush's tax lies, not his surface amiability, were the true guide to how he would govern.

And I don't know if this country can survive another four years of Bush-quality leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 10:30 AM

I remember getting a check in the mail from IRS once. Was it a giveaway or a give back?

Seems to me it was an effort to spur the economy that Bill Clinton left in the shithouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 12:34 PM

Dickey:

Surprisingly enough the economy was very much not in the shithouse when Big Bill Clinton left office. But your perception may be an attribute of yoru own viewpoint.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Dean
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 01:43 PM

Why are we being asked to give 30 Billion dollars to Africa ?

If they can't get their act together that is the responsibly of their governments.

Ever see the new military hardware the rebels in these countries have ?

Why must we always have lead the way in giving our money away ?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 10:30 PM

Dear Amos: The economy declined in 2000, before GWB came into office. He took steps to head off a recession and lessen the impact. Part of effort that was tax cuts.

Bill Clinton's bubble economy burst and gas prices started ro rise in the spring of 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 05:21 AM

As Senate Deal Sinks, So Does Bush's Power

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: June 9, 2007
The breakthrough on the "grand bargain" on immigration a few weeks ago had brought new life to a White House under siege, putting a long-sought goal suddenly within reach. After many grim months, there was almost giddiness at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But that early euphoria only made the grand bargain's grand collapse on Thursday night all the more of a blow, pointing up a stubbornly unshakable dynamic for President Bush in the final 19 months of his term: With low approval ratings and the race to succeed him well under way, his ability to push his agenda has faded to the point where he can fairly be judged to have entered his lame duck period.

In all, 38 of the 48 Senate Republicans effectively voted against the White House on the crucial procedural vote on the immigration bill, leaving the president's No. 1 domestic priority somewhere between stalled and dead.

The White House has similarly been through a sharp reversal on the domestic politics of the Iraq war. After receiving a lift last month in the defeat of Democratic efforts to link war finances to Iraq withdrawal dates, the White House acknowledged Friday that it could not renominate Mr. Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, because of expected opposition on Capitol Hill.

For a president whose muscular assertions of executive authority had overshadowed Congress for years, it was a striking indicator of how the balance of power in Washington has shifted away from him. ...)

(New york Times editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 08:46 AM

Dickey:

The economy collapsed the year Bush walked into office. While it would be nice to blame Clinton, which you seem to want to do for all ills, I would point out that Mr. Clinton is regrettably no longer President. Our national debt has never been higher; our balance of payments is skewed beyond reason; lower- and middle- class real income is declining while basic cost of living factors are staggeringingly high. If this is your idea of a healthy economy, I am glad you don't work for the White...oh, neve rmind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:42 AM

ROME -- The CIA ran secret prisons in Poland and Romania to hold terror suspects from 2003 to 2005, including some now-notorious Al Qaeda operatives, according to a critical report released Friday by the Council of Europe.

The investigation, undertaken by Sen. Dick Marty of the council's assembly, states that the one-time Eastern Bloc countries were willing participants in a U.S.-directed war on terror and "knowingly complicit" in the practice known as rendition, in which suspects were snatched and held in foreign countries for interrogation.


Officials in Poland and Romania and at the CIA called the report's conclusions baseless.

The report, for the first time, cites unnamed CIA sources as providing the names of key terror suspects sent to Poland: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a leader in the 2001 attacks in the United States; Abu Zubaydah, a suspected senior Al Qaeda operative; and Ramzi Binalshibh, another Al Qaeda suspect.

Rendition remains one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush administration's attempt to quell terrorist attacks. President Bush acknowledged the secret detention program only in September 2006, and the administration has been silent and unresponsive to questions about where the prisons were.

The report by the Council of Europe, an influential, intergovernmental body focused on democracy and human rights, is an attempt to fill in the gaps.

It identifies a remote Polish intelligence service base at Stare Kjekuty as an important CIA interrogation center. The base is a few miles from a former military airfield in Szymany in northeastern Poland. From 2002 to 2005, at least 10 flights apparently operated by CIA rendition teams were received at the airfield, and six of those came directly from Kabul, Afghanistan, the report said.

In most cases, the flights were disguised so they could not be tracked by transnational air control, the report said.

According to airport personnel who spoke to the Tribune last year, the flights apparently dropped off prisoners who were then transported in vans to Stare Kjekuty. Marty's report Friday said that "local authorities were not supposed to be aware of the exact number or the identities of the prisoners who passed through the facilities -- this was information that they did not 'need to know.' "

Marty issued a preliminary report in 2006 that relied heavily on press accounts and laid out possible scenarios of cooperation. The new report offers more details, explanations from unnamed intelligence figures about the alleged operations and some insight into what led Poland and Romania to cooperate.

"Highest state authorities" in those countries cooperated and knew of the alleged detention centers, the report said.

In Poland, Marty names then-President Aleksander Kwasniewski, among others, as a key collaborator with the U.S. In Romania, Marty names a "small circle of trust" that allegedly collaborated, including then-President Ion Iliescu, his minister of national defense and the head of military intelligence.

Both countries, democratic allies of the U.S. since the fall of communism, were eager to cooperate with the United States. Washington had been instrumental in supporting reforms, including those in the intelligence realm, the report said. Working with the U.S. on the secret program was seen as a matter of national interest, it said.

By Friday night, official denials were being broadcast in both countries. "This is all unfounded," Iliescu told Realitatea TV in Romania. The head of military intelligence, Sergiu Tudor Medar, told the same station that Marty's report was "pure speculation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 01:42 PM

Yes, yes...but what about Paris Hilton? We must keep our minds on what really matters, don't you see?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:32 PM

Paris Hilton is not a popular view of the Bush Administration. Every time the Bush Administration starts viewing her they have to go to confession overtime and they start making serious policy mistakes. In fact she is singlehandedly responsible for our rampant inflation, our bellicose foreign policy, our anti-scientific legal clangers, our bizarre and uneducated national contortions on Constitutional matters and a wide range of other sins of omission and commission that started shortly after Monica Lewinsky left the White House.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:44 PM

Cheney lied about Bush spy program
June 7, 2007 - 6:10am.
Blocked promotion of official who disagreed

(From Capitol Hill Blue's website)

Vice President Dick Cheney (AFP Photo)

Vice President Dick Cheney lied about his involvement in developing President George W. Bush's controversial and illegal program to use the National Security Agency to spy on Americans.

New revelations show Cheney was hip deep in developing the policy, often overruling the objections of Justice Department officials and blocking the promotion of one official who disagreed with him on the warrantless wiretapping program.

The same disclosures also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied about his role in trying to get approval of the program from previous Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Writes Dan Eggen of The Washington Post:

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

The disclosures also provide further details about the role played by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. He visited Ashcroft in his hospital room and wrote an internal memorandum on the surveillance program shortly afterward, according to Comey's responses. Gonzales is now the attorney general. He faces possible congressional votes of no-confidence because of his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

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

Bush Receives Hero's Welcome in Albania

By JENNIFER LOVEN Monday, June 11, 2007 AP

TIRANA, Albania - President Bush, enthusiastically welcomed as the first U.S. president in this former communist nation, served notice Sunday he is running out of patience with Russia's objections to independence for neighboring Kosovo.
    "Sooner rather than later you've got to say `Enough's enough _ Kosovo is independent,'" Bush said, telling Albanians what they wanted to hear. He said independence was a certainty.
    Nearing the end of an eight-day trip, Bush got a hero's reception in this desperately poor country, still struggling to recover from being cut off from the rest of the world for four decades under the harsh rule of dictator Enver Hoxha. Hoxha died in 1985, and Albania emerged from isolation in 1990 but still is one of Europe's most impoverished lands.
    Cannons boomed salutes from mountains overlooking the capital. Huge banners proclaimed "Proud to be Partners," and billboards read "President Bush in Albania Making History."
    At home, Bush's job approval rating stands at its all-time low. But here, Prime Minister Sali Berisha said Bush was Albania's "greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times."
    Throngs of people grasped Bush's hands, arms and fingers on the streets of Fushe Kruje, a small town near the airport where he stopped to chat in a cafe with business owners. Unused to such adoring crowds in America, Bush reveled in the attention. He kissed women on the cheek, posed for pictures and signed autographs. Someone reached out and rubbed his gray hair.
    "Bushie, Bushie," people shouted. Some of the business people have received small loans under U.S. government programs.
    The scene was uncharacteristically wild for a presidential crowd. Bush spokesman Dana Perino said later that the Secret Service assured Bush's safety, as always. "If they didn't think the president was safe, obviously they wouldn't have put him in that position," she said.
    While the United States supports Albania's bid for membership in NATO, Bush said this country still has to make more political and military reforms and crack down on corruption and organized crime.
    "We are determined to take any decision, pass any law and undertake any reform to make Albania appropriate to receive the invitation" to join the western military alliance, Berisha said at a news conference with Bush.
    Albania has eagerly embraced democracy and idolizes the United States. Three stamps have been issued featuring Bush's picture and the Statue of Liberty, and the street in front of parliament has been renamed in his honor.
    The president spent just eight hours here and then flew to Bulgaria, another Cold War Soviet ally turned pro-American. The two stops gave an upbeat ending to Bush's six-country trip after big protests earlier in Rome and at the summit of industrialized nations in Heiligendamm, Germany.
    Kosovo has been run by the United Nations and NATO since 1999, when Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic's forces were ousted after a NATO air war ended his crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, who make up 90 percent of Kosovo's population.
    The U.N. Security Council has been divided over Kosovo's independence. The United States and key European countries support Kosovo's statehood while Russia, traditionally a Serbian ally, opposes it. Moscow says it would set a dangerous precedent for other breakaway regions.
    Bush said diplomats from the United States, Russia and European Union will try to find common ground on a formula for independence.
    "But if it's apparent that that's not going to happen in a relatively quick period of time, in my judgment, we need to put forward the (U.N.) resolution," Bush said. "Hence, deadline." He did not specify a date.
    Negotiations must result in "certain independence," Bush said. "That's what's important to know."
    Bush said the summit in Heiligendamm had tried to determine whether there was a way to make Kosovo independence acceptable to Russia. French President Nicolas Sarkozy unexpectedly called for a delay on the issue, and the summit failed to reach agreement.
    Bush urged Albania to help maintain peace and calm in Kosovo as the independence talks move forward.
    Predominantly Muslim, Albania has 140 troops in Afghanistan and about 120 troops in Iraq _ a presence that President Alfred Moisiu says will not end as long as the Americans are engaged there. Bush met here with some of the troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    "Albanians know the horror of tyranny," the president said. "And so they're working to bring the hope of freedom to people who haven't known it. And that's a noble effort and a sacrifice."
In saluting Albania's democracy, Bush praised it as a country that has "cast off the shackles of a very oppressive society and is now showing the world what's possible." During his visit, the president had lunch with the prime ministers of Albania, Macedonia and Croatia, which hope to join NATO.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 11:29 AM

This is wonderful!! Finally, a place he will be welcome. Just wjat we were looking for.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:31 PM

The Huffington Post reports:

"Gingrich Forecasts GOP Losses in 2008
BEN EVANS | June 8, 2007 11:17 PM EST |


WASHINGTON — Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.

Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.

"If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to" win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.

Gingrich, a former Georgia congressman, is considering a White House run, with an announcement likely in the fall.

He has roundly criticized the Bush administration in recent interviews, describing the White House as dysfunctional and saying the president has driven the party into collapse. While he refrained from direct criticism Friday, he cited failures in Iraq, border security and the response to Hurricane Katrina as signs of a broken government.

His comments come just days after a Republican presidential debate in which GOP candidates criticized Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.

The biting words surprisingly have been uttered while the president is overseas attending an economic summit with other world leaders.

In the speech, Gingrich handicapped the current GOP field _ and the prospect of Fred Thompson joining the race.

He praised Rudy Giuliani's handling of crime as New York City mayor, saying that experience and his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have propelled his candidacy. Gingrich contended that Giuliani's image on national security would offset his more liberal positions on social issues.

"In a world where a nuclear weapon could eliminate an American city in seconds, he has a very strong case," said Gingrich. "He has certainly done better so far than people would guess."

He said Sen. John McCain of Arizona has more to overcome, including explaining his positions on immigration and campaign finance regulation.

"If you were to handicap this race, he has the greatest challenge in a Republican primary," Gingrich said.

Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, is a "very formidable" candidate, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a "very serious person who is working very hard," Gingrich said.

Gingrich, who helped shut down government over spending fights with the Clinton administration in the 1990s, said Republicans must offer a more dramatic platform for remaking government that focuses on private-sector innovation.

In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren't performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.

"Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process," he said.
..."

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

NY Times reports:

For years, President Bush has made the grandiose claim that the Congressional authorization to attack Afghanistan after 9/11 was a declaration of a "war on terror" that gave him the power to decide who the combatants are and throw them into military prisons forever.

Yesterday, in a powerful 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit utterly rejected the president's claims. The majority made clear how threatening the administration's policies are to the Constitution and the rule of law — and how far the administration has already gone down that treacherous road.

Mr. Bush, the majority said, does not claim these powers for dire emergencies but "maintains that the authority to order the military to seize and detain certain civilians is an inherent power of the presidency, which he and his successors may exercise as they please."

The prisoner in this case, a citizen of Qatar named Ali al-Marri, was living in the United States legally when he was arrested and charged with being an Al Qaeda terrorist. In 2003, Mr. Bush declared Mr. Marri an enemy combatant, took him from civilian authorities and threw him into a military brig where he remains today without charges being filed.

The court did not say Mr. Marri was innocent, nor that he must be set free. It said that the law does not give Mr. Bush the power to seize a civilian living in the United States and declare him to be an enemy combatant based on whatever definition he chooses to apply. If Mr. Marri is to be kept in prison, it said, he must be tried and convicted in a civilian court.

The ruling said the Constitution and numerous precedents made it clear that foreigners living legally in this country have the same right to due process as any American citizen. It found no merit in the president's claim that the Congressional approval of the use of military force in Afghanistan gave him authority to change that or that he has "the inherent authority" to do it on his own. Sanctioning that kind of authority "would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and for the country," the judges said
...This ruling is another strong argument for bringing Mr. Bush's detention camps under the rule of law. Congress can do that by repealing the odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, which endorsed Mr. Bush's twisted system of indefinite detentions, by closing Guantánamo Bay and by allowing the courts to sort out the prisoners — not according to the whims of one president with an obvious disdain for the balance of powers but by the rules of justice that have guided this nation for more than 200 years.

---

Mebbe there's hope yet!


A

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

Washington - Suspected Al Qaeda sleeper agent Ali Saleh al-Marri had been held for four years in military detention – with no indication from the US government when or how his imprisonment might end.

On the surface, his treatment seemed no different than any of the hundreds of terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But Mr. Marri is confined in a military brig in the United States, not Cuba.

On Monday, that difference proved decisive in prompting a federal appeals court panel to reject what had been a sweeping argument by the Justice Department. Citing the recently enacted Military Commissions Act of 2006, government lawyers last fall said the law had stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear Marri's case.

As a noncitizen who had been designated an enemy combatant, Marri had no right to test the legality of his indefinite detention through the usual habeas corpus process even though he was in the US under a valid student visa at the time of his arrest.

Legal scholars had highlighted the dire implications of the government's position. "Such a statutory construction would create an unprecedented and unconstitutional distinction between the rights of citizens and non-citizens and would permit the government to effectively 'disappear' non-citizens into legal black holes," wrote New York lawyer Paul Smith in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Center for National Security Studies.

In its 86-page decision released on Monday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that basic argument, rejecting the Bush administration's broad assertion that the courts had been stripped of jurisdiction. All three judges on the panel agreed that the Military Commissions Act did not undercut Marri's constitutional right to the protections of habeas corpus. As a person present on US soil he is entitled to such protection, the court said.

But the appeals court panel split, 2-to-1, on how other constitutional protections should apply to Marri. Judges Diana Gribbon Motz and Roger Gregory concluded that President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered Marri's indefinite detention as an enemy combatant. US District Judge Henry Hudson dissented to that portion of the ruling.

Specifically the majority judges said the president's actions were not authorized under Congress's 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda. In addition, they said the indefinite detention was not authorized under the president's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief. ...
(Christian Science Monitor)

---

Unauthorized wrongful detention? Hmmmm.... could be a crime, no?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 12:40 PM

In Albania:

I thank the president of Albania and his fellow Albinos for the warm reception I recieved yesterday. I got hundreds of hearty hand shakes in the crowd but now it seems I am missing my watch. Thats OK because we all know what time it is. ITs time to preempt every terrorist nation that threatens democracy around the world and let freedom reign.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 09:35 AM

The stolen watch was a rumor. His watch was not stolen.

However the Mayor of Baltimore had his watch stolen off of his wrist while riding in a car with the window down and his arm hanging out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 09:40 AM

Neglect versus creed. (Christian Science spiritual healing vs. child neglect case)
From: The Economist (US) | Date: July 7, 1990 | More results for: Christian Science child neglect
See more articles from The Economist (US)

IN THE shadow of Christian Science's international headquarters in Boston, two of the church's members have been found guilty of the "involuntary manslaughter" of their young son. Before the verdict, which came on July 4th, the normally withdrawn sect had launched a publicity campaign to defend itself against what is saw as a latter-day witch-hunt.

At issue was a tragedy that struck David and Ginger Twitchell. Their 2 1/2-year-old son died in 1986 after a five-day illness, which was subsequently diagnosed as a bowel obstruction. Following a central tenet of the Christian ..."

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-9185027.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 09:41 AM

VI. History of the Massachusetts Religious Exemption Law



Sheridan Death - 1967

In 1967, five-year-old Lisa Sheridan of Cape Cod died of pneumonia. She had been seriously ill for three weeks and received no medical care. Her mother, a Christian Scientist, attempted to treat Lisa's illness solely by prayer. That same year the mother, Dorothy Sheridan, was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter for failing to provide her daughter with sufficient medical care.

In his instruction to the jury in the Sheridan case, the judge referred to a section of the state's then existing child neglect law (Chapter 273, section 1) which set criminal misdemeanor penalties for any parent of a minor child who "…willfully fails to provide necessary and proper physical care." The judge ruled the phrase "proper physical care" to mean "medical attention."

Religious Exemption - 1971

In 1971, in an effort to eliminate any requirement under the child neglect law that Christian Science parents must provide their children with medical attention, the Christian Science Church successfully lobbied the Massachusetts legislature to pass the religious exemption law. The law added the following language to the child neglect law (Chapter 273, section 1):

    A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof.

Twitchell Death - 1986

In 1986, another tragic and preventable death of a Christian Science child came to the attention of the Massachusetts public. In April of 1986, two-year-old Robyn Twitchell lay dying of a medically treatable bowel obstruction. His parents, as Christian Scientists, were attempting to overcome Robyn's illness solely by prayer. When Robyn did not improve, the worried parents sought guidance from a senior church official and lawyer, Nathan Talbot. Talbot referred the parents to a relevant section of a church publication, "Legal Rights and Obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts," which stated that the religious exemption law:

    ...is a criminal statute and it expressly precludes imposition of criminal liability as a negligent parent for failure to provide medical care because of religious beliefs.

This language was taken directly from the 1976 Attorney General's Opinion regarding the meaning of the religious exemption law. Notice, however, that the opinion does not state that the parent is exempted from the crime of manslaughter should the child die due to lack of medical care.

The parents subsequently did not seek medical attention for Robyn who died within 48 hours...."

http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_6.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 10:26 AM

Another Sorry Ascension

Published: June 14, 2007 -- New York Times editorial

It apparently wasn't enough for the Bush administration to pack the Department of Justice with political operatives. The White House has now nominated one of the most meddlesome of those partisans, Hans von Spakovsky, to a powerful post on the Federal Election Commission.

This is the agency charged with making sure elections are fair — an especially ludicrous perch for Mr. Spakovsky. As a voting-rights appointee in the Justice Department, he promoted Republican initiatives to crimp the ballot power of minorities and the poor who typically favor Democrats.

In one of his party missions, Mr. Spakovsky overrode the recommendations of the department's staff professionals and approved a regressive law in Georgia that required voters to provide photo identification. The law, a voter suppression tool worthy of the Jim Crow era, was later blocked by the courts. A former G.O.P. county chairman in Georgia, Mr. Spakovsky failed to recuse himself from such an obvious conflict of interest. He also pushed for department approval of Tom DeLay's Texas gerrymandering plan — the plan that the Supreme Court ruled violated the Voting Rights Act.

Feverish for the Republican edge, Mr. Spakovsky drove career lawyers from the Justice department and constantly parroted the (Karl) Rovian line that voter fraud is rampant, though studies have found otherwise. ....

---

More details on this round condemnation of blatant Bush administration corruption can be found in the full article.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 10:42 AM

"...This month six human rights groups listed 39 people they believe are secretly imprisoned in unknown locations by the United States as part of the war on terror.

President George W. Bush acknowledged last year that some individuals deemed particularly dangerous had been moved "to an environment where they can be held secretly." In effect, categorized as enemy combatants, they have been "disappeared."

This practice is unconscionable. It does not matter that the purpose of the disappearance is not murder, as it was in Argentina.

Once people disappear, every basic human right is at risk because every check, every balance, has gone with them. The worst becomes almost inevitable because there is nothing to stop it.

The United States demands accountability of others when its own people go missing. It must demand the same accountability of itself, whatever the fight.
..."

---

Dickey -- you seem to be posting random slices of internet news with no bearing on the topic of the thread. How do you explain this? Would you consider just posting on-topic views?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 10:46 AM

It is now clear that most Republicans in the Senate place protection of one of their most incompetent party members over the good of the country. The once Grand Old Party is exposed once again as a travesty of what it once was.

We, the voters, will remember that fact next Election Day even if Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales can't seem to remember anything. Unfortunately, until the end of President Bush's term, the country will have to endure a dysfunctional Justice Department at a time when the demands of national security remain critical. It is a sad day for the Republican Party and yet another disgrace for America.

William B. Spillman Jr.
Floyd, Va., June 12, 2007

•

To the Editor:

I congratulate the seven Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to end debate and move to a no-confidence vote against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

I find it repulsive that this administration stands behind a man who abused his power and lied to Congress and to the people.

But again, President Bush's support for Mr. Gonzales is a reflection of his own doing. I am wondering when and if I will ever see justice applied before 2008.

Monique Frugier
Ardmore, Pa., June 12, 2007

•

To the Editor:

I was troubled to learn that the attorney general is "not focusing on what the Senate is doing" but rather "focusing on what the American people expect" of him. We the American people elected senators to represent us, and we expect Alberto R. Gonzales to focus on what they do.

Edwin Everhart
Chapel Hill, N.C., June 12, 2007

•

To the Editor:

President Bush is quoted as saying, "They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government."

It appears that President Abraham Lincoln's fervent hope for government of the people, by the people and for the people is not happening in George W. Bush's "this is my government" world.

Janice L. Winchester
Seattle, June 12, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 01:50 PM

June 14, 2007 at 09:34:22

Up and Down the Bush Philosophy

by Walter Brasch    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Every president has a political philosophy that guides him and, sometimes, the nation.


            George W. Bush believes he has divine inspiration to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, and to make his subjects adhere to whatever beliefs he holds for the moment. His political philosophy is a chunk of swiss cheese that is being forced down the throats of a lactose-intolerant nation.



            During his first campaign for presidential office, he preached a doctrine against nation building and pre-emptive military strikes. But, within a year of his inaugural he was already planning to export his version of democracy to the world. Within two years, he had begun plans to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq and to create a "regime change." That "nation building" plan, however, has proven as strong as a bridge built by non-union labor working for a corrupt contractor.


            As the "commander-in-chief," which he is not hesitant to use on almost every occasion, he found out he could move billion dollar warships as easily as the toy boats and rubber duckies in his bathtub.


            George W. Bush, in attacking Bill Clinton for putting troops into Bosnia, demanded deadlines for withdrawal. But, for the war he created in Iraq, and which looks like the quagmire that became the Vietnam War, he has decided that deadlines were blueprints for failure, that "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."


            As president, George W. Bush pushed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires extensive testing of students to see that they meet Republican-approved goals. Within months of the creation of the program, teachers were forced to "teach to the test," rather than to improve a student's education. Yet, President Bush becomes infuriated when critics suggest he has failed every test of success in Iraq, and defiantly tells a nation worn down by the cost of a failed foreign policy that it's impossible to measure success in war.


            When the majority of Americans declared, in poll after poll, they opposed the use of torture, even against al-Qaeda operatives, the commander-in-chief decided the majority didn't matter.


            He has disregarded the wishes of the people who believe in better health care for all Americans. Shortly after he took office, President Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyota Agreement, signed by 37 industrialized nations. His response was to gut the environment and, against the findings of an overwhelming majority of scientists, has not only claimed that global warming isn't a problem, but has suppressed the views of government scientists.


            In almost every campaign speech, even those after he was elected, he pontificates about fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and less government in the lives of people. His fiscal irresponsibility has led to deficit spending and a national debt that our grandchildren will still be paying; he launched an extensive spy system against Americans, and believes there needs to be even more legislation—Constitutional amendments, specifically—to ban flag burning (an issue the Supreme Court has already dealt with) and same sex marriage.


            When the Republicans controlled Congress, the smirky President demanded that the senate adhere to an "up-or-down" vote on all of his appointees—a majority vote was all that should be needed to approve his candidates. His belief, echoed by the nation's elected Republicans and googles of conservative radio talk show hosts, opposed the entire history of the Senate that allows debate until 60 or more senators vote to end that debate. President Bush invoked that 'up-or-down" vote on the appointment of John Bolton, who had a long history of opposition to the United Nations, to be the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. President Bush demanded "up-or-down votes" in the Senate to approve his nominees to the federal courts, ambassadorships, and the cabinet. It's democracy, he bleated. Majority vote. Majority rules. Of course, he conveniently forgot that had he truly believed in majority vote, Al Gore would have been president.


            Nevertheless, after the Democrats took control of Congress, President Bush saw the light and decided that up-or-down votes didn't matter. The President's lieutenants blocked an up-or-down vote on the "surge" in Iraq. When the House voted 247–176 and the Senate voted 63–37to allow federal funding for stem cell research, the oh-so-moral President decided the majority and up-or-down votes didn't matter, and vetoed the proposed legislation.


            When Congress voted to require phased withdrawals from Iraq, President Bush vetoed that legislation. When the Senate, by 53–38, voted "No Confidence" in Attorney General Ambrose Gonzales, the President ignored the wishes of the majority; the "Decider-in-Chief" decided that he would continue to mismanage the country without judicial or Congressional advice or overview.


            To an audience at Tsinghua University, President Bush said that "life in America shows that liberty paired with law is not to be feared. In a free society, diversity is not disorder, debate is not strife, and dissent is not revolution." How his Administration created and enforced the USA PATRIOT Act; how he and his Administration have routinely and maliciously suppressed the rights of dissent, linking dissent to treason; and how he and his Administration have consistently shown the disregard for to Bill of Rights puts the lie to what he told Chinese students was his philosophy of government.

             In forming the Constitution, this nation's Founding Fathers rejected the concept of the divine right of kings. It's doubtful the President has read the Constitution. Perhaps if he had, his philosophy, like swiss cheese, would not be so full of holes, and he might not be so cavalier in thinking he has divine wisdom to shred that document as easily as one shreds a pound of cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 05:25 PM

editorial | posted May 24, 2007 (June 11, 2007 issue)
Sick Justice


The frantic race to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside on March 10, 2004, sounds more Hollywood than history: Acting AG James Comey's foot-to-the-floor drive to head off then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card; FBI Director Robert Mueller's startling imperative to his agents to defy any attempt by Gonzo and Card to throw Comey out; the sedated and badly ailing Ashcroft rousing himself from his sickbed to defend the Constitution; the resignation threats by Comey and Mueller. As Washington lore, the episode joins Richard Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre and Thaddeus Stevens's being carried on a stretcher to vote in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. And behind all this, the President pushing a wiretap program so blatantly illegal that his own top Justice appointees were threatening to resign.

The histrionics of that night, recounted by Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee after three years, further erode Alberto Gonzales's already fatally compromised capacity to run the Justice Department. And they expose an internal Administration conflict between hyper-politicized operatives like Card, Gonzales and Karl Rove and Justice professionals like Comey--Bush appointees who nonetheless understood that their oath was to the Constitution. But there is also a risk that the drama of this good guys/bad guys confrontation--with Comey protecting his boss the way Michael Corleone took it on the chin for the Don at that lonely, dark hospital in The Godfather--is obscuring the real story: just how many ways the Bush Administration was finding to break the law, and just how high the chain of complicity ran..."


From The Nation

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 12:44 AM

Amos:

You are a flagrant violator of the one screen rule. Your fanaticism is a manifestation of your OCD.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 03:09 AM

I'm sorry, Dickey. I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am neither obsessive nor compulsive.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 10:49 AM

That's what they all say.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:16 PM

From CNN:

Report: White House aides used GOP e-mail to skirt law

POSTED: 7:37 p.m. EDT, June 18, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mail records are missing for 51 of the 88 White House aides with Republican Party accounts, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported Monday.

The White House says the accounts were set up to keep political work separate from official business, but investigators concluded White House officials used the accounts to conduct official business in a way that circumvented the Watergate-era Presidential Records Act.

The 37 accounts the Republican National Committee did save include nearly 675,000 individual messages -- more than 140,000 of them from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it appears that the RNC has destroyed a large volume of the e-mails of White House officials who used RNC e-mail accounts," the report states.

The committee found 88 officials who held GOP e-mail accounts; the White House had acknowledged 50.

In a deposition given to committee aides, former Rove deputy Susan Ralston listed a series of White House officials who used party accounts daily. But the RNC "has not retained a single e-mail to or from any of these officials," the report states.

Ralston testified that Ken Mehlman, former director of political affairs, used his account daily, but the RNC has no e-mail records for him.

Additionally, "there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails," the report states.

The committee, led by California Democrat Henry Waxman, began looking into the GOP e-mail accounts after messages from the accounts turned up in two cases -- the case of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department.

The committee found that although then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered presidential staff to preserve official e-mails from outside accounts, he failed to enforce that policy.

Ralston told investigators that Gonzales, now attorney general, knew Rove was using his party e-mail account for official business, "but took no action to preserve Mr. Rove's official communications," the report states.

GOP spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the report "jumped the gun and appears to be representing Democrats' partisan spin as fact."

"Not only have we been clear that we are continuing our efforts to search for e-mails, but there is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," Schmitt said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment on the report's specifics, but said separate accounts were set up under the Clinton administration to comply with the federal Hatch Act, which bars the use of federal resources for partisan political activity. Snow said e-mail sent to or from a White House e-mail account was automatically archived.

He said White House officials are willing to cooperate with congressional investigators, but he added, "We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks."

"This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal counsel's office takes it seriously."

The committee also accused Bush's 2004 re-election campaign of failing to cooperate with the House investigation. Monday's report said the campaign acknowledged that at least 11 White House officials used campaign e-mail accounts, but said the organization refuses to identify all of them or provide "basic statistical information."

"This recalcitrance is an unwarranted obstacle to the committee's inquiry into potential violations of the Presidential Records Act," the report states, warning that it could subpoena campaign officials for the records.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:38 AM

From the Washington Post:

The Runaway Train That Hit Scooter Libby
__

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; Page A17

The attorney general called a meeting. He assembled all the U.S. attorneys in the Great Hall of the Justice Department and told them, in essence, that their chief responsibility was to decide whom not to prosecute. They should limit themselves to cases "in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest" and play no role in political vendettas. The speaker, of course, was not the lamentable Alberto Gonzales but the estimable Robert H. Jackson, who went on to the Supreme Court. This was 1940, but Jackson could have been talking to Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Whatever the case, the special counsel was not listening.

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.

The upshot was a train wreck -- mile after mile of shame, infamy, embarrassment and occasional farce, all of it described in the forthcoming "Off the Record," a vigorously written account of what went wrong, by Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s former editor in chief. The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail. The press held itself up to mockery, wantonly promising confidentiality, anonymity -- what's the diff, anyway? -- and virtual life after death to anyone with a piece of gossip to peddle. Much heroic braying turned into cries for mercy as the government bore down. As any prosecutor knows -- and Martha Stewart can attest -- white-collar types tend to have a morbid fear of jail.

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

This is precisely the sort of investigation that Jackson was warning about. It would not have been conducted if, say, the Iraq war had ended with 300 deaths and the mission had really been accomplished. An unpopular war produced the popular cry for scalps and, in Libby's case, the additional demand that he express contrition -- a vestigial Stalinist-era yearning for abasement. No one has yet explained, though, how Libby can express contrition and still appeal his conviction. No matter. Antiwar sanctimony excuses the inexplicable.

Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive -- a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.

I don't expect George Bush to appreciate this. He is the privileged son of a privileged son, and he fears nothing except, probably, doubt. But the rest of us ought to consider what Fitzgerald has wrought and whether we are better off for his efforts. I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 12:22 AM

SEATTLE (AP) - Washington's two U.S. senators are criticizing President Bush's veto on Thursday of a bill that would have eased restraints on federally funded research on embryonic stem cells.

Senator Patty Murray said Bush's action "vetoed the hope of millions of Americans" for research that could lead to disease cures.

And Senator Maria Cantwell said she will work with others in Congress to try to override the veto. She said the legislation was passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress.

Both Murray and Cantwell are Democrats.

Bush, a Republican, said he vetoed the stem cell research bill to prevent the country from crossing a moral boundary. He ordered federal health officials to promote other research into cells that could lead to developing cures.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 09:22 AM

A Chinese Cardinal Meets the Real Bush

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, June 21, 2007; Page A23

On May 31, President Bush met for 35 minutes in the private living quarters of the White House with Cardinal Joseph Zen, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Hong Kong, in an event that was not announced and did not appear on his official schedule. Their meeting did not please the State Department, elements of the Catholic hierarchy and certainly not the Chinese government. But it signifies what George W. Bush is really about.

In Hong Kong, Zen enjoys more freedom to speak out than do his fellow bishops in China proper, and he has become known as the spiritual voice of China's beleaguered democracy movement. Since Hong Kong was handed over to Beijing by the British government in 1997, he has increasingly called for both religious freedom and democracy in China. Consequently, the China desk at the State Department in Washington and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing contended that, for the sake of Sino-American relations, it would be a bad idea for the president to invite the cardinal. So did some of Zen's fellow cardinals.

So, why did the president invite him? The fact that no news of the session leaked out for two weeks indicates that this was no political stunt to revive Bush's anemic poll ratings. The president got divided counsel from his advisers regarding the impact the meeting would have on China's rulers. As he nears the end of a troubled presidency, Bush as a man of faith places the plight of the religious in unfree countries at the top of his agenda.

Pope Benedict's decision last year to place the red hat of a cardinal on Joseph Zen Ze-kiun at age 74 was not popular among advocates of a negotiated settlement between the Vatican and the Chinese government. For the past decade, Zen has been an increasingly vigorous and even strident advocate of democracy for China.

The suggestion that Zen conclude his three-week visit to 14 North American cities with a meeting in the White House came from presidential speechwriter Bill McGurn. One of the most conservative White House aides, McGurn had become acquainted with and impressed by Zen during his time as editorial page editor of the Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review.

McGurn's advice did not please the State Department, which contacted the politically well-connected Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington. According to Hong Kong sources, McCarrick advised that it might be better if the U.S. government worked through the regular Vatican diplomatic corps.

Clark T. Randt Jr., the U.S. ambassador in Beijing, also weighed in against a Bush-Zen meeting. Randt is an old China hand who has spent 30 years in Asia as a lawyer-businessman and is fluent in Mandarin. He is referred to as "Ambassador Squish" by pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. Randt is also a good friend of the president, dating to their days at Yale.

But more important to Bush than advice from a college chum is what he believes, as the difficult days of what has been an unpopular presidency dwindle. He met in Washington last year with dissident "House Christians" from China. Speaking in Prague, a week after his talk with Zen, Bush affirmed his position on the side of religious dissidents everywhere: "Freedom is the design of our Maker, and the longing of every soul."

In a city abounding in leaks, I first learned on June 13 about the cardinal's visit to the White House via a circuitous route, from an American Catholic layman. That same day, Raymond Arroyo of the Eternal Word Television Network, acclaimed reporter of Catholic news, made public that the meeting took place.

Bush asked Zen whether he was the "bishop of all China." Replying that his diocese was just Hong Kong, Zen told Bush of the plight of Catholics in China, including five imprisoned bishops. The cardinal is reported by sources close to him to have left the White House energized and inspired. George W. Bush is at a low point among his fellow citizens, but he is still a major figure for Catholics in China who look to him as a clarion of freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 01:25 PM

Bush lauded for stance on faith, war, stem cells

June 21, 2007

I have written to President Bush not only to express my personal feeling of appreciation for his bold stand of faith in godly values during his presidency, but for his bold stand on the war in Iraq, as well.

My son is about to be deployed to Iraq for the first time as an Army medic. He is currently stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. He will be leaving his wife and 2-year-old son while he serves. His wife will give birth to their second son during his 15-month tour in Iraq.

I am proud of my son's willingness to fight for our country's freedom and to put his life on the line for not only our freedom, but for the freedom of Iraqi people, as well.

The president's recent decision to veto the current bill to legalize the killing of thousands of embryos (babies) for the purpose of stem-cell research was the clearest and boldest stand any president in history has ever taken in support for human life.

I salute Mr. Bush for standing firm in the face of tyranny and evil in this world.

-- Leon R. Wyatt, Salem

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 05:06 PM

Pity thoser things aren't true -- if they were, I'd be proud of him too. But invading Iraq was not about freedom, and vetoing stem-cells has nothign to do with killing babies. It's really easy to puff up your chest in respose to knee jerk PR, smoke and mirrors. Sometimes the realities don't match up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:35 AM

What is your opinion on stem cell research Amos?

I mean except as a political bludgeon for you to use?

Do embroyonic stem cells do anything that adult stem cells won't do?

Are there any restrictions on embroyonic stem cell research anywhere in the world?

Have any medical treatments been obtained from embroyonic stem cell research?

Have any medical treatments been obtained from adult stem cell research?

Is there any advantage to using embroyonic stem cells when adult stem cells are genetically identical and not rejected by the host.

So which line of research is most likely to produce results and why should the government piss away my money on the less productive line of research?

Here's a hint:

Adult Stem Cell treatments:
        Cancers:
   1. Brain Cancer
   2. Retinoblastoma
   3. Ovarian Cancer
   4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
   5. Testicular Cancer
   6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
   7. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
   8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma
   9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
14. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
15. Multiple Myeloma
16. Myelodysplasia
17. Breast Cancer
18. Neuroblastoma
19. Renal Cell Carcinoma
20. Various Solid Tumors
21. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
22. Ewing's Sarcoma
23. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia
24. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
25. POEMS syndrome
26. Myelofibrosis

      Auto-Immune Diseases
27. Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
28. Systemic Lupus
29. Sjogren's Syndrome
30. Myasthenia
31. Autoimmune Cytopenia
32. Scleromyxedema
33. Scleroderma
34. Crohn's Disease
35. Behcet's Disease
36. Rheumatoid Arthritis
37. Juvenile Arthritis
38. Multiple Sclerosis
39. Polychondritis
40. Systemic Vasculitis
41. Alopecia Universalis
42. Buerger's Disease
      Cardiovascular
43. Acute Heart Damage
44. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease
      Ocular
45. Corneal regeneration
      Immunodeficiencies
46. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
47. X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
48. X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome
      Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries
49. Parkinson's Disease
50. Spinal Cord Injury
51. Stroke Damage

      Anemias and Other Blood Conditions
52. Sickle Cell Anemia
53. Sideroblastic Anemia
54. Aplastic Anemia
55. Red Cell Aplasia
56. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
57. Thalassemia
58. Primary Amyloidosis
59. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
60. Fanconi's Anemia
61. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection

      Wounds and Injuries
62. Limb Gangrene
63. Surface Wound Healing
64. Jawbone Replacement
65. Skull Bone Repair

      Other Metabolic Disorders
66. Hurler's Syndrome
67. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
68. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
69. Osteopetrosis
70. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy

      Liver Disease
71. Chronic Liver Failure
72. Liver Cirrhosis

      Bladder Disease
73. End-Stage Bladder Disease

        
Embryonic Stem Cell treatments: NONE

The only success in embryonic stem cell research turned out to be a fraud.

Go go ahead your PHDship and tell us why Embryonic Stem Cell research is an absolute must rather than a cruel hoax and a political tool.

John Edwards political campaign promise 2004: If John Kerry becomes president, Christopher Reeve will walk again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 10:55 AM

Interesting logic. By this rationale the steam engine should be heavily invested in, rather than low-temperature fusion,for example, because so much more has been acheived using steam.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 11:12 AM

Don't Veto, Don't Obey
               E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


Published: June 22, 2007
President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them. This week, we learned that in a shocking number of cases, the Bush administration has refused to enact those laws. Congress should use its powers to insist that its laws are obeyed.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigated 19 provisions to which Mr. Bush objected. It found that six of them, or nearly a third, have not been implemented as the law requires. The G.A.O. did not investigate some of the most infamous signing statements, like the challenge to a ban on torture. But the ones it looked into are disturbing enough.

In one case, Congress directed the Pentagon in its 2007 budget request to account separately for the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a perfectly appropriate request, but Mr. Bush issued a signing statement critical of the rule, and the Pentagon withheld the information. In two other cases, federal agencies ignored laws requiring them to get permission from Congressional committees before taking particular actions.

The Bush administration's disregard for these laws is part of its extraordinary theory of the "unitary executive." The administration asserts that the president has the sole authority to supervise and direct executive officers, and that Congress and the courts cannot interfere. This theory, which has no support in American history or the Constitution, is a formula for autocracy.

Other presidents have issued signing statements, but none has issued as many, or done so with the same contemptuous attitude toward the co-equal branches of government. The G.A.O. report makes clear that Mr. Bush's signing statements were virtually written instructions to executive agencies to flout acts of Congress. Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, has said that the report shows that Mr. Bush "is constantly grabbing for more power" and trying to push Congress "to the sidelines."

Members of Congress have a variety of methods available to make the administration obey the law. They should call the agency heads up to Capitol Hill to explain their intransigence. And they should use the power of the purse, the authority the founders wisely vested in the people's branch, as a check on a runaway executive branch.

When the Bush presidency ends, there will be a great deal of damage to repair, much of it to the Constitutional system. Congress should begin now to restore the principle that even the president and those who work for him are not above the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:19 PM

Amos:

I see no answers. Just your standard pseudo intellectual denial of facts as if Spock raised his eyebrows and said "fascinating".

Adult stem cell research is not analogous to a steam engine and embryonic stem cell research is not analogous to low-temperature fusion.

There is a world of difference but your vast, feigned, inteligence can bring the two together somehow and claim it is logic.

Which line of research shows the most promise?

What is the advantage, if any, of embryonic over adult stem cell research?

A super logical person like yourself must know the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:33 PM

Dickey:

I think you missed the analogy I made completely. The reason for the similarity is that one technology has been extensively researched, the other less so. But I have to be honest with you -- I am not an expert! :D I was, for example, under the impression that adult stem cells, if there is such a thing in humans, do not have the adaptability of pre-natal stem cells to become anything needed. But in any case, mixing it up with baby-life is just melodramatic. There are millions of these cells going down the drain all over the country all the time, just in the ordinary course of life.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:59 PM

Amos:

This point up something I have been trying to get across. People foment about something they know nothing about just for political purposes to try to paint the opposition as evil as stupid as possible. They use something they really don't dissagree with or something they really have not examined to see if it is good or bad, as a wedge issue.

If you read up on stem cell research, you might come to the same conclusion as I did, that the newest findings about adult stem cells are just as encouraging as embroyonic stem cells plus they are geneticaly identical to the recipient and will not be rejected.

The destruction of eggs is not of my concern but it is uf concern to others and if possible, we should give consideration to others instead of deliberately creating a battle. Tht is unless a battle is what you want instead of a cure.

It is my opinion the the promotion of embryonic stem cell research is a political tool to divide America into two groups and to try to get one group as large as possible in order to win some election or other. It is not based on trying to find a cure.

The Crips and the Bloods at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 05:47 PM

Cheney just declared he is immune from any law to do with executive accountabliity since he presides over the Senate in case of a tie vote...ergo he is in the legislative branch and not the executive.

How cool is that?
Its never been done before in the history of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 07:37 PM

It must take a very special politician indeed to declare with a straight face that the V.P. is not part of the executive branch because he has a secondary role over on the Hill; this is rampant meretricious legalism at its very best, the kind of mind that deserves a well-paid position managing debtor collections for a neighborhood grocery.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 08:53 PM

Well, gol danged, Donuel....

If Cheney had to release what every VP has had to release then we'd know a couple things for sure and they are that:

1.) The 2002 Energy Policy was written buy the oil industry and...

2.) That Cheney spent an inordinate amount of time at the CIA during the mad-dash-to-Iraq...

Now if I were Cheney, given Iraq and $3.00 a gallon gas, I'd be Hell-bent on hiding my contacts, too...

But this idea that the VP isn't part of the executive branch of governemnt is lame, lame, lame...

Maybe Cheney needs to go back and take 11th grade "US Government"... I learned it there, as did most of the folks here and it ain't friggin' rocket surgery...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 11:35 PM

Bush claims excemption from his oversight order
By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
7:44 PM PDT, June 22, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is exempt from a presidential order requiring government agencies that handle classified national security information to submit to oversight by an independent federal watchdog.

The executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 covers all government agencies that are part of the executive branch and, although it doesn't specifically say so, was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

The issue flared up Thursday when Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., criticized Cheney for refusing to file annual reports with the National Archives and Records Administration, spelling out how his office handles classified documents, or to submit to an inspection by the archives' Information Security Oversight Office.

The archives, a federal agency, has been pressing the vice president's office to cooperate with its oversight efforts for the past several years, contending that by not doing so, Cheney and his staff have created a potential national security risk.

Bush issued the directive in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way of ensuring that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified.

The order aimed to create a uniform, government-wide security system for classifying, declassifying and safeguarding national security information. It gave the archives' oversight unit responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of each agency's security classification programs. It applied only to the executive branch of government, mostly agencies led by Bush administration appointees, as opposed to legislative offices such as Congress and judicial offices, including the courts.

In the executive order, Bush stressed the importance of the public's right to know what its government was doing, particularly in the global campaign against terrorism. "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government," the executive order said.

But from the start, Bush considered his office and Cheney's exempt from the reporting requirements, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an interview Friday. Cheney's office filed the reports in 2001 and 2002 -- as did his predecessor, Al Gore -- but stopped in 2003.

As a result, the National Archives has been unable to review how much information the president's and vice president's offices are classifying and declassifying. And the security oversight office cannot conduct inspections of the executive offices of the president and vice president to see if they have safeguards in place to protect the classified information they handle and to properly declassify information when required.

Those two offices have access to the most highly classified information in all of government, including intelligence gathered against terrorists and unfriendly foreign countries.

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

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release         
    April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER #12958

"Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority."

    CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.

    NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    PART 1 ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION
    PART 2 DERIVATIVE CLASSIFICATION
    PART 3 DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
    PART 4 SAFE GUARDING
    PART 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
    PART 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS

    WILLIAM J. CLINTON
    THE WHITE HOUSE
    April 17, 1995

On December 31 at midnight, hundreds of millions of pages of secret government documents were automatically declassified — the result of President Bush's Executive Order on Declassification, which covers all national security documents 25 years old or older.

They included 270 million pages of FBI files, according to the New York Times, covering, among other topics, the civil rights movement, 1960s anti-war protests and organized crime up to 1981. In all of American history, there has never been anything like this avalanche of information.

Automatic declassification is a wonderful idea. "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government" — that's what President Clinton wrote when he ordered 25-year automatic declassification in 1995. The target date for compliance was extended several times, but then, in 2003, Bush surprised his critics by setting a firm deadline. Over the years, some documents were released in anticipation of the deadline.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 12:22 AM

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
March 25, 2003

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292

- - - - - - -

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows:

Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nations progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nations security remains a priority.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: (b) Under the direction of the Archivist, acting in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall:

      (1) develop directives for the implementation of this order;

      (2) oversee agency actions to ensure compliance with this order and its implementing directives;

      (3) review and approve agency implementing regulations and agency guides for systematic declassification review prior to their issuance by the agency;

      (4) have the authority to conduct on-site reviews of each agencys program established under this order, and to require of each agency those reports, information, and other cooperation that may be necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. If granting access to specific categories of classified information would pose an exceptional national security risk, the affected agency head or the senior agency official shall submit a written justification recommending the denial of access to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs within 60 days of the request for access. Access shall be denied pending the response;

      (5) review requests for original classification authority from agencies or officials not granted original classification authority and, if deemed appropriate, recommend Presidential approval through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

      (6) consider and take action on complaints and suggestions from persons within or outside the Government with respect to the administration of the program established under this order;

      (7) have the authority to prescribe, after consultation with affected agencies, standardization of forms or procedures that will promote the implementation of the program established under this order;

      (8) report at least annually to the President on the implementation of this order; and

      (9) convene and chair interagency meetings to discuss matters pertaining to the program established by this order.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:59 AM

This Land Was My Land, in the New York Times, discusses the Bush administrations raping of the national forests and parks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:40 AM

ASHINGTON, June 21—In an open letter to Vice President Cheney, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today revealed that the vice president is seeking to close down a branch of the National Archives charged with oversight of executive branch secrecy, The New York Times reports.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Ca.) posted his letter on the committee's website. The eight-page letter, accompanied by supporting documentation, described the vice president's resistance to routine oversight of his office over the last four years. According to the letter, the vice president first refused the Information Security Oversight Office's annual request for data regarding his staff's document-classification procedures in 2003. The following year, Mr. Cheney's office refused to allow regular on-site inspection of its records by the oversight office. Other executive branch agencies routinely submit to such inspections, whose purpose is simply to ensure that classified documents are properly labeled and stored.

The I.S.O.O. took issue with the vice president's secrecy and has appealed the matter to the Justice Department, where it is now pending. The Justice Department has confirmed the authenticity of the letter's allegations, according to The Times.

Executive Order 12958 assigns the National Archives to monitor documents classified by the executive branch. Mr. Cheney's office has attempted to circumvent the oversight process by noting that the Constitution vests the vice president with legislative duties in addition to his executive role. The vice president is president of the Senate.

Rep. Waxman rejected that argument as pretext. "He doesn't have classified information because of his legislative function," which is minimal, Mr. Waxman said. The vice president presides over impeachment trials and casts tiebreaking votes.

The letter added that the vice president's office has been responsible for several leaks of classified documents and "should take the efforts of the National Archives especially seriously." Mr. Waxman was alluding in particular to the now-infamous disclosure of undercover C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame's identity by several of Mr. Cheney's top aides. I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, was recently convicted of federal crimes relating to the leak and is scheduled to begin serving a 30-month prison sentence soon.

Administration critics have long held that Plame's identity was revealed as retaliation against her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a retired diplomat who debunked Bush administration assertions that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. Strong circumstantial evidence, particularly the timing of the Plame leak, seem to support this interpretation.

That's why when Mr. Cheney—who already has a reputation for vindictive retaliation and a demonstrated aversion to governmental transparency—requested that the I.S.O.O. be stripped of its right to appeal to the attorney general, Rep. Waxman raised the alarm. The vice president's office has also reportedly suggested that the oversight unit be abolished altogether.

Of course, as the recent U.S. attorney scandal highlights, the Justice Department has become more politicized than ever under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and there is no guarantee that a censure will come of the allegations. "This matter is currently under review in the department," said a Department of Justice spokesman.

The routine nature of the document review refused by the vice president's office has led some observers to speculate that Mr. Cheney "doth protest too much" and may be stonewalling investigators. The vice president's office complied with similar requests in 2001 and 2002 before first refusing to cooperate in 2003, the year the United States invaded Iraq.

Vice President Cheney has a history of extreme secrecy dating back to the earliest days of the administration, when he drew fire for refusing to reveal the names of the energy industry executives with whom he consulted in drafting a federal energy policy. He later refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission.

From here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:22 PM

President Bush has turned the executive branch into a two-way mirror. They get to see everything Americans do: our telephone calls, e-mail, and all manner of personal information. And we get to see nothing about what they do.

Everyone knows this administration has disdained openness and accountability since its first days. That is about the only thing it does not hide. But recent weeks have produced disturbing disclosures about just how far Mr. Bush's team is willing to go to keep lawmakers and the public in the dark.

That applies to big issues — like the C.I.A.'s secret prisons — and to things that would seem too small-bore to order up a cover-up.

Vice President Dick Cheney sets the gold standard, placing himself not just above Congress and the courts but above Mr. Bush himself. For the last four years, he has been defying a presidential order requiring executive branch agencies to account for the classified information they handle. When the agency that enforces this rule tried to do its job, Mr. Cheney proposed abolishing the agency.

Mr. Cheney, who has been at the heart of the administration's darkest episodes, has bizarre reasons for doing that. The Times reported that the vice president does not consider himself a mere member of the executive branch. No, he decided the vice president is also a lawmaker — because he is titular president of the Senate — and does not have to answer to the executive branch. That is absurd, but if that's how he wants it, we presume Mr. Cheney will stop claiming executive privilege to withhold information from his fellow congressmen.

...On June 14, The Washington Post reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation potentially broke the law or its own rules several thousand times over the past five years when it used the Patriot Act to snoop on domestic phone calls, e-mail and financial transactions of ordinary Americans.

We knew that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was not protecting anybody's rights or America's reputation. It turns out that John Rizzo, the man charged with safeguarding the Constitution at the Central Intelligence Agency, isn't either. After serving as the C.I.A.'s deputy general counsel or acting general counsel for the entire Bush administration, he was nominated as general counsel more than a year ago. But the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, would not schedule even a pro forma confirmation hearing because the Democrats wanted documents that the C.I.A. wanted to keep, well, secret.

Last week, the committee held that hearing under Democratic leadership, and Mr. Rizzo kept insisting that he shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't give away any secrets. But he was still illuminating — in a scary way.

When he was asked his view of the administration's infamous decision to define torture so narrowly that it allowed widespread abuse of prisoners, he merely said the policy was "overbroad" for the circumstances, raising the troubling question of when he thinks it would not be overbroad to torture prisoners. Mr. Rizzo also refused to say whether the United States had ever sent a prisoner to another country knowing he would be tortured. He made it sound like he was safeguarding secrets, but we suspect the real reason was that the answer is "yes."

Meanwhile, Mr. Rizzo, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and the rest of the administration are still stonewalling about the existence of C.I.A. prisons. Earlier this month, the Council of Europe, a 46-nation human rights group, provided new, persuasive evidence of secret American prisons in Eastern Europe where prisoners were kept naked in cramped cells, subjected to hot or freezing blasts of air and subjected to water-boarding, or simulated drowning. American rights groups released a list of 39 men they say disappeared into secret prisons.

Incredibly, the lies and secrecy shrouding this administration are not enough for Mr. Rizzo. Sounding an awful lot like Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, he told the senators, "Far too many people know far too much."

Governments have to keep secrets. But this administration has grossly abused that trust, routinely using claims of national security to hide policies that are immoral and almost certainly illegal, to avoid embarrassment, and to pursue Mr. Bush's dreams of an imperial presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:27 PM

Y this late date we should know the fix is in when the White House's top factotums fan out on the Sunday morning talk shows singing the same lyrics, often verbatim, from the same hymnal of spin. The pattern was set way back on Sept. 8, 2002, when in simultaneous appearances three cabinet members and the vice president warned darkly of Saddam's aluminum tubes. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Condi Rice, in a scripted line. The hard sell of the war in Iraq — the hyping of a (fictional) nuclear threat to America — had officially begun.


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich.
Everyone's a Critic
Send Your Comments About This Column
Readers respond to Frank Rich's recent columns and to questions he poses on pop culture.
Readers' Comments »
Columnist Page »
Podcasts
Audio Versions of Op-Ed Columns
TimesSelect subscribers can listen to a reading of the day's Op-Ed columns.

Enlarge This Image

Barry Blitt
America wasn't paying close enough attention then. We can't afford to repeat that blunder now. Last weekend the latest custodians of the fiasco, our new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and our new ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, took to the Sunday shows with two messages we'd be wise to heed.

The first was a confirmation of recent White House hints that the long-promised September pivot point for judging the success of the "surge" was inoperative. That deadline had been asserted as recently as April 24 by President Bush, who told Charlie Rose that September was when we'd have "a pretty good feel" whether his policy "made sense." On Sunday General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker each downgraded September to merely a "snapshot" of progress in Iraq. "Snapshot," of course, means "Never mind!"

The second message was more encoded and more ominous. Again using similar language, the two men said that in September they would explain what Mr. Crocker called "the consequences" and General Petraeus "the implications" of any alternative "courses of action" to their own course in Iraq. What this means in English is that when the September "snapshot" of the surge shows little change in the overall picture, the White House will say that "the consequences" of winding down the war would be even more disastrous: surrender, defeat, apocalypse now. So we must stay the surge. Like the war's rollout in 2002, the new propaganda offensive to extend and escalate the war will be exquisitely timed to both the anniversary of 9/11 and a high-stakes Congressional vote (the Pentagon appropriations bill).

General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker wouldn't be sounding like the Bobbsey Twins and laying out this coordinated rhetorical groundwork were they not already anticipating the surge's failure. Both spoke on Sunday of how (in General Petraeus's variation on the theme) they had to "show that the Baghdad clock can indeed move a bit faster, so that you can put a bit of time back on the Washington clock." The very premise is nonsense. Yes, there is a Washington clock, tied to Republicans' desire to avoid another Democratic surge on Election Day 2008. But there is no Baghdad clock. It was blown up long ago and is being no more successfully reconstructed than anything else in Iraq.

When Mr. Bush announced his "new way forward" in January, he offered a bouquet of promises, all unfulfilled today. "Let the Iraqis lead" was the policy's first bullet point, but in the initial assault on insurgents now playing out so lethally in Diyala Province, Iraqi forces were kept out of the fighting altogether. They were added on Thursday: 500 Iraqis, following 2,500 Americans. The notion that these Shiite troops might "hold" this Sunni area once the Americans leave is an opium dream. We're already back fighting in Maysan, a province whose security was officially turned over to Iraqi authorities in April.

In his January prime-time speech announcing the surge, Mr. Bush also said that "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced." More fiction. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, says it would take "a miracle" to pass the legislation America wants. Asked on Monday whether the Iraqi Parliament would stay in Baghdad this summer rather than hightail it to vacation, Tony Snow was stumped.

Like Mr. Crocker and General Petraeus, Mr. Snow is on script for trivializing September as judgment day for the surge, saying that by then we'll only "have a little bit of metric" to measure success. This administration has a peculiar metric system. On Thursday, Peter Pace, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the spike in American troop deaths last week the "wrong metric" for assessing the surge's progress. No doubt other metrics in official reports this month are worthless too, as far as the non-reality-based White House is concerned. The civilian casualty rate is at an all-time high; the April-May American death toll is a new two-month record; overall violence in Iraq is up; only 146 out of 457 Baghdad neighborhoods are secure; the number of internally displaced Iraqis has quadrupled since January.

Last week Iraq rose to No. 2 in Foreign Policy magazine's Failed State Index, barely nosing out Sudan. It might have made No. 1 if the Iraqi health ministry had not stopped providing a count of civilian casualties. Or if the Pentagon were not withholding statistics on the increase of attacks on the Green Zone. Apparently the White House is working overtime to ensure that the September "snapshot" of Iraq will be an underexposed blur. David Carr of The Times discovered that the severe Pentagon blackout on images of casualties now extends to memorials for the fallen in Iraq, even when a unit invites press coverage.

Americans and Iraqis know the truth anyway. The question now is: What will be the new new way forward? For the administration, the way forward will include, as always, attacks on its critics' patriotism. We got a particularly absurd taste of that this month when Harry Reid was slammed for calling General Pace incompetent and accusing General Petraeus of exaggerating progress on the ground.

General Pace's record speaks for itself; the administration declined to go to the mat in the Senate for his reappointment. As for General Petraeus, who recently spoke of "astonishing signs of normalcy" in Baghdad, he is nothing if not consistent. He first hyped "optimism" and "momentum" in Iraq in an op-ed article in September 2004.

Come September 2007, Mr. Bush will offer his usual false choices. We must either stay his disastrous course in eternal pursuit of "victory" or retreat to the apocalypse of "precipitous withdrawal." But by the latest of the president's ever-shifting definitions of victory, we've already lost. "Victory will come," he says, when Iraq "is stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror and to govern itself and defend itself." The surge, which he advertised as providing "breathing space" for the Iraqi "unity" government to get its act together, is tipping that government into collapse. As Vali Nasr, author of "The Shia Revival," has said, the new American strategy of arming Sunni tribes is tantamount to saying the Iraqi government is irrelevant.

For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory has become "anything they can get away with without taking blame for defeat," said the retired Army Gen. William Odom, a national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations, when I spoke with him recently. The plan is to run out the Washington clock between now and Jan. 20, 2009, no matter the cost.

Precipitous withdrawal is also a chimera, since American manpower, materiel and bases, not to mention our new Vatican City-sized embassy, can't be drawn down overnight. The only real choice, as everyone knows, is an orderly plan for withdrawal that will best serve American interests. The real debate must be over what that plan is. That debate can't happen as long as the White House gets away with falsifying reality, sliming its opponents and sowing hyped fears of Armageddon. The threat that terrorists in civil-war-torn Iraq will follow us home if we leave is as bogus as Saddam's mushroom clouds. The Qaeda that actually attacked us on 9/11 still remains under the tacit protection of our ally, Pakistan.

As General Odom says, the endgame will start "when a senior senator from the president's party says no," much as William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. In September, it will be nearly a year since Mr. Warner said that Iraq was "drifting sideways" and that action would have to be taken "if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Uncle Boko
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:38 PM

I heard that bush sits on his watch so that he's always on time!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 03:52 PM

Voting Rights Section, called the Ohio scheme "vote caging."

Acosta declined during the weekend to say whether Hans von Spakovsky, the division's voting counsel at the time, had any role in writing the letter. Von Spakovsky has been besieged with allegations of partisanship as he tries to win Senate confirmation to a full term on the Federal Election Commission.

Federal courts and Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell ultimately barred Republicans from posing the challenges in a frenzied legal battle that ran up to election eve.

The House Judiciary Committee plans soon to begin examining whether the Civil Rights Division took positions in support of a Republican agenda to suppress the votes of poor and elderly minorities who tend to vote for Democrats, said an aide to the panel who requested anonymity because the new line of inquiry has yet to be announced officially. It's not yet clear whether the examination will include vote caging.

The tactic entails sending mail stamped "do not forward" to voters' homes and requiring a return receipt. Voters who do not sign for the letters or postcards can then be challenged at the polls or in pre-election hearings on grounds such as whether they meet legal residency or age requirements.

J. Gerald Hebert, a head of the Voting Rights Section in the early 1990s and now executive director of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, says the tactic is unfair for multiple reasons: it is often racially motivated; voters may be out of town or refuse to sign return receipts on letters from the GOP, and addresses may be inaccurate.

Rich said that challenges of caged voters have been stopped when brought to light before an election. The question is, he said, whether caging and subsequent challenges have occurred "and somebody didn't bring it to light."

The new Ohio law permitted challenges in 2004 but required political parties to list targeted voters in advance of the election. The Ohio Republican Party notified election authorities in the fall of 2004 that it planned to challenge more than 35,000 voters at the polls, a figure it later trimmed to 23,000.

Democrats sued in Cincinnati to block the challenges and before U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise in Newark, N.J., who had issued a consent decree barring the tactic in 1982 after finding the GOP illegally targeted minority voters in the state's gubernatorial race the previous year.

The Justice Department was not a party to either case. Nor did Judge Dlott solicit the federal government's views. But Acosta weighed in anyway.

Challenges, he wrote, "help strike a balance between ballot access and ballot integrity."

Republicans' use of caging has been a contentious issue ever since Debevoise's ruling 26 years ago. In 1986, the judge found that Louisiana Republicans had violated the consent decree. In 1990, another consent decree was issued after the Republican Party of North Carolina and the re-election campaign of Republican Sen. Jesse Helms sent 125,000 postcards to mostly black voters to compile a list of voters to challenge.

Nor was Ohio the only scene of an alleged GOP caging scheme in 2004. Former Republican National Committee and White House operative Tim Griffin has been dogged by allegations that he tried to cage mostly African-American voters in Jacksonville, Fla. Rich said that scheme became public before the election and Republicans did not pursue challenges.

Last week, Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sought an internal Justice Department investigation into whether department officials knew about Griffin's alleged caging before he was named interim U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Griffin, who has denied any impropriety, resigned that post earlier this month.

....(From here).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 07:07 AM

How the GOP Could Win

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; Page A21

There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush's approval ratings abysmally low; with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular; with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate; and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion ( Mitt Romney's Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ.

The history I have in mind is 1972. By the end of that year, 56,844 Americans had been killed in Vietnam, a war that almost no one thought could still be won and that no one could quite figure out how to end. Nevertheless, the winner in that year's presidential election was Richard M. Nixon. He won 49 of 50 states -- and the war, of course, went on. Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won such a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war. In the first place, he was the incumbent, with all its advantages and with enormous amounts of money at his disposal. In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think -- or, for that matter, as the Iraq war is now. In 1972, almost 60 percent of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war.

Maybe more to the point, most Americans did not endorse the way the Democrats would handle the war -- nor the way the antiwar movement was behaving. Nixon seized on those sentiments and, in a feat that historians will be challenged to explain, characterized George McGovern as something of a sissy. In fact, the Democratic presidential nominee was a genuine World War II hero, a B-24 pilot with 35 combat missions under his belt and a Distinguished Flying Cross on his chest. Nixon, in contrast, had served during the war but never saw combat. He had, however, seen the polls.

This is similar to what happened in the 2004 campaign. The Bush-Cheney ticket consisted of two Vietnam slackers. George W. Bush had served in the Air National Guard, and Dick Cheney had obtained five draft deferments. Their opponent was the much-decorated John Kerry-- Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Yet during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift boat veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked.

Now we come to the current race. The war in Iraq is not -- or not yet -- an issue for Republicans. With the exception of Ron Paul and, more recently, Jim Gilmore, they all more or less support the president. It is among the Democrats that the war is a divisive issue -- John Edwards sniping at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Obama sniping at Edwards and Clinton. Everyone now opposes the war, but the issue is not so much their positions as the intensity of their feelings. Antiwar Democrats in key primary and caucus states, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa, will not vote for a lukewarm antiwar candidate. This explains why Clinton recently reversed herself and voted to end funding for the war. The one Democratic presidential candidate from the Senate who did not was Joseph Biden. He said he opposed the war but saw no choice but to fund the troops.

Precisely right, Joe. But more than right, prescient as well. As if to suggest what an issue this will become, Rudolph Giuliani called Clinton and Obama's vote a "significant flip-flop." Since then the Republicans have mostly trained their fire on each other. You can bet, though, that if either candidate gets the nomination, this vote will be hung around Clinton or Obama's neck, and the hoariest of cliches will be trotted out: weak on defense. It will have added resonance for Clinton because she is a woman.

This is where history raises its ugly head. The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 -- the entirety of Giuliani's case for the presidency, after all.

Will history trump the polls? It will if, as in the past, the Democratic Party so wounds itself fighting the war against the war, it nominates a candidate beloved by a minority but mistrusted by a majority. It has happened before.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 10:48 AM

Amos:

Are you so self righteous that you have immunity to the one screen rule?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:09 PM

Paul Newman's opinion of the Bush Administration can be succinctly viewed here.

How's that. Dickey-me-boy?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 03:44 PM

Seven compelling essays treating the degradation of American values under the Bush administration can be found on this page from Coldtype. Interesting reading.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 03:57 PM

From the Washington Post:

An Exit to Disaster

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A19

History seems to be settling on some criticisms of the early conduct of the Iraq war. On the theory that America could liberate and leave, force levels were reduced too early, security responsibilities were transferred to Iraqis before they were ready, and planning for future challenges was unrealistic. "Victory in Iraq," one official of the Coalition Provisional Authority told me a couple of years ago, "was defined as decapitating the regime. No one defined victory as creating a sustainable country six months down the road."

Now Democrats running for president have thought deeply and produced their own Iraq policy: They want to cut force levels too early and transfer responsibility to Iraqis before they are ready, and they offer no plan to deal with the chaos that would result six months down the road. In essential outline, they have chosen to duplicate the early mistakes of an administration they hold in contempt.

The Democratic debate on Iraq has become an escalating contest of exit strategies. Sen. Hillary Clinton outlines a "three-step plan to bring the troops home starting now." Sen. Barack Obama pledges to "have all our troops out by March 31 of next year." Former senator John Edwards wants a "timetable for withdrawal" that would generously leave "some presence to guard the embassy, for example, in Baghdad."

No one can confidently predict the outcome of a precipitous withdrawal, but the signs aren't good. Experts such as Fred Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute believe a full-scale Iraqi civil war would result in massive sectarian cleansing that "might not leave a single Sunni in Baghdad." Hundreds of thousands or more, he expects, would die.

Nearby powers in that nasty neighborhood would be tempted to intervene in favor of various Iraqi factions, raising the prospect that civil war might escalate into a regional conflict. "Even if it is kept at the proxy level," says Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, "proxy fights can be ruinous to countries around it."

And the descent of Iraq into complete lawlessness would allow terrorists to carve out fiefdoms. According to the national intelligence estimate issued in January, al-Qaeda "would attempt to use parts of the country -- particularly Anbar province -- to plan increased attacks in and outside Iraq."

When pressed to address these consequences, most of the Democratic candidates offer a response similar to Edwards's: "As we withdrew our combat troops out of Iraq, I would not leave the region." So America would defend its interests from a safe distance in Kuwait. But how effective has it been to fight terrorist networks in Pakistan from a distance? How effective has it been to fight genocide in Sudan from a distance? This is less an argument than an alibi.

Some Democratic foreign policy experts think that talk of immediate withdrawal is just politics for Iowa consumption; they give the candidates credit for their insincerity. A new Democratic president could easily announce that "circumstances are worse than I had feared" and adopt a more gradual and responsible plan.

But there is a problem with this approach. Feeding America's natural isolationism -- no country relishes sending its sons and daughters to fight in a far-off desert -- can create a momentum of irresponsibility that moves beyond control.

In 1974, a weary Congress cut off funds for Cambodia and South Vietnam, leading to the swift fall of both allies. In his memoir, "Years of Renewal," Henry Kissinger tells the story of former Cambodian prime minister Sirik Matak, who refused to leave his country.

"I thank you very sincerely," Matak wrote in response, "for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans]."

Eventually, between 1 million and 2 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge when "peace" came to Indochina. Matak, Kissinger recounts, was shot in the stomach and died three days later.

Sometimes peace for America can produce ghosts of its own.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 04:33 PM

U.S. Senate panel subpoenas White House, Cheney's office


www.chinaview.cn 2007-06-28 03:28:31

   
    WASHINGTON, June 27 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas on Wednesday to the White House and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney for documents about the warrantless eavesdropping program.

    The committee also subpoenaed the Justice Department and the National Security Council over the program, which President George W. Bush authorized shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    "Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee, said in letters for the subpoenas.

    He said there was no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from the committee.

    The four parties subpoenaed were asked to comply before July 18.

    The panel was seeking documents about internal disputes within the administration about the legality of the program.

    In December 2005, The New York Times disclosed that soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized a highly classified program, without seeking approval from a special foreign-intelligence surveillance court, that allows the National Security Agency to monitor, without court warrants, international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens with ties to al Qaeda suspects abroad.

    The disclosure of the spying program caused a political uproar in Washington, and congressional hearings were held to investigate its legality.

    After the program was challenged in court, the administration earlier this year put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

    At the White House, spokesman Tony Fratto said they were aware of the committee's action and "will respond appropriately."

    "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation," he said..

---

I cannot agree; with this much sleaziness going on, confrontation is the most patriotic and honest path available.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:57 AM

White House: Bin Laden wanted Iraq as a new base
May 22, 2007 Ed Henry CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday declassified intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden planned to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Johndroe said the intelligence was declassified so the president could discuss the previously secret material on Wednesday during a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.

The speech will be aimed at defending a key part of the president's war strategy -- the contention that the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq because al Qaeda would fill the vacuum in the Middle East.

"This shows why we believe al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as a safe haven," said Johndroe. He added the president will talk about al Qaeda's "strong interest in using Iraq as a safe haven to plot and plan attacks on the United States and other countries."

The decision also coincides with an ongoing push by the Democratic majority in Congress to force an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. (Full story)

Bin Laden and a top lieutenant -- Abu Faraj al-Libbi -- planned to form a terror cell in Iraq in order to launch those attacks, Johndroe said.

Al-Libbi was a "senior al Qaeda manager" who in 2005 suggested to bin Laden that bin Laden send Egyptian-born Hamza Rabia to Iraq to help plan attacks on American soil, Johndroe said.

Johndroe noted that bin Laden later suggested to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, that America should be his top priority. That was followed in the spring of 2005 with bin Laden's ordering Rabia to brief al-Zarqawi on plans to attack the United States, Johndroe said.

Johndroe added the intelligence indicates al-Libbi later suggested Rabia should be sent to Iraq to carry out those operations.

But al-Libbi was captured in Pakistan and taken into CIA custody in May 2005. After al-Libbi's capture, the CIA's former acting director, John McLaughlin, described him as bin Laden's chief operating officer, the No. 3 man in al Qaeda.

"Catching terrorists is sometimes like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle without seeing the picture on the box," McLaughlin said at the time. "This is a guy who knows the picture on the box. He knows what the big picture is."

Al-Libbi is a Libyan who joined al Qaeda in the 1990s and fled to Pakistan after the United States invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. U.S. officials say al-Libbi was in contact with and directing alleged al Qaeda members in the United Kingdom who were planning attacks there and in the United States. He was also believed to be behind two 2005 attempts to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.

Rabia took over al-Libbi's position in the organization but was killed in in the North Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan near the Afghan border in December 2005.

Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June 2006.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/22/iraq.binladen/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:14 AM

I am just a tad skeptical that Bush established his war policy in 2005. Nor do I quite understand that he would keep a gem of justification like this out of the public eye, if it was reliable. Could be so, but I kinda doubt it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:37 AM

Ratings for Bush, Congress sink lower

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 12 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Like twin Jacques Cousteaus of the political world, President Bush and Congress are probing the depths of public opinion polling as voters exasperated over Iraq, immigration and other issues give them strikingly low grades.

In a remarkable span, the approval that people voice for the job Bush is doing has sunk to record lows for his presidency in the AP-Ipsos and other polls in recent weeks, dipping within sight of President Nixon's levels during Watergate. Ominously for Republicans hoping to hold the White House and recapture Congress next year, Bush's support has plunged among core GOP groups like evangelicals, and pivotal independent swing voters.

Congress is doing about the same. Like Bush, lawmakers are winning approval by roughly three in 10. Such levels are significantly low for a president, and poor but less unusual for Congress.

"The big thing would be the war," said independent Richard MacDonald, 56, a retired printer from Redding, Calif. "I don't think he knew what he got into when he got into it." As for Congress, MacDonald said, "It's just the same old same old with me. A lot of promises they don't keep."

Bush was risking more unpopularity by commuting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term in the CIA leak case, and his refusal to rule out a full pardon. Polls in March after the former White House aide's conviction showed two in three opposed to a pardon.

The public's dissatisfaction may be more serious for Republicans because even though Bush cannot run again, he is the face of the GOP. He will remain that until his party picks its 2008 presidential nominee — and through the campaign if Democrats can keep him front and center.

"Everything about this race will be about George Bush and the mess he left," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership, said about 2008. "He'll be on the ballot."

Congress' numbers could signal danger for majority Democrats, since they echo the low ratings just before the GOP 1994 takeover of the House and Senate, and the Democratic capture of both chambers last November.

But unlike the president, Congress usually has low approval ratings no matter which party is in control, and poor poll numbers have not always meant the majority party suffered on Election Day. Voters usually show more disdain for Congress as an institution than for their own representative — whom they pick.

A majority in a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey in late June said Democratic control of Congress was good for the country. Yet only 42 percent approved of what Democratic leaders have done this year — when Democrats failed to force Bush to change policy on Iraq.

Republican strategists hope the dim mood will help the GOP in congressional elections.

"The voters voted for change and they expected change, and they see an institution still incapable of getting anything done," said GOP pollster Linda DiVall.

The abysmal numbers are already affecting how Bush and Congress are governing and candidates' positioning for 2008.

Last Thursday's Senate collapse of Bush's immigration bill showed anew how lawmakers feel free to ignore his agenda. Republican senators like Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio have joined increasingly bipartisan calls for an Iraq troop withdrawal.

This year's GOP presidential debates have seen former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and others criticize Bush or his administration for mishandling the war and other issues. Some Republican congressional candidates have not hesitated to distance themselves from Bush.

"President Bush is my friend, and I don't always agree with my friends," said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., facing a tough re-election fight next year. "And on the issues of Iraq and immigration, I simply disagree with his approach."

Bush's doleful numbers speak for themselves.

In an early June AP-Ipsos poll, 32 percent approved of his work, tying his low in that survey. Other June polls in which he set or tied his personal worst included 27 percent by CBS News, 31 percent by Fox News-Opinion Dynamics, 32 percent by CNN-Opinion Research Corp. and 26 percent by Newsweek.

The Gallup poll's lowest presidential approval rating was President Truman's 23 percent in 1951 and 1952 during the Korean war, compared with Nixon's 24 percent days before he resigned in August 1974. Bush notched the best ever, 90 percent days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The AP's June survey showed that compared with an AP exit poll of voters in November 2004, Bush's approval was down among swing voters. His support dropped from about half of independents to a fifth; from half to a third of Catholics; and from nearly half to a fifth of moderates.

Among usually loyal GOP voters, his approval was down from about eight in 10 to roughly half of both conservatives and white evangelicals.

Congress had a 35 percent approval rating in a May AP-Ipsos survey. Polls in June found 27 percent approval by CBS News, 25 percent by Newsweek and 24 percent by Gallup-USA Today.

Congress' all-time Gallup low was 18 percent during a 1992 scandal over House post office transactions; its high was 84 percent just after Sept. 11.

In the AP poll, lawmakers won approval from only about three in 10 midwesterners, independents and married people with children — pivotal groups both parties court aggressively.

___

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 01:58 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypocrisy is unpardonable. President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of a convicted liar brought out the worst in both parties.


Activists, one costumed as Scooter Libby, demonstrate across from the White House on Tuesday to protest President Bush's decision to spare Libby from jail.

In keeping I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby out of jail, Bush defied his promise to hold wrongdoers accountable and undercut his 2000 campaign pledge to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House. And it might be a cynical first step toward issuing a full pardon at the conclusion of his term.

Democrats responded as if they don't live in glass houses, decrying corruption, favoritism and a lack of justice.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

It's hard to fathom that those pardons had absolutely nothing to do with cronyism or ideology, but Hillary Clinton defended them. She drew a distinction between her husband's pardons and Bush's commutation.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the senator said Bill Clinton's pardons were simply a routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none was aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy. "This," she said of the Libby commutation, "was clearly an effort to protect the White House."

Indeed, there is ample evidence that Libby's actions were fueled by animosity throughout the White House toward opponents of the president's push to war against Iraq.

But Hillary Clinton will have a hard time convincing most voters that her brother-in-law would have gotten a pardon in 2001 had his name been Smith. Or that Rich's pardon plea would have reached the president's desk had he not been a rich Mr. Rich.

The hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

Bush vowed at the start of the investigation to fire anybody involved in the leak of a CIA agent's identity, but one of the leakers, adviser Karl Rove, still works at the White House. Libby was allowed to keep his job until he was indicted for lying about his role.

The president said Libby's sentence was excessive. But the 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Three of every four people convicted for obstruction of justice in federal court were sent to prison, for an average term of more than five years.

Want more hypocrisy? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney praised the commutation for Libby, quite a departure for a guy who brags that he was the first Massachusetts governor to deny every request for a pardon or commutation. Romney even refused a pardon for an Iraq war veteran who, at age 13, was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun.

What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.

What about all those Democrats who thought public shame was punishment enough for Clinton lying under oath, basically the position adopted today by Libby's supporters? Many of those Democrats now think Libby should go to jail for his perjury.

"There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."

The Libby case followed the same pattern of hype and hypocrisy established during Clinton's impeachment scandal. It's as if we're all sentenced to relive the same sad scene:

A powerful man lies or otherwise does wrong.

He gets caught.

His enemies overreach in the name of justice.

His friends minimize the crime in pursuit of self-interest.

And the powerful man hires a lawyer.

Marc Rich had a high-priced attorney for his battles with the justice system. His name was Scooter Libby.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: goatfell
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM

The man is a dickhead and a arsehole and so are the people that voted for him

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 07:50 PM

Well, yeah, the Dems purdy much suck...

The '06 election wasn't a vote of confidence for the Dems but a vote of no confidence for Bush and the Repubs...

Time fir poeple to think seriously about a 3rd party... These two ain't workin' and they both are financed by corporations...

That's what some people here just don't get... This ain't about Dems and Repubs... It's about terrible policies that have been pushed on our country by the corportist/industrialists...

If you all can't see that this partisan bickering is just a tool to keep the Repubocrats in power than you are either blind or ignorant of the real world...

Oh, those terrible Democrats..

Oh, those terrible Repubs...

Geeze...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 06:25 AM

"Well, yeah, the Dems purdy much suck...

The '06 election wasn't a vote of confidence for the Dems but a vote of no confidence for Bush and the Repubs...

Time fir poeple to think seriously about a 3rd party... These two ain't workin' and they both are financed by corporations..."




I HATE it when I agree with Bobert!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:52 AM

In a major blow to the Bush administration, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici just endorsed a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

This is big. Domenici is a senior ranking and stalwart Republican, with 36 years in the Senate under his belt. He sits on the defense appropriations subcommittee. He's also up for reelection in 2008.

Come September, I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more Republicans sounding like this:

I want a new strategy for Iraq.... I am unwilling to continue our current strategy.

I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward. I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq ... but I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:16 AM

Sacrifice Is for Suckers
   

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 6, 2007, NY Times

"On this Fourth of July, President Bush compared the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War, and called for "more patience, more courage and more sacrifice." Unfortunately, it seems that nobody asked the obvious question: "What sacrifices have you and your friends made, Mr. President?"

On second thought, there would be no point in asking that question. In Mr. Bush's world, only the little people make sacrifices.

You see, the Iraq war, although Mr. Bush insists that it's part of a Global War on Terror™, a fight to the death between good and evil, isn't like America's other great wars — wars in which the wealthy shared the financial burden through higher taxes and many members of the elite fought for their country.

This time around, Mr. Bush celebrated Mission Accomplished by cutting tax rates on dividends and capital gains, while handing out huge no-bid contracts to politically connected corporations. And in the four years since, as the insurgency Mr. Bush initially taunted with the cry of "Bring them on" has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and left thousands more grievously wounded, the children of the elite — especially the Republican elite — have been conspicuously absent from the battlefield.

The Bushies, it seems, like starting fights, but they don't believe in paying any of the cost of those fights or bearing any of the risks. Above all, they don't believe that they or their friends should face any personal or professional penalties for trivial sins like distorting intelligence to get America into an unnecessary war, or totally botching that war's execution.

The Web site Think Progress has a summary of what happened to the men behind the war after we didn't find W.M.D., and weren't welcomed as liberators: "The architects of war: Where are they now?" To read that summary is to be awed by the comprehensiveness and generosity of the neocon welfare system. Even Paul Wolfowitz, who managed the rare feat of messing up not one but two high-level jobs, has found refuge at the American Enterprise Institute.

Which brings us to the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr.

The hysteria of the neocons over the prospect that Mr. Libby might actually do time for committing perjury was a sight to behold. In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled "Fallen Soldier," Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University cited the soldier's creed: "I will never leave a fallen comrade." He went on to declare that "Scooter Libby was a soldier in your — our — war in Iraq."

Ah, yes. Shuffling papers in an air-conditioned Washington office is exactly like putting your life on the line in Anbar or Baghdad. Spending 30 months in a minimum-security prison, with a comfortable think-tank job waiting at the other end, is exactly like having half your face or both your legs blown off by an I.E.D.

What lay behind the hysteria, of course, was the prospect that for the very first time one of the people who tricked America into war, then endangered national security yet again in the effort to cover their tracks, might pay some price. But Mr. Ajami needn't have worried.

Back when the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity began, Mr. Bush insisted that if anyone in his administration had violated the law, "that person will be taken care of." Now we know what he meant. Mr. Bush hasn't challenged the verdict in the Libby case, and other people convicted of similar offenses have spent substantial periods of time in prison. But Mr. Libby goes free.

Oh, and don't fret about the fact that Mr. Libby still had to pay a fine. Does anyone doubt that his friends will find a way to pick up the tab?

Mr. Bush says that Mr. Libby's punishment remains "harsh" because his reputation is "forever damaged." Meanwhile, Mr. Bush employs, as a deputy national security adviser, none other than Elliott Abrams, who pleaded guilty to unlawfully withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Abrams was one of six Iran-contra defendants pardoned by Mr. Bush's father, who was himself a subject of the special prosecutor's investigation of the scandal.

In other words, obstruction of justice when it gets too close to home is a family tradition. And being a loyal Bushie means never having to say you're sorry. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:08 PM

Dear Friend:

I want to let you know about legislation that I am cosponsoring that is designed to protect the Constitutional rights we all hold dear.

The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (S.185) would repeal provisions of the Military Commissions Act that currently deny habeas corpus rights to those persons detained by the United States. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bipartisan bill.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized habeas corpus as "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." The principle of habeas corpus permits an accused person to challenge whether his or her imprisonment is lawful. It is the foundation of our legal system that protects every one of us – not just those accused of a crime.

This 900-year-old legal standard was eliminated by the Bush Administration in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Reestablishing habeas corpus rights is critical to repairing the damage that has been caused by the Administration's harmful and misguided detention policies.

I will work to pass S.185 and other legislation that is consistent with America's guiding principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 10:41 PM

growing number of Republican lawmakers are dissenting from the administration and urging for a change of course.
By Noam N. Levey, LA Times Staff Writer
July 7, 2007


'I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.'
— Sen. Pete V. Domenici, (R-N.M.) on his defection from Bush's war approach

WASHINGTON — Wearied by the lack of progress in Iraq and by the steady stream of military funerals back home, a growing number of Republican lawmakers who had stood loyally with President Bush are insisting his strategy has failed and are calling on him to bring the war to an end.

In the last two weeks, three GOP senators — including one of the party's leading voices on foreign affairs and one of Bush's strongest allies — have urged the president to change course now so U.S. troops can start to withdraw.

And Friday, in interviews with the Los Angeles Times, two more Senate Republicans bluntly voiced disappointment with the president's approach and pressed for change.

"It should be clear to the president that there needs to be a new strategy," said Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "Our policy in Iraq is drifting."

Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who helped lead the charge earlier this year against Democratic efforts to oppose Bush's troop buildup, said: "We don't seem to be making a lot of progress."

It is vital to have "a clear blueprint for how we were going to draw down," he said.

None of these GOP lawmakers has embraced Democratic legislation to compel a troop withdrawal. But nearly five years after congressional Republicans overwhelmingly answered Bush's call for military action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, some are doing what was once unthinkable: challenging a wartime president from their own party.

By publicly branding Bush's buildup a failure and calling for troops to begin coming home, they are forcing a reluctant White House to reassess how long it can maintain a large military presence in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM

The NEw York Times editorializes:

"Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq's borders.

•

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 09:49 AM

Court orders dismissal of U.S. wiretapping lawsuit

"...The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't prove they had been affected by the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, authorized by President Bush in 2002. The program allowed the NSA to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people in other countries with suspected ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda...."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026379

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 10:50 AM

The Patriot Act needed all the help it could get in the first few days.

Is it possible that the anthrax attacks were launched from within our own government? A former Bush 1 advisor thinks it is.

Francis A. Boyle, an international law expert who worked under the first Bush Administration as a bioweapons advisor in the 1980s, has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act.

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress," Boyle said in a radio interview with Austin-based talk-show host Alex Jones. "That would have set up a police state.

"Senators Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The
first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas
corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and
guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere,
come these anthrax attacks."

"At the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either
with respect to September 11 or the anthrax attacks, but then the New
York Times revealed the technology behind the letter to Senator
Daschle. [The anthrax used was] a trillion spores per gram, [refined
with] special electro-static treatment. This is superweapons-grade
anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly
proclaimed programs, had never developed before. So it was obvious to
me that this was from a U.S. government lab. There is nowhere else you
could have gotten that."

Boyle's assessment was based on his years of expertise regarding
America's bioweapons programs. He was responsible for drafting the
Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was passed
unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President
George H.W. Bush.

After realizing that the anthrax attacks looked like a domestic job,
Boyle called a high-level official in the FBI who deals with terrorism
and counterterrorism, Marion "Spike" Bowman. Boyle and Bowman had met
at a terrorism conference at the University of Michigan Law School.
Boyle told Bowman that the only people who would have the capability to
carry out the attacks were individuals working on U.S. government
anthrax programs with access to a high-level biosafety lab. Boyle gave
Bowman a full list of names of scientists, contractors and labs
conducting anthrax work for the U.S. government and military.

Bowman then informed Boyle that the FBI was working with Fort Detrick
on the matter. Boyle expressed his view that Fort Detrick could be the
main problem. As widely reported in 2002 publications, notably the New
Scientist, the anthrax strain used in the attacks was officially
assessed as "military grade."

"Soon after I informed Bowman of this information, the FBI authorized
the destruction of the Ames cultural anthrax database," the professor
said. The Ames strain turned out to be the same strain as the spores
used in the attacks.

The alleged destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames,
Iowa, from which the Fort Detrick lab got its pathogens, was blatant
destruction of evidence. It meant that there was no way of finding out
which strain was sent to whom to develop the larger breed of anthrax
used in the attacks. The trail of genetic evidence would have led
directly back to a secret government biowarfare program.

"Clearly, for the FBI to have authorized this was obstruction of
justice, a federal crime," said Boyle. "That collection should have
been preserved and protected as evidence. That's the DNA, the
fingerprints right there. It later came out, of course, that this was
Ames strain anthrax that was behind the Daschle and Leahy letters."

At that point, recounted Boyle, it became very clear to him that there
was a coverup underway. He later discovered, while reading David Ray
Griffin's book on the 9/11 attacks, The New Pearl Harbor, that Bowman
was the same FBI agent who allegedly sabotaged the FISA warrant for
access to [convicted co-conspirator] Zacharias Moussaoui's computer
prior to 9/11. Moussaoui's computer contained information that could
have helped prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.

In 2003, Bowman was promoted and given the Presidential Rank Award by
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a
letter to Mueller, chastising the organization for granting such an
honor to an agent who had so obviously compromised America's security.

During the anthrax scare, the House of Representatives was officially
shut down for the first time in the history of the republic. Once
opposition from Leahy and Daschle evaporated in the wake of the
attempts on their lives, the USA PATRIOT Act was rammed through.
Testimony by Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most
members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even
reading it.

"They were going to move to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which is
all that really separates us from a police state," Boyle said. "And
that is what they have done now with respect to enemy combatants [in
the Military Commissions Act of 2006]." Boyle added that lawmakers are
now arguing that Amendment XIV, which guarantees due process of law to
all Americans, does not mean what it has been taken to mean and that,
under the Military Commissions Act, any U.S. citizen can be stripped of
citizenship and be labeled an enemy combatant.

Continued Boyle: "In other words, they have taken the position that at
some point in time, if they want to, they can unilaterally round up
United States native-born citizens, as they did for Japanese-Americans
in World War II, and stick us into concentration camps." Boyle asserted
that top officials, such as White House legal advisor John Yoo and
former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith (now a professor at
Harvard Law School), are pushing for the legalization of torture as
well.

"The Nazis did the exact same thing," said Boyle. "They had their
lawyers infiltrating law schools. Carl Schmidt was the worst, and he
was the mentor to Leo Strauss, the [ideological] founder of the
neoconservatives. So the same phenomenon that started in Nazi Germany
is happening here, and I exaggerate not. We could all be tortured; we
could all be treated this way."

Boyle stressed that it is vital to keep up the pressure on Senator
Leahy, who now chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, giving him
subpoena power. Since Leahy was himself a target, he may have
sufficient motivation to get to the bottom of the attacks. The FBI and
the Justice Department have so far refused full disclosure to Congress.

In addition to his credentials as a government advisor, Boyle also
holds a doctorate of law magna cum laude and a Ph.D. in political
science, both from Harvard University. He teaches international law at
the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Boyle also served on
the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-92) and
represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court.

Boyle alleged that due to his activities as a lawyer, he was
interrogated by an agent from the CIA/FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in
the summer of 2004. The agent tried to recruit him as an informant to
provide the FBI with information on his Arab and Muslim clients. When
he refused, according to Boyle, the FBI placed him on the government's
terrorism watch lists.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 12:27 PM

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.



New Yorkl Times

---

The complete self-centered stupidity of Bush's major decisions on almost every front is perhaps the trademark of his tenure. He is clearly an interloper in the history of civilization, a fraud and pretender in the ranks of thinking men.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 12:32 PM

Excerpt from "A Profile in Cowardice"
            By FRANK RICH (NY Times Columnist)
Published: July 8, 2007


THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby's silence. Now we have the answers, and they're at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.


The timing of the president's Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father's pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton's pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.

But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.

That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn't care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O'Reilly in a bunker.

But if those die-hards haven't deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby's incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren't whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby's freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush's highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney's use of prewar intelligence.

Valerie Wilson still has a civil suit pending. The Democratic inquisitor in the House, Henry Waxman, still has the uranium hoax underlying this case at the top of his agenda as an active investigation. A commutation puts up more roadblocks by keeping Mr. Libby's appeal of his conviction alive and his Fifth Amendment rights intact. He can't testify without risking self-incrimination. Meanwhile, we are asked to believe that he has paid his remaining $250,000 debt to society independently of his private $5 million "legal defense fund."

The president's presentation of the commutation is more revealing still. Had Mr. Bush really believed he was doing the right and honorable thing, he would not have commuted Mr. Libby's jail sentence by press release just before the July Fourth holiday without consulting Justice Department lawyers. That's the behavior of an accountant cooking the books in the dead of night, not the proud act of a patriot standing on principle.

When the furor followed Mr. Bush from Kennebunkport to Washington despite his efforts to duck it, he further underlined his embarrassment by taking his only few questions on the subject during a photo op at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. You know this president is up to no good whenever he hides behind the troops. This instance was particularly shameful, since Mr. Bush also used the occasion to trivialize the scandalous maltreatment of Walter Reed patients on his watch as merely "some bureaucratic red-tape issues."

Asked last week to explain the president's poll numbers, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center told NBC News that "when we ask people to summon up one word that comes to mind" to describe Mr. Bush, it's "incompetence." But cowardice, the character trait so evident in his furtive handling of the Libby commutation, is as important to understanding Mr. Bush's cratered presidency as incompetence, cronyism and hubris. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 06:30 PM

This week, the showdown between the White House and Congress over the improper firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys is set to come to a head. At the center of the dispute are subpoenas issued last month by both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for the testimony of two former White House aides, Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, as well as documents related to their involvement in the firing process. Last month, the White House invoked executive privilege to block the release of the documents. Today, President Bush is due to provide "a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding."

But the White House has signaled it will defy the order, with counsel Fred Fielding expected to tell "lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log" of the requested documents. Taylor, an ex-aide to Karl Rove who served as White House political director, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but her lawyer has said that though she is willing to testify, the White House is urging her to ignore the subpoena. This morning, Bush invoked executive privilege to block Taylor and Miers from providing testimony. Bush's defiance of the subpoenas may lead Congress "to seek criminal contempt citations against the White House," which would bring the battle over separation of powers into the court system, leading to what could be an unprecedented constitutional struggle, as "no president has mounted a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill."

CONGRESS CONSIDERING HOLDING WHITE HOUSE IN CONTEMPT: On June 29, after the White House invoked executive privilege, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the respective chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, sent a letter to Fielding demanding the details of "which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege" that the administration may invoke. The requested records log, "according to the committees, should describe each document withheld, including its source, subject matter, date and recipients."

Though Leahy and Conyers note that "such privilege logs have been provided by the White House in previous Administrations," and that the Justice Department has already provided similar logs, the White House is balking, viewing "the request as a backdoor attempt to get sensitive information about deliberations." If Fielding refuses to provide the logs today, as is expected, the committees will "move to proceedings to rule on [the executive privilege] claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress," according to the letter. "We're going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas," Conyers said yesterday on ABC's This Week.

BUSH BLOCKING AIDES' TESTIMONY: On Saturday, W. Neil Eggleston, the attorney for Sara Taylor, sent a letter to Leahy, writing that "Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from [White House Counsel Fred] Fielding on behalf of the President directing her to not comply with the Senate's subpoena." In his letter, Eggleston claimed that "Taylor would testify without hesitation," but that she "faces two untenable choices": follow the President's wishes and be held in contempt of Congress or work with the Senate and risk alienating the President, "a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years."

Reacting to the letter, Leahy said, "The White House continues to try to have it both ways -- to block Congress from talking with witnesses and accessing documents and other evidence while saying nothing improper occurred." Taylor's testimony to Congress would be an important step in the investigation of why nine U.S. attorneys were singled out for firing last year, as she was one of the main contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice during the deliberations over the purge.

TAYLOR WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN FIRINGS: Taylor, who stepped down from her position at the White House in May, is reported to have been intimately involved in the firing process, especially the replacement of former Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins with former Rove-protege Tim Griffin. According to Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Taylor put "pressure" on the Department of Justice to bypass the Senate and install Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas.

Additionally, Taylor had a direct role in misleading the Senate about White House's actions when she signed off on a January 2007 letter to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) claiming that "that 'not once' had the Bush 'administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process' by exploiting the Patriot Act." After Cummins suggested publicly that the White House orchestrated his ouster, rather than the Justice Department, Taylor led the charge behind the scenes to attack and discredit him. In a February 2007 e-mail to Sampson, Taylor wrote that though she doesn't "like attacking" her friends, they should "tell the deal" on Cummins. In another e-mail, Taylor called Cummins "lazy," implying that he had been fired for performance-related issues -- the charge that first led the ousted U.S. attorneys to speak publicly about their dismissals.


ADMINISTRATION -- ROVE: 'I MAKE NO APOLOGIES' FOR ANY OF ADMINISTRATION'S BLUNDERS: This weekend at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Karl Rove spoke at length about his involvement in a series of key administration blunders related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rove grossly distorted the conditions at Guantanamo Bay prison, claiming, "Our principal health problem down there is gain of weight, we feed them so well." In fact, Guantanamo prisoners are facing a mental health crisis, with over 40 suicide attempts, including one suicide in May.

Some have been treated by "experts in treating torture victims." Rove fearmongered that 80-90 percent of violence in Iraq is due to al Qaeda. In fact, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell noted earlier in the Aspen conference, only 10 percent of violence in Iraq is due to al Qaeda. Rove also argued that "we all thought [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction. The whole world did." But U.N.weapons inspectors and prominent members of the international community strongly disagreed with this assessment before the invasion.

Downplaying his role in the CIA leak scandal, Rove said, "My contribution to this was to say to a reporter, which is a lesson about talking to reporters, the words 'I heard that, too.'" In fact, Rove may have intentionally leaked Valerie Plame's identity, writing in an e-mail to a reporter that "[Joe] Wilson's wife...works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction]." One reporter said his conversation with Rove was the first time he heard anything about Plame. Subsequently, Rove partook in an "an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson." Nonetheless, Rove remains confident today. "Look, I make no apologies," he said. 

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 08:36 AM

Bush directs defiance of order to testify
Claims of executive privilege mean ex-aides won't explain roles in firing of attorneys
By Jesse J. Holland
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush, again claiming executive privilege, directed former aides Monday to defy congressional subpoenas ordering them to explain their roles in the firings of U.S. attorneys over the winter.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith in withholding documents and directing Fielding's predecessor, Harriet Miers, and Bush's former political director, Sara Taylor, not to testify before congressional committees this week.

Fielding renewed the White House offer to let Miers, Taylor and other administration officials meet with congressional investigators off the record and with no transcript -- an offer congressional Democrats have rejected.

As a result, a showdown looms in which lawmakers could hold the subpoenaed officials in contempt of Congress.

Here are questions and answers about the process of contempt of Congress:

Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?

A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if he or she obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: to punish someone (1) for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, or (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.

What is the process for holding someone in contempt of Congress?

A: The procedure can start in either the House or the Senate. The two chambers do not work together on contempt citations. It takes only one chamber to refer a person to be prosecuted for contempt.

It takes a majority vote for the citation to move to the full House or Senate. There, it must be debated by the full chamber like any other resolution. It is subject to the same filibuster and procedural rules as any other resolution. It takes a majority vote to be approved.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 03:19 PM

Report: Gonzales knew of FBI violations
By LAURIE KELLMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Democrats raised new questions Tuesday about whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have known about FBI abuses of civil liberties when he told a Senate committee that no such abuses occurred.

Lying to Congress is a crime, but it wasn't immediately clear if Gonzales knew about the violations when he made those statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee or intentionally misled its members.

One Democrat called for a special counsel. President Bush, meanwhile, continued to support his longtime friend.

"He still has faith in the attorney general," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Tuesday.

On April 27, 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales told the Senate Intelligence Committee, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information to which they were not entitled, according to The Washington Post. Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a longtime critic of the Patriot Act, called for a special counsel.

"Providing false, misleading or inaccurate statements to Congress is a serious crime, and the man who may have committed those acts cannot be trusted to investigate himself," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

Each of the FBI's violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities, the Post reported.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the inconsistency was troubling and pointed out what he said was another one: the Justice Department's accounting of when Gonzales became aware of the FBI's abuses of so-called National Security Letters - which allow agents to secretly obtain private information on ordinary Americans in terrorism investigations.

According to the department, Gonzales became aware of the abuses "prior" to March 9 this year, when Justice's inspector general released a report documenting them. Gonzales had been receiving reports of FBI abuses in terrorism investigations for months before that, according to the Post.

Leahy said the contradictions warrant further inquiry and said he'd be asking Gonzales about them prior to the attorney general's scheduled testimony before Leahy's committee July 24.

"It appears the attorney General also failed to disclose the truth about when he first knew of widespread abuses by the FBI of National Security Letters (NSLs)," Leahy said in a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:40 AM

Budget Deficit Narrows to $205 Billion
               E-Mail

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 11, 2007
Filed at 9:19 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.

It's also a gain over the $244 billion predicted by President Bush in February, but not as great an improvement as anticipated by other forecasters.

Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance as the White House's Office of Management and Budget as part of its midyear update of the budget picture.

The deficit last year was $248 billion and has closed in recent years due to impressive revenue growth from the healthy economy. Bush and Democrats in Congress have both promised to erase the deficit by 2012, though they have greatly divergent views on how to achieve the goal, with Bush and Republicans insisting on extension of his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts when they expire at the end of 2010.

---

See? There is another side.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:46 AM

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.

"I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation's premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

When asked after the hearing if that "prominent family" was the Kennedys, Dr. Carmona responded, "You said it. I didn't."

In response to lawmakers' questions, Dr. Carmona refused to name specific people in the administration who had instructed him to put political considerations over scientific ones. He said, however, that they included assistant secretaries of health and human services as well as top political appointees outside the department of health.

Dr. Carmona did offer to provide the names to the committee in a private meeting. ...

From the New York Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:15 AM

Overprivileged Executive
               



Published: July 11, 2007
NYT Editorial

It is hardly news that top officials in the current Justice Department flout the law and make false statements to Congress, but the latest instance may be the most egregious. When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wanted the USA Patriot Act renewed in the spring of 2005, he told the Senate, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." But The Washington Post reported yesterday that just six days earlier, the F.B.I. had sent Mr. Gonzales a report saying that it had obtained personal information it should not have.

This is hardly the first time Mr. Gonzales has played so free and loose with the facts in his public statements and Congressional testimony. In the United States attorneys scandal — the controversy over the political purge of nine top prosecutors — Mr. Gonzales and his aides have twisted and mutilated the truth beyond recognition.

Congress and the American public need to know all that has gone on at the Justice Department. But instead of aiding that search for the truth, President Bush is blocking it, invoking executive privilege this week to prevent Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove, from telling Congress what they know about the purge of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush's claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Mr. Bush — and even Mr. Gonzales — was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.

Even if Mr. Bush was directly involved, Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case, its major pronouncement on the subject, that the privilege does not apply if a president's privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity. Congress has already identified many acts relating to the scandal that may have been illegal, including possible obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.

The White House argues that its insistence on the privilege is larger than this one case, that it is protecting the presidency from inappropriate demands from Congress. But the reverse is true. This White House has repeatedly made clear that it does not respect Congress's constitutional role. If Congress backs down, it would not only be compromising an important investigation of Justice Department malfeasance. It would be doing serious damage to the balance of powers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 12:23 PM

Partisanship vs. the Children

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; Page A15

Extending health insurance to uninsured children is perhaps the least controversial public policy goal in Washington. So it sets up a test: If progress is not possible on this issue, progress in our divided, embittered political system is no longer possible at all.

Ten years ago, in a passing fit of bipartisanship, Congress enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Under SCHIP, states are given block grants to cover uninsured children whose parents make too much to qualify for Medicaid (the safety net entitlement for Americans in the worst poverty). Six million children, largely from families of the working poor, now get their health care through SCHIP, which is successful, popular and set to expire later this year. An additional 9 million American children, however, remain uninsured.

Reaching this group of the vulnerable is important, but not easy. Nearly two-thirds of that 9 million, according to James Fossett of the Rockefeller Institute, are already eligible for health care through Medicaid or SCHIP, but their parents haven't filled out the paperwork. Fulfilling the most basic parental responsibilities can't be legislated. Yet some of the problem might be solved through aggressive outreach and marketing by state governments, and by making the SCHIP bureaucracy easier to navigate.

Millions of other children, however, are exposed to risk because the traditional way of providing health insurance through businesses is breaking down. Escalating health costs have caused some firms to drop insurance coverage entirely or to boost costs beyond the reach of many employees. And this problem is working its way up the income scale, from the working poor to the middle class. States have responded by expanding eligibility for SCHIP to higher incomes; this year, New York state increased the threshold to 400 percent above the poverty line.

Some see this as a scandal. But consider the situation of a self-employed single mother in New York who is forced to self-insure. The average policy costs about $13,000 a year. So even if she makes $60,000, she will pay more than 20 percent of her pretax income just on health insurance. Giving her some help is not unreasonable.

Advocates of SCHIP such as John DiIulio at the University of Pennsylvania believe that $3 billion to $5 billion in additional funding a year -- maybe $25 billion over five years -- would make health coverage for children affordable for most American families under the median income. He even offers a slogan: "No child left uninsured."

But the debate in Washington on SCHIP has quickly become badly polarized. The administration's budget request is timid -- a measure of how compassionate conservatism has been drained of boldness by budget hard-liners. At $5 billion additional over five years, there are serious questions as to whether the proposal would even maintain coverage for the number of children currently in the program. The administration's attempt to limit eligibility to families at 200 percent of the poverty line or below is too restrictive. And its alternative -- a stingy tax deduction for the purchase of private health insurance -- would be more credible if it were a generous and refundable tax credit.

At the same time, Democrats are in full overreach mode, intent on stuffing themselves at the endless buffet of liberal opportunity. Their proposal -- a $50 billion increase over five years -- represents a barely hidden agenda. Instead of reasonably expanding a successful program, they want to bloat SCHIP beyond its original purposes -- to cover more and more adults -- as a step toward their utopia of government-run universal health care. And this overreach actually reduces the prospect of political agreement that would bring swift help to uninsured children.

There are serious gaps in health insurance for grown-ups, not just children. But here the administration is correct: The answer is not SCHIP and Medicare for everyone. For the hardest cases, public programs can be useful, but all Americans benefit from the innovation and quality of a predominantly private health system.

The complete triumph of public bureaucracies, in the long run, would give us the British model of decaying hospitals and take-a-number-and-wait surgery. A serious, refundable tax credit, in contrast, would allow the working poor and the lower middle class to purchase their own health coverage, while maintaining the benefits of private medicine. Two weeks ago, President Bush signaled his openness to such a credit.

There are splittable differences on these issues. It would be a reasonable compromise to expand SCHIP significantly, while offering adults a generous tax credit to purchase health insurance. But in Washington today, to call something a "reasonable compromise" may be the kiss of death.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 01:24 PM

An opinion piece excerpted from the Seattle Times:

George of Arabia vs. sanity
By Eugene Robinson


WASHINGTON — Don't think it's over, folks. Even though Republican senators are coming to their senses about George of Arabia's tragic war in Iraq, and even though Democrats seem to have remembered why voters put them in charge of Congress, no one should be lulled into thinking there's any guarantee that sanity will prevail.

This is the Decider we're talking about, after all.

Pay attention to what White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday, knocking down a report that some advisers were advocating troop withdrawals: "There is no debate right now on withdrawing forces right now from Iraq."

I suppose that second "right now" in Snow's response leaves open the possibility that officials are talking about a pullout sometime in the near future. But I doubt it. Allowing himself to be forced to retreat from Iraq would ruin George W. Bush's fantasy of being seen as a latter-day Churchill. Bush keeps a bust of the British leader in his office, and has praised Churchill for being so "resolute."

Since I know he's read a book or two about his hero, hasn't Bush gotten to the part about how Churchill, T.E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell created Iraq at the fateful Cairo Conference of 1921? And how the object was to get British forces out of Mesopotamia, leave the fractious locals to their own devices and wish them the best?

"Our object and our policy is to set up an Arab government," Churchill told Parliament later that year, describing the new country he had helped design, "and to make it take the responsibility, with our aid and our guidance and with an effective measure of our support, until they are strong enough to stand alone, and so to foster the development of their independence as to permit the steady and speedy diminution of our burden."

Bush's contribution is essentially to have destroyed the Iraq that Churchill cobbled together.

In the coming weeks, as more members of Congress distance themselves from Bush's war, some will blame the failure of the U.S. occupation not on the president but on the Iraqi leadership. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his parliament, we will be told, failed to make the "tough decisions" that could have ended the sectarian civil war and allowed a pro-Western democracy to grow and flourish.

It's convenient to put it all on those disputatious Iraqis, but it's also unfair. Bush's invasion so thoroughly obliterated the apparatus of the Iraqi nation-state that the populace was left with nothing to rally around but sect, clan and ethnicity. Where else were people to turn in the midst of post-invasion chaos? How else were they to ensure that their interests were protected?

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 10:31 AM

As we debate what to do in Iraq, here are two facts to bear in mind:


...
First, a poll this spring of Iraqis — who know their country much better than we do — shows that only 21 percent think that the U.S. troop presence improves security in Iraq, while 69 percent think it is making security worse.

Second, the average cost of posting a single U.S. soldier in Iraq has risen to $390,000 per year, according to a new study by the Congressional Research Service. This fiscal year alone, Iraq will cost us $135 billion, which amounts to a bit more than a quarter-million dollars per minute.

We simply can't want to be in Iraq more than the Iraqis want us to be there. That poll of Iraqis, conducted by the BBC and other news organizations, found that only 22 percent of Iraqis support the presence of coalition troops in Iraq, down from 32 percent in 2005.

If Iraqis were pleading with us to stay and quell the violence, maybe we would have a moral responsibility to stay. But when Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying that we are making things worse, then it's remarkably presumptuous to overrule their wishes and stay indefinitely because, as President Bush termed it in his speech on Tuesday, "it is necessary work."

We can't afford universal health care at home — but we can afford more than $10 billion a month so that American troops can be maimed in a country where they aren't wanted? If we take the total eventual cost of the Iraq war, that sum could be used to finance health care for all uninsured Americans for perhaps 30 years.

Or imagine if we invested just two weeks' worth of the Iraq spending to fight malaria, de-worm children around the globe and reduce maternal mortality. Those humanitarian projects would save vast numbers of lives and help restore America's standing in the world.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush argued that we should give the surge a chance and that the costs of withdrawal would be enormous.

Just because President Bush says something doesn't mean it is fatuous. It's true, for example, that our withdrawal may lead to worse horrors in Iraq. But don't ignore the alternative possibility, believed overwhelmingly by Iraqis themselves, that our departure will make things better.

Mr. Bush is also right that the surge is only just in place and may still enjoy modest success. Sectarian violence initially dropped in Baghdad (although it seems to have risen again since May), and it's impressive to see Sunni tribes cooperating with us in Anbar against foreign jihadis. Then again, even the Green Zone is now a daily target, Turkish troops may invade Kurdistan and brace yourself for battles in Kirkuk between Kurds and Arabs.

Meanwhile, since Mr. Bush announced the surge, 600 American troops have been killed and 3,000 injured.

But whatever happens on the streets that the Americans patrol, the only solution in Iraq is political, not military. The surge was supposed to build political space for that solution, and that is not happening.

Progress has stalled on de-Baathification and constitutional reform, one-third of Iraq's cabinet is boycotting the government and people are turning to sectarian militias for protection. The Pentagon itself reported last month that 52 percent of Baghdad residents say that militias are serving the interest of the Iraqi people.

In this desperate situation, the last best hope to break the stalemates in Iraqi politics will come if Congress forces Iraqi politicians to peer over the abyss at the prospect of their country on its own. If Congress makes it clear that the U.S. is heading for the exits — and that we want no permanent bases in Iraq — that may undercut the extremists and lead more Iraqis to focus on preserving their nation rather than expelling the infidels.

It's nice that Mr. Bush is still confident about Iraq, telling us on Tuesday: "I strongly believe that we will prevail."

Apparently, we're doing almost as well today as we were in October 2003 when he blamed journalists for filtering out the good news and declared: "We're making really good progress."

Then in September 2004, Mr. Bush assured us that Iraq was "making steady progress." In April 2005: "We're making good progress in Iraq." In October 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress." In November 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress."

Do we really want to continue making this kind of inspiring progress for the next 10 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 10:52 AM

from the Washington Post:

A Consensus Waiting to Happen

By David Ignatius
Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page A23

The last time I remember Ambassador Ryan Crocker warning about a possible bloodbath, it was in September 1982 as the Sabra-Shatila massacre was taking place in Beirut. So when Crocker tells the New York Times that a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could produce a human tragedy on a far larger scale, people should take notice. He has seen it happen before.

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, described the dangers starkly on Monday in explaining what might happen if the United States withdraws its troops too quickly from Iraq: "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state."

Those are the stakes as the Senate debates the military authorization bill this week. The daily death toll measures the cost America and the Iraqis already are paying, but Crocker and Zebari are right in warning that a sudden U.S. withdrawal could be even more costly: The violence that is destroying Iraq could spread throughout the region -- an inferno stretching across Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria, and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- with devastating consequences for global security.

Getting into Iraq was President Bush's decision, and history will judge his administration harshly for its mistakes in the postwar occupation. But getting out of Iraq is now partly in the hands of the Democrats who control both houses of Congress. History will be equally unforgiving if their agitation for withdrawal results in a pell-mell retreat that causes lasting damage.

The Iraq debate in Washington this week is intense and angry. But as with the Palestinian conflict, the rhetorical fireworks mask the fact that there's an emerging consensus on what the final result should be. Leaders on both sides endorse the broad strategy proposed in December by the Iraq Study Group: a gradual withdrawal that shifts the American mission to training, force protection, counterterrorism and border security. That formula gets wide support from members of Congress and administration officials alike. As a senior administration official puts it, it's "where everybody agrees you want to go." The problem is getting there.

The essential elements of the compromise that's necessary don't seem all that complicated. Democrats need to be assured that the troops are beginning to come out; the administration needs to be assured that they aren't coming out so quickly that it will undermine regional security.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to recognize what's necessary, politically and strategically. He is said to favor an announcement by September that the United States will withdraw some troops from Iraq before year-end as a sign that it is committed to a "post-surge" redeployment. The opportunity for a modest drawdown will arise this fall, when two battalions, several thousand troops at most, are scheduled to rotate out of Iraq. One of those is a Marine battalion in Anbar province, where the administration has been touting U.S. success. A good way to underline the gains in Anbar would be to reduce U.S. troop levels there.

Another chance for compromise is the United Nations authorization for the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, which must be renewed this year. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants a plan to reduce the number of American troops in his country as much as any member of Congress does. Here's the real opportunity for "timelines" on withdrawal -- ones jointly negotiated by U.S. and Iraqi diplomats rather than imposed by Congress. In a perverse sense, that's the greatest gift America can bestow on the Iraqi government -- to engineer the joint "liberation" of Iraq from U.S. occupation, but "slowly, slowly," as the Arabs like to say.

It used to be said of the Palestinians that "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Sadly, that has been true for the Bush administration during the past year in its failure to shape a bipartisan policy on Iraq. The release of the Baker-Hamilton report in December provided an opportunity; Bush missed it. Another chance arose in late May, when Bush himself proclaimed that his strategy for the future was " Plan B-H," meaning Baker-Hamilton. But he didn't follow through.

The president should have gathered the members of the Iraq Study Group in the Rose Garden the next day and dispatched them to visit members of Congress. Sorry, Mr. President, but Democratic Study Group members Vernon Jordan and Leon Panetta would be more effective lobbyists right now than anyone from the White House.

There's broad agreement on the need to put Iraq policy on a sustainable path that will gradually withdraw American forces without producing the bloodbath that frightens people such as Ryan Crocker in Baghdad. But Bush and the Democrats are running out of opportunities to make it happen.

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

from the Washington Post

Wishful Thinking on Iraq

President Bush isn't the only guilty party.
Thursday, July 12, 2007; Page A22


IT SEEMS like just weeks ago, because it was, that Congress approved funding for the war in Iraq and instructed Gen. David H. Petraeus to report back on the war's progress in September. Now, for reasons having more to do with American politics than with Iraqi reality, September isn't soon enough. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) says he wants a vote in the next week or two "to truly change our Iraq strategy," by which he means starting to withdraw U.S. troops. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the leading Democratic candidate for president, urged President Bush on Tuesday "to begin ending the war . . . today." Increasing numbers of Republicans agree. But many of them seem reluctant to confront the likely consequences of a U.S. troop withdrawal.

We agree with Mrs. Clinton that President Bush has been guilty of "wishful thinking" on Iraq. When he was promoting his surge policy at the beginning of this year, we said Iraq's political leadership was unlikely to accept compromises any time soon. It was predictable, therefore, that Mr. Bush's benchmarks would not be met and that within a few months the policy he put forward without popular or congressional support would become even more difficult to sustain.

But his wishful thinking can't excuse, even if it helps explain, the wishful thinking on the other side. Advocates of withdrawal would like to believe that Afghanistan is now a central front in the war on terror but that Iraq is not; believing that doesn't make it so. They would like to minimize the chances of disaster following a U.S. withdrawal: of full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide. They would have us believe that someone or something will ride to the rescue: the United Nations, an Islamic peacekeeping force, an invigorated diplomatic process. They like to say that by withdrawing U.S. troops, they will "end the war."

Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become "way, way worse," as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times. If American men and women were dying in July in a clearly futile cause, it would indeed be immoral to wait until September to order their retreat. But given the risks of withdrawal, the calculus cannot be so simple. The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions. Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/democrats_cheney_2


The American Institute could cover Cheney, let alone Hllaiburton.

__________________________________

Santorum warns US http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2007/070707changeview.htm

_________________________________
Harriet Miers ordered to ignore subpeona by W

list of ignored supeona's by Bush http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2007/070707changeview.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "And the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," he concluded.

Yearning for new mass casualty terror attacks for political gain is a GOP strategy - Milligan is merely parroting what was written in a leaked confidential memo that was circulated among senior Republican leaders in late 2005.

"A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people," reported Capitol Hill Blue on November 12, 2005.

From here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 11:41 PM

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator


"We are in a debate in this United States Senate between talk and action. It's very easy to talk… and call press conferences and say 'we need a change. It's time for a change.' But let's see how people vote. Will they vote for a Sense of the Senate that has absolutely no force of law—that says it is the Sense of the Senate that we should change course? Or will they vote to start redeploying our troops out of the middle of a civil war, out of chaos?

"It's one thing to have an argument with someone and have pride and say you know, I'm not going to admit I made a mistake. It's another thing when people are dying because of your mistake every day.

"Now in November 2006, the American people voted against the Iraq war. They elected Democrats. They want this war to end… they don't want our troops in the middle of a civil war.

"How many more explosive devices are going to blow up in the faces of our troops before we start bringing them home? How many more Iraqis are going to die, women and children? How many more faces are we going to look at on the front page before we get the guts to do the right thing?   

"The President doesn't listen. He didn't listen after the election…he said he had a new strategy. What was it? The surge. The surge is not a new strategy; it's a military tactic, and it isn't working.

"Today the Associated Press reports 'Iraq fails to meet all reform goals.' Not even one goal was met. Our people are dying, and they can't meet one goal. The violence continues unabated. Since the President made his speech on January 10, after the election, when he said there was going to be a new strategy, 590 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed, 107 of whom did not live to see their 21st birthday. What kind of change is it that this President brought?   

"The Administration is failing on the security front, they're failing on the political front. They don't listen to Senator Biden, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; they don't listen to Senator Lugar, the Ranking Member, who are all saying you have to have a political solution. And the Administration is failing on the reconstruction front. Iraqis living in Baghdad still receive an average of 5.6 hours of electricity a day. The President can't even keep the lights on, let alone succeed in this surge.

"I would say to the President: tell the truth to the American people. Lay out what you expected and then lay out the reality and start getting the troops home. We have not seen these improvements, and now our military's at the breaking point."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 12:20 AM

The Independent(U.K)

Leading article: Mr Bush pays the price for this fatally ill-judged war
Published: 13 July 2007
White House spin-doctors did their utmost to put a positive gloss on it, and President Bush added his own two-penn'orth worth in an unusual morning press conference. But there was little any of them could do to relieve the pervasive sense of gloom. The security situation in Iraq clearly remains extremely bleak - and threatens to become bleaker still. In the words of the report released yesterday, the situation is "complex and extremely challenging" - diplomatic language for as bad as it gets.

This was an interim report, compiled by the White House after consultation with the commander on the ground, General David Patraeus, and the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. The final version, which is required by the US Congress in mid-September, will be the make-or-break document. As President Bush stressed yesterday, it will be crucial in determining what Washington does next.

Yet the release of the interim report had a significance of its own. That these provisional conclusions saw the light of day at all is testimony to the pressure Mr Bush now finds himself under, not only from the Democrat-controlled Congress, but from American public opinion. Opinion polls show Mr Bush to be as unpopular as Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal, and seven out of 10 Americans surveyed this week favoured a US withdrawal from Iraq by next April. The conjunction of these two forces could speed Mr Bush towards withdrawal, whether he would choose it or not.

Under the US Constitution, of course, a US President cannot be forced from office other than by impeachment. He can, however, be rendered effectively impotent, if Congress withholds money and his party forsakes him. This is the humiliation confronting Mr Bush a full 18 months before he is due to leave office.

At his press conference yesterday, Mr Bush said that on the 18 benchmarks set by Congress, Iraq had been graded "satisfactory" on eight, "unsatisfactory" on eight, and "mixed" on the remaining two. In theory, that made the score neutral. The trouble is that in practical terms the failures vastly outweigh the successes. The successes - stumping up the requisite cash for training Iraqi troops and police, for instance - tick the boxes, but mean little if those troops and police are unable to combat the insurgency. The failures - no progress on local elections and no law on dividing up oil revenue - remain just that, failures.

Mr Bush offered two points in mitigation. First, he said, it was only last month that the final contingent of US troop reinforcements had arrived to complete the so-called "surge", so it was too early to write that effort off. And second, the failures were by and large on the political side, while the successes were concentrated on the security side. Progress in security, he argued, was a precondition for political progress, therefore the indicators could be described as positive.

These arguments are at very least questionable. There was a time, after all, when political advances - national elections and the rest - were lauded as a necessary prelude to improved security. The "surge", meanwhile, has had less impact on the violence than had been hoped, while upping the US casualty rate to a level that is passing the limits of the American public's tolerance. All that Mr Bush could realistically offer yesterday, citing the report, was that things were likely to get worse before they got better, with the likelihood of an increase in al-Qa'ida-inspired attacks through the summer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:17 AM

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home."

Skip to next paragraph
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage » It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be "the principal short-term threat to Iraq."

But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them.

"The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses," said Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official. "But I don't think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation."

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who became the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, came to Iraq in 2002 when Saddam Hussein was still in power, but there is no evidence that Mr. Hussein's government provided support for Mr. Zarqawi and his followers. Mr. Zarqawi did have support from senior Qaeda leaders, American intelligence agencies believe, and his organization grew in the chaos of post-Hussein Iraq.

"There has been an intimate relationship between them from the beginning," Mr. Riedel said of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the senior leaders of the broader Qaeda group.

But the precise relationship between the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden and other groups that claim inspiration or affiliation with it is murky and opaque. While the groups share a common ideology, the Iraq-based group has enjoyed considerable autonomy. Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy, questioned Mr. Zarqawi's strategy of organizing attacks against Shiites, according to captured materials. But Mr. Zarqawi clung to his strategy of mounting sectarian attacks in an effort to foment a civil war and make the American occupation untenable.

The precise size of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not known. Estimates are that it may have from a few thousand to 5,000 fighters and perhaps twice as many supporters. While the membership of the group is mostly Iraqi, the role that foreigners play is crucial.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian militant who emerged as the successor of Mr. Zarqawi, who was killed near Baquba in an American airstrike last year. American military officials say that 60 to 80 foreign fighters come to Iraq each month to fight for the group, and that 80 to 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq have been conducted by foreign-born operatives of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

At first, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia received financing from the broader Qaeda organization, American intelligence agencies have concluded. Now, however, the Iraq-based group sustains itself through kidnapping, smuggling and criminal activities and some foreign contributions.

With the Shiite militias having taken a lower profile since the troop increase began, and with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia embarking on its own sort of countersurge, a main focus of the American military operation is to deprive the group of its strongholds in the areas surrounding Baghdad — and thus curtail its ability to carry out spectacular casualty-inducing attacks in the Iraqi capital.

The heated debate over Iraq has spilled over to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as well. Mr. Bush has played up the group, talking about it as if it is on a par with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. War critics have often played down the significance of the group despite its gruesome record of suicide attacks and its widely suspected role in destroying a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February 2006 that set Iraq on the road to civil war.

Just last week, Mr. Zawahri called on Muslims to travel to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to carry out their fight against the Americans and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, an umbrella group that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has established to attract broader Sunni support.

The broader issue is whether Iraq is a central front in the war against Al Qaeda, as Mr. Bush maintains, or a distraction that has diverted the United States from focusing on the Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan while providing Qaeda leaders with a cause for rallying support.

Military intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia's leaders wanted to expand their attacks to other countries. They noted that Mr. Zarqawi claimed a role in a 2005 terrorist attack in Jordan. But Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said that if American forces were to withdraw from Iraq, the vast majority of the group's members would likely be more focused on battling Shiite militias in the struggle for dominance in Iraq than on trying to follow the Americans home.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:22 AM

No Progress Report
               E-Mail
Print
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink


Published: July 13, 2007
With the American public in despair over the Iraq war and key members of his own party deserting him, President Bush is still trying to twist reality to claim that his failed effort is worth sticking with. Yesterday, the White House issued a report card claiming that Iraq's government had made limited progress on some political and security goals. And Mr. Bush insisted that not only was it not the time to talk about withdrawing American troops, but that he still believes that "the fight can be won."

That's been the spin for months. But Bob Woodward reported yesterday in The Washington Post that Mr. Bush's director of Central Intelligence, Gen. Michael Hayden, warned the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last fall that the "the inability" of the Iraqi government to govern "seems irreversible" and he could not point to "any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around."

A closer look at Mr. Bush's hyped report card leads to that same grim conclusion. Eight months after General Hayden issued his warning, the United States still has no effective Iraqi government partner committed to an effective program of national reconciliation and no effective Iraqi military capable of acting independently in the absence of American troops.

Officially, the White House credited the Iraqi government with satisfactory performance on 8 of the 18 listed benchmarks, not considered a passing grade in most tests. And most of the claimed successes were partial, or minor. Even the easy graders at the White House had to conclude that there has not been satisfactory progress toward ensuring that Iraqi forces evenhandedly uphold the law, nor progress toward eliminating militia control of local security, nor progress toward equitable distribution of oil revenues nor toward reforming discriminatory anti-Baathist legislation.

The original point of these benchmarks was to spur recalcitrant Iraqi leaders into taking the steps necessary to rescue their country, and Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, from the gathering flames of civil war. That is why Congress wanted to link these report cards to a clear threat of scaled-back American support if the Iraqi authorities failed to measure up. Mr. Bush's veto removed that useful threat, diminishing any real incentive for Iraqis to take the hard steps required. They haven't, and now America needs to act on its own.

Mr. Bush still refuses to talk about what almost everyone else now understands is essential: the need to develop an orderly plan to extricate American troops from a lost cause and reposition them in ways that can genuinely protect our national interests. A new classified study by the intelligence community offers one more reminder why continued delay and delusion is so dangerous. It says that six years after the Sept. 11 attacks Al Qaeda has rebuilt itself and has settled into safe havens in Pakistan.
...

(From The New York Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 02:38 PM

MIAMI — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger brought his star power and California's vanguard environmental policies Friday to a climate conference, at which Florida joined the ranks of U.S. states and cities committed to fighting global warming.

The two-day meeting here, hosted by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, reinforced a growing public and corporate determination to confront the climate change that threatens Florida's 1,200-mile coastline and $7-billion-a-year outdoor recreation industry.

Crist signed executive orders requiring Florida to adopt the same tough pollution controls California has. The aim is to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2025, require 20% of state power to come from renewable sources, and compel civil servants to use fuel-efficient vehicles and "green" offices.

But it was Schwarzenegger who stole the limelight Friday, taking swipes at what he called the Bush administration's neglect of environmental issues and at Detroit automakers for fighting tougher fuel-efficiency standards.

"I'm very proud to see another governor joining California and the growing number of states not looking to Washington for leadership anymore," Schwarzenegger told the gathering of 950 corporate, environmental and community leaders, to thunderous applause.

With 34 states and 600 cities now on board with his plan to halt global warming, Schwarzenegger said, the United States was approaching the "tipping point" — when the federal government and industries would recognize the folly of ignoring this century's greatest challenge.

"We cannot expect rapidly growing countries like China and India to protect the environment when the United States is not showing leadership," he said.

Environment ministers from Germany and Britain, who took part in the conference, praised Crist and Schwarzenegger for helping Americans recognize their global responsibilities. Since the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto Protocols of the U.N. Convention on Climate Change in 2001, relations with European allies on environment issues have been strained.

Schwarzenegger said his anti-pollution actions, the toughest in the nation, were proof that Republicans could be responsible stewards of the environment. But he insisted there was no partisan divide on the climate issue.

"There is no Democratic planet Earth. There is no Republican planet Earth. There's just a planet Earth, and we all have a responsibility to take care of it," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:42 PM

Sharp Debate, and a Defection
By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page A06


Sen. Olympia J. Snowe could wait no longer. On Thursday, the Maine Republican publicly broke with the White House on the Iraq war, which she had long since come to oppose. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a fervent war opponent, believes that there are plenty of other Republicans prepared to jump at the next dose of bad news. "I just see the growing fear in their eyes on this," she said.

Snowe's move -- long anticipated, much agonized-over -- came during a week of intense congressional debate over the war, when President Bush issued a mixed report on military and political progress in Iraq and his advisers worried that the political pressure to change course now, rather than after a full report due this fall, would prove inexorable. But Bush voiced his opposition to what he called a "precipitous" departure as Democratic leaders promised a series of votes -- and weeks of agonized debate -- until there is a change of course. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:07 PM

Contempt for Congress
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: July 14, 2007
The Bush administration's disregard for the rule of law hit another low this week when Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, defied a Congressional subpoena. Ms. Miers, who was called to testify about the United States attorneys scandal, refused even to show up at the Capitol. A second former official, Sara Taylor, did testify, but she inappropriately invoked executive privilege to dodge key questions. Congress should take firm action to compel Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor to provide the testimony it is entitled to hear.

Congress has been conducting a much-needed investigation of last year's dismissal of nine top prosecutors. The evidence so far strongly suggests that the firings were done for improper political reasons, to help Republicans win elections, and that Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor were involved. As part of its supervisory authority, Congress is entitled to question the two women.

Nevertheless, Ms. Miers refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee after President Bush — claiming executive privilege — took the extraordinary step of ordering her not to testify. If Congress is seeking any privileged information, Ms. Miers can decline to answer those specific questions. But executive privilege did not negate her legal duty to appear when Congress subpoenaed her.

Ms. Taylor came when summoned by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But she then episodically invoked executive privilege. She refused to answer such basic questions as who decided which prosecutors to fire and why they were fired. But she did tell the committee that she hadn't attended any meetings with the president where the firings were discussed. Since executive privilege protects a president's communications with his advisers, that answer seriously undercuts her basis for invoking it.

The House should vote to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. The Senate Judiciary Committee should review Ms. Taylor's testimony and demand answers to the legitimate questions she refused to answer. If she continues her recalcitrance she, too, should face contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:21 AM

Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."


This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance — they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures — and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.

Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money. ...

(Krugman in the Times, Jul 16, 2007)

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

MAureen Dowd of the NY Times offered some interesting thoughts recently:

...Someone might tell Condi — who said in one of her golf interviews that her zest for sports is so all-encompassing that "I love anything with a score at the end" — that she'd better get to work or America's score in Iraq will be zero.

The Iraq war she helped sell has turned into Grendel, devouring everything in sight and making it uninhabitable. It has ravaged Iraq, Bush's presidency, the federal budget, the Republican majority, American invincibility and integrity, and now, John McCain's chance to be president.

And there's no Beowulf in sight. Just a bunch of spectacularly wrong hawks stubbornly continuing to be spectacularly wrong at what an alarmed Republican Senator John Warner calls "a time in our history unlike any I have ever witnessed before."

Watching the warring tribes in Iraq grow more violent has caused the beginning of a reconciliation among the warring tribes in Washington, as they realize they have to get the car keys away from the careening president who has crashed into the globe.

With Republicans in revolt over the surge and losing patience, and Bushies worried, as one put it to The Washington Post, that "July has become the new September," the president decided to do a p.r. surge to sound as if he's acquainted with reality.

But in a speech in Cleveland yesterday, the president was still repeating his deranged generalities. Making a tiny concession, he said we would be able to pull back troops "in a while," whatever that means, but asked Congress to wait for Gen. David Petraeus to debrief on the surge in September — rather than focus on the report due this week that says the ineffectual Iraq government has failed to meet benchmarks set by America.

It was ironic that his strongest supporter to the bitter end was the Republican who was once his bitter rival. There was speculation that Mr. McCain would come back from his visit to Iraq and revise his bullish support of the war to save his imploding campaign. But the opposite happened.

As his top advisers were purged, Mr. McCain went to the floor of the Senate to reassert his warped view that "there appears to be overall movement in the right direction."

Like W., Senator McCain values the advice of Henry Kissinger and said, "We can find wisdom in several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger."

Why they continue to seek counsel from the man who kept the Vietnam War going for years just to protect Richard Nixon's electoral chances is beyond mystifying. But Mr. Kissinger holds their attention with all his warnings of "American impotence" emboldening radical Islam and Iran. Can't W. and Mr. McCain see that American muscularity, stupidly thrown around, has already emboldened radical Islam and Iran?

The president mentioned in his speech yesterday that he was reading history, and he has been summoning historians and theologians to the White House for discussions on the fate of Iraq and the nature of good and evil.

W. thinks history will be his alibi. When presidents have screwed up and want to console themselves, they think history will give them a second chance. It's the historical equivalent of a presidential pardon.

But there are other things — morality, strategy and security — that are more pressing than history. History is just the fanciest way possible of wanting to deny or distract attention from what's happening now.

---

What a redhead!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 12:58 PM

From the Washington Post:

The House Votes Down an Earmark

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 16, 2007; Page A15

As bipartisan majorities overwhelmed all attempts to eliminate pork-barrel earmarks during a recent House session, one effort actually succeeded -- comfortably, though unnoticed by the public. The reason House members voted to deprive a colleague of pork for his district is the identity of that colleague: Rep. Patrick McHenry, a second-term Republican from Cherryville, in the western Piedmont of North Carolina, who at 31 is the youngest member of the House.

McHenry's $129,000 earmark would have promoted tourism in economically distressed Mitchell County. The new Democratic majority's leadership, which routinely supports earmarks, cracked the whip against this one, apparently in the spirit of political revenge. A conservative firebrand, McHenry had immobilized the House and humiliated the Democrats by leading GOP parliamentary maneuvers to force transparency regarding earmarks, previously hidden by both parties.

But the House showed in the last week of June that the celebrated transparency is a sham. Each newly transparent earmark brought to a floor vote survived by a huge margin. In traditional congressional logrolling, one earmarker protects another. There is no political risk because such votes are publicly ignored. Members insisting on their pork reflect bipartisan congressional nonchalance about ballooning spending. Demonstrating the cynicism of their pretensions toward earmark reform, Democrats also got even with the bumptious McHenry.

While considering the interior appropriations bill, the House kept 11 egregious earmarks alive. Rep. John Murtha, king of Democratic earmarkers, kept $1.2 million for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg (by a 343 to 86 vote), and $150,000 for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry in Greene County (328 to 104). The House voted 323 to 104 to retain $140,000 for the Wetzel County, W.Va., courthouse sponsored by Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan, whose earmarks have provoked an FBI investigation.

Moving on to financial services appropriations, the House voted 335 to 87 to continue Murtha's raid on the Treasury: $231,000 for the Grace Johnstown (Pa.) Area Regional Industries Incubator. By 325 to 101, the members refused to remove a $231,000 Mollohan earmark for West Virginia University Research Corp. to renovate a "small business incubator." As usual, dauntless Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona led the way in targeting colleagues' earmarks. He did not exempt Republicans -- including 15-term California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, whose past earmarking has raised ethical questions.

Flake opposed Lewis's $500,000 earmark for the Barracks Row Main Street project in Southeast Washington. Flake noted on the House floor that millions in federal funds have flowed into that neighborhood since 1999, including a $750,000 earmark last year. "I certainly hope," said Flake, "that we are not approving a redevelopment earmark today to redevelop last year's redevelopment earmark." Last year, such comments led Republican leaders to purge Flake from the Judiciary Committee. A smiling, sarcastic Lewis asked Flake: "Have you ever attended the Silent March that takes place on Friday evenings at the Marine barracks [on Barracks Row]?" "I have not," Flake replied. "You have not. I would suggest to the gentleman that probably one of the most important things that a member of Congress should do is to go to the Marine barracks." Lewis's earmark was retained, 361 to 60.

That day, I asked Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Flake's fellow Republican reformer, whether he was discouraged. "Oh, no," he said. "There are three of us now [including second-term Republican Rep. John Campbell of California], and now we only get beat 3-to-1." Little did Hensarling know that the House was about to eliminate one earmark.

Flake's earmark list included McHenry's development grant, which he said "is simply not a good use of federal dollars." Flake had privately reassured McHenry that his earmark was certain to be saved by the pork-hungry House. "Don't be too sure," McHenry replied. Indeed, with Democratic leaders eager to punish him, McHenry's earmark was eliminated, 249 to 174.

An embarrassed McHenry told me that this might well be his last earmark. That does signal a little progress, unintentionally resulting from hypocritical pretensions of reform by the new Democratic majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM

From the Washington Post:

What Clinton (Almost) Doesn't Say

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, July 16, 2007; Page A15

IOWA, July 10 -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton traveled to this crucial caucus state today to assure voters that she would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future because "we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region."

You missed that news story? Me, too. It's not the message Clinton wanted to convey, and it's not the message that reporters took away from her speech.

But it would have been an accurate, if incomplete, rendition of her long address on Iraq policy. That she wanted to go on the record with such a view, but didn't want voters to really hear it, says much about the current Washington bind on Iraq policy.

Here's what she wanted voters to take away from the speech, judging by the top of the campaign's press release about it: "Today in Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately." Most of the address indeed focused on her plan to withdraw combat troops, which she said she would accompany with increased aid and diplomacy. She peppered the speech with criticism of Bush's war leadership and with phrases such as "as we are leaving Iraq."

But toward the end, Clinton noted that it would be "a great worry for our country" if Iraq "becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is." So she would "order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." U.S. troops would also train and equip Iraqi forces "to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working." And she might deploy other forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, she said, "to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that has developed there."

In other words, Clinton ascribed to what might be called the consensus, Baker-Hamilton view: Pull out of the most intense combat but remain militarily engaged by going after terrorists, training and advising Iraqi troops, and safeguarding at least some regions or borders. It's the position set forth in the proposal of Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed and in the compromise proposal of Republican Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar. Last week President Bush said it's "a position I'd like to see us in."

If everyone agrees, what's the problem? Bush and the Democrats have very different ideas of the conditions needed to move to Baker-Hamilton. (So, by the way, did Republican Jim Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton when they co-wrote the report.) Bush thinks U.S. troops can pull back only after they have established, with their new counterinsurgency strategy, sufficient peace to allow Iraqi factions to begin making political compromises.

Democrats say such compromises aren't likely anytime soon. As Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, one of Iraq's more sober-minded leaders, told the New York Times this month, "I am optimistic in the medium and long term . . . [but] it needs five or six or seven or 10 years." During that time, Democrats (and increasing numbers of Republicans) do not want U.S. troops in "the crossfire of sectarian violence," as Clinton said last week.

But, respond supporters of the surge, Baker-Hamilton can't work without security. Training the Iraqi army will be futile if all around is chaos; embedding as advisers will be even more dangerous than patrolling Baghdad now; and how successful could Clinton's "narrow and targeted operations" against terrorists be from a distance? NATO's inability to counter al-Qaeda across the Afghan border in Pakistan, and Israel's frustrations with Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon, are not encouraging.

Bush, in other words, views Baker-Hamilton as a prize to be won by means of successful combat. According to advisers, he sees himself playing for time, maneuvering so that his successor -- Hillary Clinton, maybe -- will have Baker-Hamilton as an option when he or she moves into the Oval Office in January 2009. Democrats, on the other hand, see it as the least bad response to irrevocable defeat.

There's another problem, too: Democratic primary voters do not want to hear of adjustments, redeployments, reductions. They want all troops out, now. That is why Clinton will devote one paragraph to the military defense "of our very real strategic national interests in this region" and more than 10 pages to troop withdrawal.

That suggests that by the time Bush is ready for or forced into compromise, compromise may no longer be possible in Congress. Which in turn means that, bleak as all the options appear now, the choices that a President Clinton would face in 18 months might look far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 04:42 PM

Hillary is one piece of work, all right!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 08:44 AM

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has been caught frequenting prostitutes. His behavior stands in stark contrast to the conservative "family values" and harsh sex-negative positions he relentlessly championed in the Senate and state legislature.

Vitter says he has "received forgiveness from God" for his "sins." Thus conveniently cleansed, he now accuses "political enemies" of undermining his future work. Yesterday his wife criticized the news media for "following us every day last week," as if Vitter had merely been caught with an overdue library book.

That's the problem with conceptualizing one's free choices as "sin"—you can simply admit you're not perfect, claim that God forgives you, and take absolutely no responsibility for yourself. This is particularly repulsive in political figures like Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, and now Vitter—who make a living blasting tens of millions of American adults following their own vision of sexual morality, when Vitter and colleagues can't follow their own. Or can't admit what their own sexual code really is. ...

(From the Ontario News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:38 AM

From the Washington Post:

No Magic Bullets For Iraq

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A19

Leave Washington in the winter, return in midsummer. First you'll be surprised by the heat, then by the humidity. Then you'll be surprised by the certainty.

Out in the world, there are shades of gray. Here inside the Beltway, there are black-and-white solutions. And everybody who is anybody has a plan for Iraq.

Hillary Clinton has a three-point plan; Barack Obama has a "move the soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan" plan. House Democrats have a plan to take most troops out by next March; Senate Democrats have a plan to take them out by April. Some Senate Republicans want the president to shrink the size of the U.S. military in Iraq; other Senate Republicans want to let the surge run its course. Search the Web, listen to the radio and watch the news, and you can hear people arguing that if only we had more troops, fewer troops or no troops at all, everything would be okay again.

What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.

More troops? I hardly need to elaborate on what's wrong with that plan, since so many in Congress do so every day. But for the record, I'll repeat the obvious: More troops means more American casualties, maybe many more casualties. Worse, the very presence of American soldiers creates strife in some parts of Iraq -- angering Iraqis, motivating al-Qaeda, sparking violence. Besides, we've tried the surge, and the surge hasn't brought the results we wanted. And, anyway, the surge simply can't be maintained, let alone expanded: There aren't that many more troops to send, even if we wanted to send them.

Fewer troops? This plan sounds like a reasonable compromise: neither surge nor cut-and-run, just leaving a few guys on the ground to train the Iraqis, guard the border and fight the terrorists. It also sounds a touch naive: So, in the midst of a vast civil war, small groups of Americans will withdraw to some neutral outposts and announce that they would no longer like to be shot at, please? Both "guarding the border" and "fighting terrorism" are hard to do effectively without involving ourselves in wider political and ethnic struggles.

There is also trouble with the "train the Iraqis" part of the plan, as Stephen Biddle spelled out in The Post last week, since "training Iraqis" invariably puts us in the middle of military conflict. Besides, fewer Americans could mean more Iraqi violence; more Iraqi violence could mean more American casualties -- not to mention more Iraqi casualties -- which defeats the purpose of the plan altogether.

No troops? Though deeply appealing to the "we told you so" crowd, this plan is clothed in the greatest degree of hypocrisy. How many of the people who clamor for intervention in Darfur will also be clamoring to rush back into Iraq when full-scale ethnic cleansing starts taking place? How many will take responsibility for the victims of genocide? I'm not saying there will be such a catastrophe, but there could be: Mass ethnic murders have certainly been carried out in Iraq before. Other possibilities include the creation of an Iranian puppet state or an al-Qaeda outlaw state; or there might merely be a regional war involving, say, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, just for starters, and maybe Israel and the Gaza Strip as well. Perhaps these things would never have happened if we hadn't gone there in the first place -- but if we leave, we'll be morally responsible.

Of course, I don't want to exaggerate. There are people who know that there is no perfect solution for Iraq. However, they tend not to be people who are running for the presidency or any other public office. Last weekend, I met a Marine about to depart for his second tour in Iraq. He wasn't exactly enthusiastic about going, nor was he particularly optimistic about what could be achieved. But he wasn't demanding to stay home, either. If nothing else, he felt obliged to stick by the many Iraqis who had helped the Marines and who might well be murdered if the Marines left for good.

He had, in other words, perceived the only truth of which we can really be certain: that there are no obvious solutions in Iraq, only policy changes that could make some things better and some things worse. Maybe much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:27 PM

A good post on Iraq, BB. Thoughtful and well-spoken.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:21 AM

"...So let's get this straight: Iraqi parliamentarians, at least those not already boycotting the Parliament, will be on vacation in August so they can be cool, while young American men and women, and Iraqi Army soldiers, will be fighting in the heat in order to create a proper security environment in which Iraqi politicians can come back in September and continue squabbling while their country burns.

Here is what I think of that: I think it's a travesty — and for the Bush White House to excuse it with a Baghdad weather report shows just how much it has become a hostage to Iraq.

The administration constantly says the surge is necessary, but not sufficient. That's right. There has to be a political deal. And the latest report card on Iraq showed that a deal is nowhere near completion. So where is the diplomatic surge? What are we waiting for? A cool day in December?

When you read stories in the newspapers every day about Americans who are going to Iraq for their third or even fourth tours and you think that this administration has never sent its best diplomats for even one tour yet — never made one, not one, single serious, big-time, big-tent diplomatic push to resolve this conflict, but instead has put everything on the military, it makes you sick.

Yes, yes, I know, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to make one of her quick-in-and-out trips to the Middle East next month to try to enlist support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in the fall. I'm all for Arab-Israeli negotiations, but the place that really needs a peace conference right now is Iraq, and it won't happen with drive-by diplomacy.

President Bush baffles me. If your whole legacy was riding on Iraq, what would you do? I'd draft the country's best negotiators — Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, George Shultz, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross or Richard Holbrooke — and ask one or all of them to go to Baghdad, under a U.N. mandate, with the following orders:

"I want you to move to the Green Zone, meet with the Iraqi factions and do not come home until you've reached one of three conclusions: 1) You have resolved the power- and oil-sharing issues holding up political reconciliation; 2) you have concluded that those obstacles are insurmountable and have sold the Iraqis on a partition plan that could be presented to the U.N. and supervised by an international force; 3) you have concluded that Iraqis are incapable of agreeing on either political reconciliation or a partition plan and told them that, as a result, the U.S. has no choice but to re-deploy its troops to the border and let Iraqis sort this out on their own."

The last point is crucial. Any lawyer will tell you, if you're negotiating a contract and the other side thinks you'll never walk away, you've got no leverage. And in Iraq, we've never had any leverage. The Iraqis believe that Mr. Bush will never walk away, so they have no incentive to make painful compromises.

That's why the Iraqi Parliament is on vacation in August and our soldiers are fighting in the heat. Something is wrong with this picture. First, Mr. Bush spends three years denying the reality that we need a surge of more troops to establish security and then, with Iraq spinning totally out of control and militias taking root everywhere, he announces a surge and criticizes others for being impatient.

At the same time, Mr. Bush announces a peace conference for Israelis and Palestinians — but not for Iraqis. He's like a man trapped in a burning house who calls 911 to put out the brush fire down the street. Hello?

Quitting Iraq would be morally and strategically devastating. But to just drag out the surge, with no road map for a political endgame, with Iraqi lawmakers going on vacation, with no consequences for dithering, would be just as morally and strategically irresponsible.

We owe Iraqis our best military — and diplomatic effort — to avoid the disaster of walking away. But if they won't take advantage of that, we owe our soldiers a ticket home. "

Paul Krugman in the N.Y. Times, 07-18-2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:24 AM

And Maureen Dowd observes:

"...The administration's most thorough intelligence assessment since 9/11 is stark and dark. Two pages add up to one message: The Bushies blew it. Al Qaeda has exploded into a worldwide state of mind. Because of what's going on with Iraq and Iran, Hezbollah may now "be more likely to consider" attacking us. Al Qaeda will try to "put operatives here" — (some news reports say a cell from Pakistan already is en route or has arrived) — and "acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material in attacks."

(Democrats on cots are ineffectual, but Al Qaeda in caves gets the job done?)

After 9/11, W. stopped mentioning Osama's name, calling him "just a person who's now been marginalized," and adding "I just don't spend that much time on him."

This week, as counterterrorism officials gathered at the White House to frantically brainstorm on covert and overt plans to capture Osama, the president may have regretted his perverse attempt to demote America's most determined enemy.

W. began to mention Osama and Al Qaeda more recently, but only to assert: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." His conflation is contradicted by the fact that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, as the Sunni terrorist group in Iraq is known, did not exist before 9/11.

Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, did her best to put a gloss on the dross but failed. She had to admit that the hands-off approach used by Mr. Musharraf with the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, which always looked like a nutty way to give Al Qaeda room to regroup, was a nutty way to give Al Qaeda room to regroup.

"It hasn't worked for Pakistan," she conceded. "It hasn't worked for the United States."

Just as we outsourced capturing Osama at Tora Bora to Afghans who had no motive to do it, we outsourced capturing Osama in Pakistan to Mr. Musharraf, who had no motive to do it.

Pressed by reporters on why we haven't captured Osama, especially if he's climbing around with a dialysis machine, Ms. Townsend sniffed that she wished "it were that easy." It's not easy to launch a trumped-up war to reshape the Middle East into a utopian string of democracies, but that didn't stop W. from making that audacious gambit.

The Bushies, who once mocked Bill Clinton for doing only "pinprick" bombings on Al Qaeda, now say they can do nothing about Osama because they can't "pinpoint" him, as Ms. Townsend put it. She assured reporters that they were "harassing" Al Qaeda, making it sound more like a tugging-on-pigtails strategy than a take-no-prisoners strategy.

We've had it up the wazir with Waziristan. Surely there are Army Rangers and Navy Seals who can make the trek, even if it's a no-man's land. If it were a movie, we'd trace the saline in Osama's dialysis machine, target it with a laser and blow up the mountain.

W. swaggers about with his cowboy boots and gunslinger stance. But when talking about Waziristan last February, he explained that it was hard to round up the Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders there because: "This is wild country; this is wilder than the Wild West."

Yes, they shoot with real bullets up there, and they fly into buildings with real planes.

If W. were a real cowboy, instead of somebody who just plays one on TV, he would have cleaned up Dodge by now. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:44 AM

"This administration has never hesitated to play on fear for political gain, starting with the first homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, and his Popsicle-coded threat charts. It is a breathtakingly cynical ploy, but in the past it has worked to cow Democrats into silence, if not always submission, and herd Republicans back onto the party line.

That must not happen this time. By now, Congress surely can see through the president's fear-mongering and show Mr. Bush the exit from Iraq that he refuses to find for himself."

From this stinging editorial on the politics of fear and fear-mongering.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 12:19 PM

Do you have your stockpile of duct tape and plastic?

I watched a Sundance film on bomb shelters that middle America is building to thwart Al Quada.

I hope they use them in tornado weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 02:37 PM

Why Bush Will Be A Winner by William Kristol, Sunday, July 15, 2007; Page B01 of the Washington Post, is a meretricious piece of mental acrobatics from a deep-dyed-in-the-wool-over-the-eyes Bush supporter.

Fortunately for rational discourse, Why Bush Is A Loser,By David Corn, in today's edition, makes mincemeat out of Kristol, his track record, and the jejeune partisan slant of his pseudo-analyses.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 05:08 PM

It took Nixon to open China so shy not Bush to close America?


7-18-7


BAGHDAD -- "Yesterday, one of my good friends from another office was telling me they were going to start issuing armored vests to us office types because of the growing danger from mortars. We are being shelled daily and, like everything else, casualties are way underreported . But more important than the flak vests was a file he had copied out and which he gave to me to smuggle out of the country. As I have said, we have strict censorship here on all incoming and outgoing snail mail, email, phone calls and so on. This report is so serious I am making a précis of it and am even now sending it around to various news outlets, both Stateside and elsewhere. I have my sources and believe me, the CIC people here are so stupid they couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the bottom.

It states that because of "growing popular unrest in the United States, caused by the prolonged war in Iraq .coupled with obvious Congressional inaction," the U.S. military has drawn up plans for combating domestic U.S. civil insurrections. This is not a theoretical study but a very specific one. Units to be used domestically are listed in detail as are detention centers, etc.

As a result of this, plans are now in train to segregate, retrain and reequip certain anti-insurgent U.S. military units now serving in Iraq and to prepare them for quick transfer back to the United States for use "as needed" The Pentagon command believes that such civil insurrections are not only a possibility but a very real probability in the event that the President and his advisors maintain their present course vis a vis the Iraqi war.

It is interesting to note that "foreign intelligence representatives, now active in the United States" (read Mossad) are to be subject to "arrest, confinement and eventual deportation to their country of origin."

The report and several attached ones, run to almost 900 pages and cannot be put up in their current form. However, I will list some of the more important data here:

Classification: Top Secret-Noforn as of 1 June 2007

Distribution Restriction: Distribution authorized to the DOD and DOD contractors only to maintain operations security. This determination was made on 1 June 2007. Other requests for this document must be referred to (redacted)

Destruction Notice: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document. .

This publication uses the term insurgent to describe those taking part in any activity designed to undermine or to overthrow the established authorities

Counterinsurgency is those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civicactions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02). It is an offensive approach involving all elements of national power; it can take place across the range of operations and spectrum of conflict

In dealing with the local populace, the primary aims must be to:

·Protect the population.

·Establish local political institutions.

·Reinforce local governments.

·Eliminate insurgent capabilities.

·Exploit information from local sources.

An insurgency is organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). It is a protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken government control and legitimacy while increasing insurgent control. Political power is the central issue in an insurgency.

An insurgent organization normally consists of four elements:

Leadership.

Combatants (main forces, regional forces, local forces).

Cadre (local political leaders that are also called the militants).

Mass base (the bulk of the membership).



A perceived serious potential of dissident American groups rising up against constituted authority has been clearly identified by counter-intelligence agencies.. The stated cause for such an uprising appear to be growing dissatisfaction with the course and conduct of the war in Iraq, the chronic inability of Congress to deal with various pressing issues and the perception of widespread corruption and indifference to public needs.

The support of the people, passive or active then, is the center of gravity. It must be gained in whatever proportion is necessary to sustain the insurgent movement (or, contrariwise, to defeat it). As in any political campaign, all levels of support are relative.

Insurgent movements begin as "fire in the minds of men." Insurgent leaders commit themselves to building a new world. They construct the organization to carry through this desire. Generally, popular grievances become insurgent causes when interpreted and shaped by the insurgent leadership. The insurgency grows if the cadre that is local insurgent leaders and representatives can establish a link between the insurgent movement and the desire for solutions to grievances sought by the local population

Insurgent leaders will exploit opportunities created by government security force actions. The behavior of security forces is critical. Lack of security force discipline leads to alienation, and security force abuse of the populace is a very effective insurgent recruiting tool. Consequently, specific insurgent tactical actions are often planned to frequently elicit overreaction from security force individuals and units.

Insurgencies are dynamic political movements, resulting from real or perceived grievance or neglect that leads to alienation from an established government.

A successful counterinsurgency will result in the neutralization by the state of the insurgency and its effort to form a counterstate. While many abortive insurgencies are defeated by military and police actions alone, if an insurgency has tapped into serious grievances and has mobilized a significant portion of the population, simply returning to the status quo may not be an option. Reform may be necessary, but reform is a matter for the state, using all of its human and material resources. Security forces are only one such resource. The response must be multifaceted and coordinated, yet states typically charge their security forces with "waging counterinsurgency." This the security forces cannot do alone.

These imperatives are-

· Facilitate establishment or reestablishment of a 'legitimate government'.

· Counterinsurgency requires perseverance.

· Foster popular support for the incumbent US government.

· Prepare to perform functions and conduct operations that are outside normal scope of training.

· Coordinate with US governmental departments and agencies, and with vital non-governmental, agencies.

Urban operations.

· Protection of government facilities.

· Protection of infrastructure.

· Protection of commercial enterprises vital to the HN economy.

· Protection of cultural facilities.

· Prevention of looting.

· Military police functions.

· Close interaction with civilians.

· Assistance with reconstruction projects.

· Securing the national borders.

· Training or retraining a national military police and security force.

Establishing and maintaining local government credibility.

· Contributing local government is both tangible and psychological. Local security forces must reinforce and be integrated into the plan at every stage.

· Facilitate and use information and intelligence obtained from local sources to gain access to the insurgent's economic and social base of support, order of battle, tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Army forces help local pro-government police, paramilitary, and military forces perform counterinsurgency, area security, or local security operations. They advise and assist in finding, dispersing, capturing, and destroying the insurgent force.

US forces may conduct offensive operations to disrupt and destroy insurgent combat formations. These operations prevent the insurgents from attacking government-controlled areas.

There are many organizations and extensive resources available to aid counterinsurgent forces.

Commanders should not overlook the aid these organizations may provide. All forces assigned an AO or function should determine which departments and agencies are assisting in that AO and coordinate actions so that there is no duplication of effort. Such departments,

councils and agencies include-

· National Security Council.

· Department of Defense.

· Department of State.

· Department of Justice.

· Department of the Treasury.

· Department of Homeland Security.

· Department of Agriculture.

· Department of Commerce.

· Central Intelligence Agency.

· Department of Transportation

Various governmental departments directly administer or support other governmental agencies. Examples of these US agencies are-

· The US Coast Guard (under Department of Homeland Security).

· The Federal Bureau of Investigation (under Department of Justice).

· Immigration Customs Enforcement (under Department of Homeland Security).

· Federal Communications Commission

. The proper application of force is a critical component to any successful counterinsurgency operation. In a counterinsurgency, the center of gravity is public support. In order to defeat an insurgent force, US forces must be able to separate insurgents from the population. At the same time, US forces must conduct themselves in a manner that enables them to maintain popular domestic support. Excessive or indiscriminant use of force is likely to alienate the local populace, thereby increasing support for insurgent forces. Insufficient use of force results in increased risks to US forces and perceived weaknesses that can jeopardize the mission by emboldening insurgents and undermining domestic popular support. Achieving the appropriate balance requires a thorough understanding of the nature and causes of the insurgency, the end state, and the military's role in a counterinsurgency operation. Nevertheless, US forces always retain the right to use necessary and proportional force for individual and unit self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.

The media, print and broadcast (radio, television and the Internet), play a vital role in societies involved in a counterinsurgency. Members of the media have a significant influence and shaping impact on political direction, national security objectives, and policy and national will. The media is a factor in military operations. It is their right and obligation to report to their respective audiences on the use of military force. They demand logistic support and access to military operations while refusing to be controlled. Their desire for immediate footage and on-the-spot coverage of events, and the increasing contact with units and Soldiers (for example, with embedded reporters) require commanders and public affairs officers to provide guidance to leaders and Soldiers on media relations. However, military planners must provide and enforce ground rules to the media to ensure operations security. Public affairs offices plan for daily briefings and a special briefing after each significant event because the media affect and influence each potential target audience external and internal to the AO. Speaking with the media in a forward-deployed area is an opportunity to explain what our organizations and efforts have accomplished.

Continuous PSYOP are mounted to-

· Counter the effects of insurgent propaganda.

· Relate controls to the security and well-being of the population.

· Portray a favorable governmental image.

.Control measures must-

· Be authorized by national laws and regulations (counterparts should be trained not to improvise unauthorized measures).

· Be tailored to fit the situation (apply the minimum force required to achieve the de-sired result).

· Be supported by effective local intelligence.

· Be instituted in as wide an area as possible to prevent bypass or evasion.

· Be supported by good communications.

· Be enforceable.

· Be lifted as the need diminishes.

· Be compatible, where possible, with local customs and traditions.

· Establish and maintain credibility of local government.

A control program may be developed in five phases:

· Securing and defending the area internally and externally.

· Organizing for law enforcement.

· Executing cordon and search operations.

· Screening and documenting the population (performing a detailed census).

· Performing public administration, to include resource control.

Support to the judiciary may be limited to providing security to the existing courts or may lead to more comprehensive actions to build local, regional, and national courts and the required support apparatus. To avoid overcrowding in police jails, the courts must have an efficient and timely magistrate capability, ideally co-located with police stations and police jails, to review cases for trial.

Cordon and search is a technique used by military and police forces in both urban and rural environments. It is frequently used by counterinsurgency forces conducting a population and resource control mission against small centers of population or subdivisions of a larger community. To be effective, cordon and search operations must have sufficient forces to effectively cordon off and thoroughly search target areas, to include subsurface areas.

PSYOP, civil affairs, and specialist interrogation teams should augment cordon and search orces to increase the effectiveness of operations. Consider the following when conducting cordon and search operations:

Cordon and search operations may be conducted as follows:

Disposition of troops should-

· Facilitate visual contact between posts within the cordon.

· Provide for adequate patrolling and immediate deployment of an effective re-serve force.

Priority should be given to-

· Sealing the administrative center of the community.

· Occupying all critical facilities.

· Detaining personnel in place.

· Preserving and securing all records, files, and other archives.

Key facilities include-

· Administrative buildings.

· Police stations.

· News media facilities.

· Post offices.

· Communications centers.

· Transportation offices and motor pools.

· Prisons and other places of detention.

· Schools.

· Medical facilities.

Search Techniques include-

· Search teams of squad size organized in assault, support, and security elements.

One target is assigned per team.

· Room searches are conducted by two-person teams.

· Room search teams are armed with pistols, assault weapons, and automatic weapons.

· Providing security for search teams screening operations and facilities.

Pre-search coordination includes-

· Between control personnel and screening team leaders.

· Study of layout plans.

· Communications, that is, radio, whistle, and hand signals.

· Disposition of suspects.

· On-site security.

· Guard entrances, exits (to include the roof), halls, corridors, and tunnels.

· Assign contingency tasks for reserve.

· Room searches conducted by two- or three-person teams.

· Immobilize occupants with one team member.

· Search room with other team member.

· Search all occupants. When available, a third team member should be the re-corder.

· Place documents in a numbered envelope and tag the associated individual with a corresponding number.

SCREENING AND DOCUMENTING THE POPULATION

Screening and documentation include following:

· Systematic identification and registration.

· Issuance of individual identification cards containing-

A unique number.

Picture of individual.

Personal identification data.

Fingerprints.

An official stamp (use different colors for each administration region).

Family group census cards, an official copy of which is retained at the local po-lice agency. These must include a picture and appropriate personal data.

Frequent use of mobile and fixed checkpoints for inspection, identification, and reg-istration of documents.

Preventing counterfeiting of identification and registration documents by laminat-ing and embossing.

Programs to inform the population of the need for identification and registration.

Covert surveillance is a collection effort with the responsibility fixed at the intelligence/security division or detective division of the police department. Covert techniques, ranging from application of sophisticated electronics systems to informants, should include-

Informant nets. Reliability of informants should be verified. Protection of identity is a must.

Block control. Dividing a community or populated area into zones where a trusted resident reports on the activities of the population. If the loyalty of block leaders is questionable, an informant net can be established to verify questionable areas.

Units designated for counterinsurgency operations

· 115th MIB, Schofield, HI

· 704th MIB, Fort Made, MD, Collaboration with NSA

· 513st MIB, Fort Gordon, GA in Collaboration with NSA

· Arlington Hall Station, VA

· Aberdeen Proving Ground (Maryland)

· US Army Intelligence and Security Command ­ INSCOM- Huachuca ( Arizona )

· INTELLIGENCE THREAT and ANALYSIS CENTER ( Center Analysis for threat and Intelligence )

· 501st Military Intelligence Brigade EAC

· 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion Exploitation Area
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2720.htm#004

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 05:10 PM

...why not Bush to close America.

(I power stapled my little finger a couple weeks ago so my typing is still iffy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:39 AM

From the Washington Post:

Facing al-Qaeda

With the terrorists growing stronger, their sanctuary in Pakistan must be eliminated.
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A18


HOMELAND Security Secretary Michael Chertoff makes a good point: No one who has been following the news should have been surprised by the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that al-Qaeda is growing stronger and that the threat that it will stage another major attack against the U.S. homeland is a serious one. That al-Qaeda has established a sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal areas -- cited as among "key elements" in the regeneration of "its homeland attack ability" by the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- has been known and discussed since last year. The "leverage" provided by a thriving affiliate organization in Iraq is all too obvious. What's missing in Washington is not information about al-Qaeda, Mr. Chertoff says, but a readiness to make hard decisions about how to protect the country.

The Homeland Security chief has some choices he'd like Congress to make, including modifications to visa-free travel to the United States and the installation of technology allowing for tighter screening of air travelers. The issues he raises are important, and we will return to them. Yet, if there is one decision that seems most urgent in light of the intelligence reports, it is what to do about the al-Qaeda base in Pakistan, which is allowing the group's senior leadership to coordinate with what the NIE calls "operational lieutenants" and to train militants for operations in Europe and the United States.

The Bush administration has been ducking this critical problem for too long, despite the clear lesson of Afghanistan. The Sept. 11 commission concluded that tolerance of al-Qaeda's sanctuary there was of "direct and indirect value . . . to al-Qaeda in preparing the 9/11 attack." The commission said the U.S. government must disrupt such bases in the future "using all elements of national power." Senior administration officials have publicly acknowledged since early this year that an al-Qaeda sanctuary exists in Pakistan. But they have rigidly stuck to a strategy of depending on Pakistan's autocratic president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to take that disruptive action -- even while Mr. Musharraf has pursued a contrary policy of appeasing the Pakistani tribesmen who are harboring the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Administration officials say they believe Mr. Musharraf will resume military operations in the tribal areas after a 10-month suspension -- if only because the militants broke a truce last week and attacked government forces. But earlier operations by the Pakistani army failed; government forces may be too weak to break up the sanctuary. Mr. Musharraf himself is preoccupied with preserving his own regime. If the militants offer him a separate peace, he may well accept it.

The administration says it has a comprehensive strategy that involves funneling $750 million over five years into development programs in the impoverished tribal areas and beefing up the Pakistani forces that patrol the frontier with Afghanistan. The State Department says it is also pressing for democratic elections in Pakistan this year, though it has ignored Mr. Musharraf's blatant preparations to manipulate the process. If it really were to focus on economic development and democracy rather than propping up the tottering general, the United States might contribute to stabilizing, over a period of years, one of the world's wildest territories.

Yet that won't address the imminent threat of a revived al-Qaeda organization able to strike the United States from a secure base. If Pakistani forces cannot -- or will not -- eliminate the sanctuary, President Bush must order targeted strikes or covert actions by American forces, as he has done several times in recent years. Such actions run the risk of further destabilizing Pakistan. Yet those risks must be weighed against the consequences of another large-scale attack on U.S. soil. "Direct intervention against the sanctuary in Afghanistan apparently must have seemed . . . disproportionate to the threat," the Sept. 11 commission noted. The United States must not repeat that tragic misjudgment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:14 AM

The NY Times comments on the Administration's abuse of trust as governors:

""Our hard work is noticed," e-mailed a pleased official of the nation's anti-drug abuse agency after helping the White House bolster vulnerable G.O.P. members of Congress with district visits and federal grants from anti-drug officials in the months before the 2006 elections. The e-mailer apologized that leaders from the supposedly politics-free agency were dispatched to "god awful places" on the taxpayers' tab, but took comfort in the word that, yes, Karl Rove, President Bush's political guru, was pleased with the agency's campaign to help more than a dozen shaky candidates.

This latest episode of the administration's treatment of incumbency as a 24/7 campaign machine is properly under investigation by Congress. The White House's partisan paw print is already all over the firings of nine United States attorneys in an increasingly obvious political purge. And investigators have found that the Hatch Act law barring politicking on the job was violated by a G.O.P. loyalist who ran the General Services Administration, the government's contract-rich, housekeeping monolith.

"Help our candidates," Lurita Doan, the G.S.A. administrator, was widely quoted, instructing underlings to sit through a PowerPoint lecture by Mr. Rove's operatives. The brazen topic was the use of agency clout to undermine the top 20 "House targets" next year among incumbent Congressional Democrats.

Taxpayers must wonder what happened to the notion of governance. The White House nonchalantly insists both parties have laced the duties of federal office with partisanship. Up to a point, perhaps. But the increasingly relevant question as more abuses are disclosed is just how far the Bush administration has gone in mocking the legal distinction between running government and running for office."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:18 AM

"..(P)olitical courage was nowhere in evidence when Senate Democrats tried to get a vote on a measure that would have forced a course change in Iraq, and Republicans responded by threatening a filibuster. Mr. Lugar, along with several other Republicans who have expressed doubts about the war, voted against cutting off debate, thereby helping ensure that the folly he described so accurately in his Iraq speech will go on.

Thanks to that vote, nothing will happen until Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, delivers his report in September. But don't expect too much even then. I hope he proves me wrong, but the general's history suggests that he's another smart, sensible enabler.

I don't know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn't gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don't think it's standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.

In the article, General Petraeus told us that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously." And those security forces were doing just fine: their leaders "are displaying courage and resilience" and "momentum has gathered in recent months."

In other words, General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner. And the best guess has to be that he'll do the same thing three years later.

You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we're in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.

Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation's security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it. "

From Paul Krugman of the NY Times, 7-20-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM

All the President's Enablers
            
Published: July 20, 2007

In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits — amazingly, they still exist — to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. It might even be true.

What I don't understand is why we're supposed to consider Mr. Bush's continuing confidence a good thing.

Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.

Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush's poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.

Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.

Actually, it's not clear that he ever was in touch with reality. I wrote about the Bush administration's "infallibility complex," its inability to admit mistakes or face up to real problems it didn't want to deal with, in June 2002. Around the same time Ron Suskind, the investigative journalist, had a conversation with a senior Bush adviser who mocked the "reality-based community," asserting that "when we act, we create our own reality."

People who worried that the administration was living in a fantasy world used to be dismissed as victims of "Bush derangement syndrome," liberals driven mad by Mr. Bush's success. Now, however, it's a syndrome that has spread even to former loyal Bushies.

Yet while Mr. Bush no longer has many true believers, he still has plenty of enablers — people who understand the folly of his actions, but refuse to do anything to stop him. ...

---

Also Paul Krugman.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 12:27 PM

What happened to the George Bush who insisted on honest government?

By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thu, July 5, 2007

Why is it that the Bush administration, in its dying throes, looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government? A poorly organized and run crime ring, truly, but a crime ring nonetheless.

Why do I keep remembering the George Bush that I actually once voted for when he first ran for president — the one who talked of bringing in an administration that would look more like the face of America and of giving us a government whose appointees would be honest, upright, fair and moral.

Yes, that's the one. What happened to him? Where did that George Bush go? When did he go over to The Dark Side? What enticements did Vice President Darth Cheney offer him? Was it the vision of unlimited, unchecked power over the world?

How can it be that this man from Texas presides over a White House that shelters and provides cover for men like Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who clearly believe that the laws of our country are only meant to be imposed on lesser beings, the man in the street?

Remember the George Bush who declared that anyone who violated the law and participated in the leaking of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame would be fired on the spot?

What about Karl Rove who works beside President Bush and is his Mr. Fixit and Mr. Fix Them? Was it just my imagination or did I not hear sworn testimony and see documents indicating that he was up to his pudgy little neck in the whole deal?

Can we not suppose that Mr. Rove was, in fact, at the root of the 51 White House employees whose e-mails miraculously vanished from all those e-mail accounts that executive-branch employees maintained through a cut-out: the Republican National Committee? How many laws governing the preservation of White House records, passed by Congress after the sorry spectacle of Richard Nixon and the vanishing 18.5 minutes of taped chit-chat in the Oval Office, have Mr. Rove and his hench-people broken? What ARE they hiding?

What about the lies and lame excuses put forward to hide their actions in the case of the missing federal prosecutors by the chief law enforcement officer of our country, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and his sophomoric young assistant attorneys general with their degrees from universities where only one book is on the reading list?

Does anyone doubt that Karl Rove personally drew up the list of those prosecutors who were to be executed because they did not enthusiastically go after people who were likely to vote for the Democrats in any election?

The good attorney general should be fired if he didn't know where that list came from and he should also be fired if he did know and denied it under oath before Congress. It was his department, the one that is supposedly dedicated to upholding the laws of our nation fairly and with an even hand, and he damned well should have known and damned well should have told the simple truth.

Where is it written in either the federal statutes or the Constitution of the United States that our laws against criminal acts apply to everyone but nice, meek, small-statured Republican political operatives who have a wonderful wife and children? Our prisons are full of nice, meek white-collar criminals who cheated a bit on their taxes or back-dated their bountiful option awards or raped and looted the coffers of corporations and beggared the poor fools who trusted them and bought stock in their criminal enterprises.

The estimable Scooter Libby repeatedly lied under oath to investigators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a sitting federal grand jury. Last time I looked that is a felony offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.

There are two former agents of the U.S. Border Patrol sitting in a federal prison for shooting a fleeing dope smuggler and then lying in their reports in an attempt to cover their butts with their bosses. Where is their commutation of sentences? Where is their pardon?

Instead of firing federal prosecutors who didn't go after illegal immigrants and voter registration fraud like pit bulls, why isn't our president demanding the dismissal of prosecutors and appointed regulators who turn a blind eye while the National Treasury is looted of billions by big corporations whose bosses write very large checks to Republican candidates?

What we have here, at the very heart of our own government, is a morass of criminal behavior unlike anything seen in recent American history.

It is past time to throw the rascals out of office, and I mean ALL the rascals of whatever party or political persuasion. If they didn't participate then they closed their eyes to the rot, and by this I cheerfully include the Democrats in Congress who now control Congress and haven't done anything but talk about doing something.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 12:58 PM

General Pleads for Time to Secure Iraq

AP - Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
By ROBERT BURNS

If the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq is reversed before the summer of 2008, the military will risk giving up the security gains it has achieved at a cost of hundreds of American lives over the past six months, the commander of U.S. forces south of Baghdad said Friday.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, mentioned none of the proposals in Congress for beginning to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as this fall. But he made clear in an interview that in his area of responsibility south of Baghdad, it will take many more months to consolidate recent gains.

"It's going to take through (this) summer, into the fall, to defeat the extremists in my battle space, and it's going to take me into next spring and summer to generate this sustained
ADVERTISEMENT
security presence," he said, referring to an Iraqi capability to hold gains made by U.S. forces.

Lynch said he had projected in March, when he arrived as part of the troop buildup, that it would take him about 15 months to accomplish his mission, which would be summer 2008.

He expressed concern at the growing pressure in Washington to decide by September whether the troop buildup is working and to plan for an early start to withdrawing all combat troops.

Under Lynch's command are two of the five Army brigades that President Bush ordered to the Baghdad area in January as part of a revised counterinsurgency strategy. As part of that "surge" of forces, Lynch's command was created in order to put added focus on stopping the flow of weaponry and insurgents into the capital from contentious areas to the south.

The three other brigades are in Baghdad and a volatile province northeast of the capital with the purpose of securing the civilian population in hopes that reduced levels of sectarian violence will give Sunni and Shiite leaders an opportunity to create a government of true national unity and to pass legislation designed to promote reconciliation.

Lynch said that Iraqi security forces are not close to being ready to take over for the American troops. So if the extra troops that were brought in this year are to be sent home in coming months, the insurgents - both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups - will regain control, he said.

"To me, it would be wrong to take ground from the enemy at a cost - I've lost 80 soldiers under my command -- 56 of those since the fourth of April - it would be wrong to have fought and won that terrain, only to turn around and give it back," he said in an interview with two reporters who traveled with him by helicopter to visit troops south and west of Baghdad.


He said there is a substantial risk that al-Qaida in Iraq, a mostly Iraqi Sunni extremist group, will try to launch a mass-casualty attack on one of the 29 small U.S. patrol bases south of Baghdad in hopes of influencing the political debate in Washington on ending the war.

Lynch visited one of those outposts Friday, near the village of Jurfassakhar along the Euphrates River. He was told by the officer in charge, Lt. Col. Robert Balcavage, that the camp was in "the deepest bad-guy country around," with threats from multiple insurgent groups.

Near Jurfassakhar, just west of the larger town of Iskandariyah, al-Qaida elements have recently been fighting another Sunni extremist group but could be preparing to resume attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.

"And that's why we've got to continue offensive operations," he said. "I worry about this talk about reducing or terminating the surge," using the military's term of deploying the five extra combat brigades to the Baghdad area, as well as extra Marines to Anbar province west of the capital.

"We've got him on the run," Lynch said, referring to the insurgents. "Some people say we've got him on the ropes. I don't believe that. But I believe we've got him on the run."

Lynch said he thinks too much focus is being placed on the military part of the solution to Iraq's problems and too little on the need to promote progress toward a functional central government.

Lynch said he thinks too much focus in being placed on the military part of the solution to Iraq's problems and too little on the need to promote progress toward a functional central government.

"We can continue to secure the population here and secure terrain, but until you get a government (that) is of the people, for the people and by the people, and you have an economy where people actually have employment, this place is going to continue to struggle," he said.

Lynch also said the Iraqi government needs to put about seven more Iraqi army battalions and about five more Iraqi police battalions in his area in order to provide the security now provided by U.S. forces.

In a reference to the sectarian tensions that have stalled progress toward stability in Iraq, the general said he has submitted to the Shiite-dominated national government a list of about 3,000 names of Sunnis who have volunteered to join the government security forces south of Baghdad. None of the 3,000 has been approved for addition to the government payroll.

"If they (the central government) just say `No, we ain't gonna do it,' then we've got a problem because (then) we've got nothing but locals who want to secure their area," he said, adding later that this would amount to a "Band-aid" fix rather than a lasting solution.

Ultimately, Lynch said, success or failure will be determined by the Iraqis themselves, and the outcome will not come quickly.

"This is Iraq. Everything takes time," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 01:05 PM

From the washington Post

Trouble With the Neighbors

By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19

One of the most infuriating problems in Iraq seems to generate precious little fury.

In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq's frothing chaos. Iran smuggles in the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis at markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage.

This is not a complete explanation for the difficulties in Iraq. Poor governance and political paralysis would exist whether Iran and Syria meddled or not. But without these outside influences, Tony Blair told me recently, the situation in Iraq would be "very nearly manageable."

America does not merely have challenges in the Middle East; we have enemies who contribute to the deaths of our troops. Yet Americans have shown little outrage, and the military reaction has been muted.

A stronger response would be justified, but the choices are neither obvious nor easy.

Iran, the main strategic threat, has two conflicting tendencies: It doesn't want long-term chaos in neighboring Iraq, but it wants America to fail decisively there. The second tendency is currently ascendant because the Iranians are hopeful that America is on the verge of a humiliating collapse of will -- for them an irresistible source of immediate pleasure. So Iranian paramilitary groups train and arm radical Shiite militias and provide explosive devices that also find their way to radical Sunni groups.

Engagement and deft diplomacy are not likely to change the Iranian interest in American defeat. Iran would require an unacceptable inducement to bail out American interests in Iraq: permission to proceed with its nuclear program. America would purchase tactical advantages in Iraq at a tremendous price -- a strategic nightmare in the entire Middle East.

Additional economic pressures on Iran and its proxies would increase the cost of its current course. This week, President Bush issued an executive order financially targeting groups and individuals who recruit and send terrorists to Iraq. But any real leverage in this area will require the Europeans to take actions of their own.

There are also more straightforward approaches. Earlier this year, Bush announced a dragnet directed at Iranian paramilitary activity in Iraq, and the troop surge has taken on the radical militias more directly. Further action might involve stepping up raids against Iranians in Iraq who use legitimate jobs as cover.

Beyond Iraq's borders, the options become difficult: engaging in hot pursuit against weapon supply lines over the Iranian border or striking explosives factories and staging areas within Iran. This sort of escalation is opposed by the Iraqi government and American military leaders. The Defense Department fears what is called "escalation dominance" -- meaning that in a broadened conflict, the Iranians could complicate our lives in Iraq and the region more than we complicate theirs.

Syria, however, is what one former administration official calls "lower-hanging fruit." The provocations are nearly as severe. Syria's Baathist regime provides a base of operations for its Iraqi Baathist comrades involved in the Sunni insurgency. Suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia and North Africa arrive by plane in Damascus, and, with the help of facilitators, some 50 to 80 cross into Iraq each month. The Syrians say they lack the ability to stop them; what they lack is the intention.

Pressuring Syria is not without its own complications. The regime can cause more suffering for its hostage Lebanon or increase tensions with Israel. And our European allies are less willing to support robust sanctions against Syria than against Iran, because Syria is not a nuclear threat.

But here the forceful options are more serious. Recent successful operations in Anbar province were undertaken, in part, to disrupt the trail of suicide bombers passing through Syria. It might also make sense to pursue targets into Syria on this theory: The Syrians say they are powerless to stop the flow of murderers killing innocent Iraqis, so we should try.

Increasing pressure of all types on Syria would demonstrate that being part of an anti-American alliance with Iran brings unpleasant consequences. And when that pressure builds sufficiently, it becomes possible to offer Syria a way out that separates it from Iran.

These are realistic responses to the serious provocations of Iran and Syria: ramping up economic pressure on both regimes; intensifying operations within Iraq against foreign influence; and taking limited but forceful action against Syria's Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorists.

In combination with the strategy of commander David Petraeus, these measures hold out the promise of something unthinkable a few months ago: America, once again, on the strategic offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 01:09 PM

From the Washington Post

The 20 Percent Solution

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19

Amid the Senate's all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.

Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the United States has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task.

The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.

This has begun to happen in Anbar and Diyala. First, because al-Qaeda are foreigners. So are we, but -- reason No. 2 -- unlike them, we are not barbarous. We don't amputate fingers for smoking, decapitate with pleasure and kill Shiites for sport.

Third, al-Qaeda's objectives are not the Sunnis'. Al-Qaeda adherents live for endless war and a reborn caliphate. Ultimately, they live to die. Iraqi Sunnis are not looking for a heavenly date with 72 virgins. They are looking for a deal, and perhaps just survival after U.S. troops are gone.

That's why so many Sunnis have accepted Petraeus's bargain -- they join our fight against al-Qaeda, and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they'll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.

The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence, and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists.

The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you.

The charge against our previous war strategy was that we were playing whack-a-mole: They escape from here, they reestablish there. Petraeus's plan is to eliminate all al-Qaeda sanctuaries.

You hardly hear about that from the antiwar Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. "These are gangs of killers," he told the Associated Press. Petraeus is following a plan according to a "purely American vision."

How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people such as Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. "The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period, but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said Suneid.

Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.

For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution -- for Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation.

In either case, that will be Iraq's problem after we leave. For now, our problem is al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and the extremist militias on the Shiite side. And we are making enough headway to worry people such as Suneid. The Democrats might listen to him to understand how profoundly the situation is changing on the ground -- and think twice before they pull the plug on this complicated, ruthless, hopeful "purely American vision."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 02:24 PM

David Halberstam writes in Vanity Fair:

"The History Boys

In the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush and his inner circle have been feeding the press with historical parallels: he is Harry Truman—unpopular, besieged, yet ultimately to be vindicated—while Iraq under Saddam was Europe held by Hitler. To a serious student of the past, that's preposterous. Writing just before his untimely death, David Halberstam asserts that Bush's "history," like his war, is based on wishful thinking, arrogance, and a total disdain for the facts.


We are a long way from the glory days of Mission Accomplished, when the Iraq war was over before it was over—indeed before it really began—and the president could dress up like a fighter pilot and land on an aircraft carrier, and the nation, led by a pliable media, would applaud. Now, late in this sad, terribly diminished presidency, mired in an unwinnable war of their own making, and increasingly on the defensive about events which, to their surprise, they do not control, the president and his men have turned, with some degree of desperation, to history. In their view Iraq under Saddam was like Europe dominated by Hitler, and the Democrats and critics in the media are likened to the appeasers of the 1930s. The Iraqi people, shorn of their immensely complicated history, become either the people of Europe eager to be liberated from the Germans, or a little nation that great powerful nations ought to protect. Most recently in this history rummage sale—and perhaps most surprisingly—Bush has become Harry Truman.


We have lately been getting so many history lessons from the White House that I have come to think of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the late, unlamented Rumsfeld as the History Boys. They are people groping for rationales for their failed policy, and as the criticism becomes ever harsher, they cling to the idea that a true judgment will come only in the future, and history will save them.

Ironically, it is the president himself, a man notoriously careless about, indeed almost indifferent to, the intellectual underpinnings of his actions, who has come to trumpet loudest his close scrutiny of the lessons of the past. Though, before, he tended to boast about making critical decisions based on instinct and religious faith, he now talks more and more about historical mandates. Usually he does this in the broadest—and vaguest—sense: History teaches us … We know from history … History shows us. In one of his speaking appearances in March 2006, in Cleveland, I counted four references to history, and what it meant for today, as if he had had dinner the night before with Arnold Toynbee, or at the very least Barbara Tuchman, and then gone home for a few hours to read his Gibbon.

I am deeply suspicious of these presidential seminars. We have, after all, come to know George Bush fairly well by now, and many of us have come to feel—not only because of what he says, but also because of the sheer cockiness in how he says it—that he has a tendency to decide what he wants to do first, and only then leaves it to his staff to look for intellectual justification. Many of us have always sensed a deep and visceral anti-intellectual streak in the president, that there was a great chip on his shoulder, and that the burden of the fancy schools he attended—Andover and Yale—and even simply being a member of the Bush family were too much for him. It was as if he needed not only to escape but also to put down those of his peers who had been more successful. From that mind-set, I think, came his rather unattractive habit of bestowing nicknames, most of them unflattering, on the people around him, to remind them that he was in charge, that despite their greater achievements they still worked for him.

He is infinitely more comfortable with the cowboy persona he has adopted, the Texas transplant who has learned to speak the down-home vernacular. "Country boy," as Johnny Cash once sang, "I wish I was you, and you were me." Bush's accent, not always there in public appearances when he was younger, tends to thicken these days, the final g's consistently dropped so that doing becomes doin', going becomes goin', and making, makin'. In this lexicon al-Qaeda becomes "the folks" who did 9/11. Unfortunately, it is not just the speech that got dumbed down—so also were the ideas at play. The president's world, unlike the one we live in, is dangerously simple, full of traps, not just for him but, sadly, for us as well. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 09:09 PM

Vetoing Children's Health
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: July 22, 2007
President Bush is threatening to veto any substantial increase in spending for a highly successful children's health program on the bizarre theory that expanding it would be the "beginning salvo" in establishing a government-run health care system. His shortsighted ideological opposition would leave millions of children without health insurance at a time when medical costs are soaring.

The president's ire was provoked by a bipartisan bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week that would expand the so-called State Children's Health Insurance Program, a joint federal-state effort that, over the last decade, has substantially reduced the number of uninsured children in the country. The program, known as S-chip, seeks to cover children whose family income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford costly private coverage. It is due to expire on Sept. 30 unless Congress reauthorizes it.

The program now gets $5 billion a year in federal money to match state contributions, and the Bush administration has proposed a meager increase of $5 billion spread over the next five years. With health care costs escalating, that would not even be enough to cover all of the 6.6 million children who were enrolled at some time during the last year. Hundreds of thousands of children would likely fall off the rolls. And there would be no help for some eight to nine million children who now have no health coverage at all.

The Finance Committee rightly rejected that false economy. By a hefty 17-to-4 margin, it voted to authorize a $35 billion increase for S-chip spread over five years. Instead of reducing the number of children enrolled, the Senate bill would provide coverage for an additional 3.2 million children who are uninsured now. And in another boon for American health, the costs would be paid for by a steep increase in taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products — a further disincentive for smokers.

Mr. Bush's objections are primarily philosophical: that the bill would move more people into a government-run program while he would prefer to entice them into buying private insurance with the help of tax deductions, his favored approach for all uninsured Americans. Tax deductions will not make much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured. And it seems wrongheaded to impose collateral damage on a successful children's health insurance program while waging that broader ideological battle.

The administration argues that S-chip should be mainly for children in families with incomes no higher than twice the poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. But that hardly suffices in states where medical costs are high and private policies can cost the average family $10,000 to $12,000 a year. At least 18 states now cover children in families with higher incomes, and some also cover pregnant women, parents and some childless adults.

Now the administration wants to reduce matching money for these added categories and push more of the burden onto financially strapped states. It worries that any more generous coverage would lead many families or small employers to drop private policies. That is bound to happen, but it would seem a plus if those families could get better or cheaper coverage through S-chip.

The Senate would still leave millions of children uninsured and would discourage any additional states from covering low-income parents — reducing the likelihood that they would enroll their children. Senate Democrats believe this is the best that could be achieved. Now it will be up to the full Senate to approve the bill by a veto-proof margin. Meanwhile, House Democrats have their sights on a bigger increase — some $50 billion over five years to cover even more uninsured children.

...


(Editorial, NY Times, 7-22-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:46 AM

From the Washington Post:


Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 23, 2007; Page A17

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.

That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.

These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.

At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."

In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.

When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.

Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM

...Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress's control over spending as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting "in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence."

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress's role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton's questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq," he wrote. Mr. Edelman's response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an "invitation to struggle" among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

...

(Times Op-Ed, 7-23-07)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:16 PM

July 23, 2007, 3:05 pm
Poll: U.S. Support for Iraq Invasion Inches Up
By Megan Thee (NY Times back pages)

American support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until General David Petraeus files his report in the fall.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

Support had been at all time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the United States' invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.


Still, the latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly. But the number of people who say the war is going "very badly" has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as "somewhat well" compared to 23 percent just last week.

At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it, and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points and larger for subgroups.

The modest gains in support for the invasion of Iraq come at a time when there are new warnings from the Bush Administration about heightened terrorist activity. A majority of Americans say that in the long run, the United States will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of the affairs of countries in the Middle East. But there is a sharp party divide on the issue — 73 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 28 percent of Republicans agree.

Americans are divided over whether the Bush administration's discussion of terrorism is out of a genuine concern or if it is a political tool. Half of those polled say members of the Bush Administration talk about the threat of terrorism to gain a political advantage, while 39 percent consider the threat a genuine issue.   ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 08:20 AM

Odds are, Bush will be a winner By WILLIAM KRISTOL Houston Chronicle July 21, 2007

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil — not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy — also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where — despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week this month — we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed — private Social Security accounts and immigration — I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it — but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaida — because al-Qaida may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.

As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid — you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say — that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaida in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling — but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test. The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress— where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.

And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 12:06 PM

Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A03

President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.

President Bush's disapproval rating in the polls has risen to within one digit of President Nixon's record high.

The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.

Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.

The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. "It isn't just the Iraq war," said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. "It's everything."

Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. "You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy," said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. "Not both."

Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival.

"It's astonishing," said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. "It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him."

That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans "strongly" disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as "angry."

"A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions."

Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 12:09 PM


Fortunately for rational discourse, Why Bush Is A Loser,By David Corn
A

(Not to be redundant or unaware of earlier posts or anything...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 02:52 PM

"No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character."

                Ralph Waldo Emerson

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 08:24 PM

Here's an oddball pitch from the Fish and Wildlife people. They want to build a top-security room. Secret fish and bear stuff...

"Subject: Secret Squirrels?

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is commissioning construction of a
SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility)?? Al Qaeda
recruiting racoons or something?

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOI/FWS/CGSWO/973107Q036/SynopsisP.html

"The US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training
Center (NCTC), Shepherdstown, WV intends to convert a room at the
facility into a SCIF meeting space.    Potential Vendors are
required to provide a design and cost estimate based on information
provided with the solicitation and the scheduled walk through meeting
on August 8, 2007 at 10:00am.    The room upon completion will meet
all of the required National Security Agency SCIF standards."

I can imagine a number of scenarios, I guess, from leaching budget
from one agency to cover another, to "entrepreneurial" efforts to
make use of excess facilities by renting to other agencies, but I
can't imagine a lot of reasons for Fish & Wildlife to use a one itself.

As a metacomment, I'm seeing a lot of solicitations with very tight
deadlines, e.g., this one came out today, it's got a (presumably
necessary) meeting for vendors in two weeks, which doesn't much allow
for anyone who hasn't already got this on the radar to respond."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:02 AM

The administration's contemptuous attitude toward the constitutional role of Congress was on display again this week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He repeatedly refused to answer legitimate questions, and he contradicted himself so frequently that it is hard to believe he was even trying to tell the truth.

Congress must not capitulate in the White House's attempt to rob it of its constitutional powers. Now that the committee has acted, the whole House must vote to hold Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt. The administration has indicated that it is unlikely to allow the United States attorney for the District of Columbia to bring Congress's contempt charges before a grand jury. That would be a regrettable stance. But if the administration sticks to it, Congress can and should proceed against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten on its own, using its inherent contempt powers.

It is not too late for President Bush to spare the country the trauma, and himself the disgrace, of this particular constitutional showdown. There is a simple way out. He should direct Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to provide Congress with the information to which it is entitled.

(Times editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:32 AM

Ideology is never a suitable premise for foreign policy.
Alfred Kayda PHD

$1.5 trillion is the estimated cost to keep the aging US infrastructure intact over the next 5 years.

This is about equal to the actual cost of the ongong Gulf Wars.

The US will pay for the diversion of these funds. Our bridges pipes tunnels and roads currently in need of repair will be futher stressed by an acellerated rate of natural disasters.

It is possible that Halliburton will have its cake and eat it too if called upon for additional Katrina like emergency repairs.








PS
there is no such thing as a stock tip: however to buy low and sell high check out

Texas Instruments.
Exon Mobil
GM (at junk bond status last year)
AG Edwards%Wacovia merger.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 03:38 PM

Rove Summoned as Democrats Escalate Fight With Bush on Firings

By James Rowley

July 26 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats sought a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to lawmakers and subpoenaed President George W. Bush's top political aide Karl Rove to testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Charges by four Democratic senators that Gonzales repeatedly lied under oath, plus the latest subpoena, raised the stakes in the congressional fight with Bush over his refusal to allow aides to testify about the firing of nine prosecutors last year.

The new allegations against Gonzales came two days after the attorney general appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he faced expressions of incredulity and disdain from senators in both parties about his answers to questions on Bush's surveillance of suspected terrorists.

``The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,'' New York Democrat Charles Schumer told reporters. ``Instead, he tells the half- truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth. And he does it not once, and not twice, but over and over and over again.''

In a letter to the Justice Department, the senators said a special counsel should ``determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself.'' Besides Schumer, it was signed by Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (...)

(From Bloomberg.com)

---

Going to the mat over Karl Rove is a tactical stroke of dramatic import. May it succeed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:10 AM

US Senate breaks Bush's budget in homeland security bill, adds money for controlling border
AP July 26, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Senate passed the first of 12 spending bills, smashing President George W. Bush's budget for border control and other homeland security programs.

The $40.6 billion (€29.6 billion) measure passed by an overwhelming 89-4 vote Thursday, as Bush's Republican allies joined with Democrats to flout his veto threat.

The already popular bill became more so with the addition of $3 billion (€2.2 billion) above budget caps set by both Bush and Senate Democratic leaders to secure the U.S-Mexico border and seek out immigrants who have overstayed their visas.

The bill also greatly exceeds Bush's request for homeland security grants to state and local governments for improving disaster planning and training, interoperable radio equipment, and paying for new fire and rescue equipment.

Senate action came as Republicans and the White House stepped up attacks on Democrats for their handling of the must-pass appropriations work, warning that a stack of veto threats and a slow pace of work virtually guarantees a legislative mess in the fall.
Today in Americas
In the Amazon: conservation or colonialism?
FBI director disputes Gonzales testimony on classified intelligence program
Edwards proposes increase to capital gains tax

"Here we are almost in August and we've only passed one" appropriations bill, griped Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. "We're looking at a potential train wreck in September."

In fact, Republicans brought only two spending bills to the floor all of last year when they controlled the Senate. Their performance two years ago was considerably better, however.

The border security money was broken out of Bush's immigration overhaul bill, which failed last month. The money would go toward seizing "operational control" over the U.S.-Mexico border with additional Border Patrol agents, vehicle barriers, border fencing and observation towers, plus a crackdown on people who overstay their visas.

But its addition to the bill seemed to guarantee that Bush will need to either drop his veto threat on the underlying bill — which already exceeded his budget by $2.3 billion (€1.7 billion) — or have his vetoes overturned.

Earlier, House lawmakers approved legislation to increase funding for space and science programs, local crime fighters and the FBI.

The $53.8 billion (€39.2 billion) measure funding the departments of Commerce and Justice passed the House by a 281-142 vote, just enough to sustain a veto.

But the tally belied the widespread support for programs financed by the sprawling measure, including anti-crime grants for states and local governments, the administration's "competitiveness initiative" boosting basic science research and teaching, as well as the FBI and anti-drug programs.

Bush has threatened vetoes or signaled veto threats against nine of the 12 annual spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1; all but two of those threats involve spending levels that exceed the budget the administration proposed in February.

The differences between Bush and Congress involve $23 billion (€16.8 billion) in funding added by lawmakers to the president's $433 billion (€315.6 billion) request for non-defense programs — about a 5 percent increase — as well as $3.5 billion (€2.55 billion) shifted by Democrats from the Pentagon to domestic programs.

In many cases, the Democratic add-ons restore cuts Bush sought. In prior years, Republican-controlled congresses denied many of the same cuts.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Spending.php

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:20 PM

Bush Aide Blocked Report
Global Health Draft In 2006 Rejected for Not Being Political
By Christopher Lee and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page A01


A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post.



Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the "Call to Action on Global Health" while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration's frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report's contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM

Walter Mondale on Cheney:

Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; Page B07


"The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.

But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.

Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.

Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.

Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.

Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:51 PM

This is the War on Terror by the incomparable Roy Zimmerman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 02:09 AM

WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Senator Ted Stevens on Monday in search of evidence about his relationship to a businessman who oversaw a remodeling project that almost doubled the size of the senator's house, federal law enforcement officials said.

The decision to raid the home suggests that the corruption investigation focused on Mr. Stevens, a long-serving Republican and former chairman, has taken on new urgency.

The businessman, Bill J. Allen, the founder of an oil fields service company that has won tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts with the senator's help, has pleaded guilty to bribing state legislators.

The F.B.I. confirmed that the raid on Mr. Stevens's home in the Alaskan ski resort city of Girdwood, about 40 miles south of Anchorage, began about 2:30 p.m. Alaska time, or about 6:30 p.m. Eastern time.

In Washington, Mr. Stevens issued a brief statement: "My attorneys were advised this morning that federal agents wished to search my home in Girdwood in connection with an ongoing investigation. I continue to believe this investigation should proceed to its conclusion without any appearance that I have attempted to influence the outcome."

A spokesman for the Anchorage office of the F.B.I., David Heller, would not discuss details of what was being sought in the raid and referred calls to the Justice Department's public integrity division in Washington. The division handles major corruption cases involving public officials.

Mr. Stevens is one of more than a dozen current and former members of Congress who are known to be under scrutiny by the F.B.I.

His case may be the most politically consequential. He is the only senator known to be under criminal investigation, and he continues to wield power on the Appropriations Committee, which controls how the federal budget is distributed. Mr. Stevens, 83, is up for re-election next year and has suggested that he will seek another term.

Mr. Stevens has been caught up in a larger corruption investigation in Alaska that resulted in raids last year on the homes of six state lawmakers, including the senator's son, Ben, who was then president of State Senate. All of the state lawmakers are under scrutiny over their relationships with Mr. Allen and his company, VECO, and other large Alaska companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:13 PM

from the Washington Post

Short of Perjury

By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; Page A19

I find myself in an unaccustomed and unexpected position: defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales fans, if there are Gonzales fans left, except for the only fan who counts: Don't take any comfort from my assessment.

In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales once again dissembled and misled. He was too clever by seven-eighths. He employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed. The brutalizing he received from senators of both parties was abundantly deserved.

But I don't think he actually lied about his March 2004 hospital encounter with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury.

Go back to December 2005, when the New York Times reported on a secret program of warrantless wiretapping. President Bush acknowledged an effort "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

Soon, the first stories about the hospital visit appeared.

In a Jan. 1, 2006, article, the Times reported then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's refusal to approve continuation of the surveillance program and described "an emergency visit" to Ashcroft's hospital room by Gonzales and Andrew Card, then White House counsel and chief of staff, respectively.

Similarly, Newsweek reported how the White House aides "visited Ashcroft in the hospital to appeal Comey's refusal. In pain and on medication, Ashcroft stood by his No. 2."

It was in this context -- senators knew about the hospital visit well before Comey's riveting description in May -- that Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006.

Asked about those reports, he said that "with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program." The disagreements, he said, "dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today."

Flash-forward to last week, when Gonzales once again said: "The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital . . . was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."

The emphasis is mine, and it matters. We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague.

In his May testimony, Comey referred only to "a particular classified program." FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the hospital-room encounter was about "an NSA program that has been much discussed."

Does this really contradict Gonzales or turn him into a perjurer? It's clear there was an argument over the warrantless wiretapping program. Comey refused to recertify it. In response, something about the program changed; Justice officials were willing to go along with the modified program.

The New York Times reported Sunday that the disagreement involved "computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- not necessarily the more-limited program the president acknowledged. As the Times put it, "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales' defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."

Congress deserves better than technically correct linguistic parsing. So the bipartisan fury at Gonzales is understandable. Lawmakers are in full Howard Beale mode, mad as hell at Gonzales and not wanting to take it anymore.

But perjury is a crime that demands parsing: To be convicted, the person must have "willfully" stated a "material matter which he does not believe to be true."

The Supreme Court could have been writing about Gonzales when it ruled that "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth" -- even if the answers "were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade."

Consequently, the calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?

Rather, lawmakers need to concentrate on determining what the administration did -- and under what claimed legal authority -- that produced the hospital room showdown. They need to satisfy themselves that the administration has since been operating within the law; to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes.

That's where Congress's focus should be -- not on trying to incite criminal a prosecution that won't happen of an attorney general who should have been gone long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:43 PM

Bush's Enablers

In the New York Times yesterday, Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack published an op-ed entitled A War We Just Might Win, in which they argue, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." Billing themselves "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," the authors declare that "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." The Bush administration quickly latched onto the op-ed to support its failing Iraq strategy, e-mailing the editorial to every White House reporter yesterday morning with the subject line "In Case You Missed It." Peter Wehner, the White House's departing director of strategic communications, told the Politico that the op-ed was "possibly climate-changing." Predictably, the administration's dead-end pro-war supporters hastily followed suit. The piece was praised in nearly every corner of the right-wing blogosphere. National Review, the flagship magazine of the conservative movement, convened a symposium of eight prominent war-backers, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and another Brookings analyst Peter Rodman, to praise the editorial. In propagating the New York Times column, the White House placed O'Hanlon and Pollack back in the familiar roles they've played throughout the entire Iraq war: establishment left-of-center experts providing political cover for the administration's misguided war policies.

WRONG ABOUT THE INVASION: In the fall of 2002, Pollack published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, which warned that Saddam was extremely close to developing nuclear weapons. Slate's Chris Suellentrop described the book as turning "more doves into hawks than Richard Perle, Laurie Mylroie, and George W. Bush combined." In Oct. 2002, Pollack appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to discuss Iraq for her massive audience, where he pushed the false, but frightening, claim "that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can." O'Hanlon participated in the pre-war fear-mongering as well. In a Dec. 31, 2002 op-ed, O'Hanlon argued that "Saddam Hussein may be poised to bring the battle to American cities via terrorism." "We've got to go to war by March, I think, if we're going to use the good weather," he told Fox News in Jan. 2003. Unfortunately, given the influence of the Brookings Institution, O'Hanlon and Pollack's support for the war helped push many skeptics towards supporting the folly of invading Iraq.

WRONG ABOUT THE SURGE: Though both scholars became more critical of the administration's handling of the war as the situation worsened over the years, both O'Hanlon and Pollack lent their intellectual and rhetorical support to Bush's push for escalation in Iraq in the winter of 2006. Pollack, who was consulted by the military about escalation plans, argued at the time, "[T]he president's plan is almost certainly the last chance to stabilize Iraq." On Jan. 14, 2007, O'Hanlon wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post entitled A Skeptic's Case For The Surge, arguing that though the "surge" may be "too little, way too late...for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try." O'Hanlon argued again in March 2007 that "rather than force a showdown with Mr. Bush this winter and spring, Congress should give his surge strategy a chance."

WRONG ABOUT STAYING THE COURSE: In their op-ed, O'Hanlon and Pollack concede that the alleged success they are seeing is only "in military terms" and that "we still face huge hurdles on the political front." This concession undermines much of their case for "sustaining the effort at least into 2008." Since the "surge" began, even Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has admitted that "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," only a political one. Additionally, O'Hanlon's own research in the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index contradicts his effort to portray the "surge" as successful. Just last week, on July 26, O'Hanlon's assessment argued that "violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge." He also noted that "politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws." When asked to respond to O'Hanlon's assertions of progress in Iraq, CNN Baghdad correspondent Arwa Damon replied that "most [Iraqis] that I've spoken to will not really say that they feel that the situation is getting better." By cherry-picking anecdotal signs of progress in order to justify continuing a war they supported from the beginning, O'Hanlon and Pollack overlook the fundamental problems of the continuing American presence in Iraq. Strategic Reset, a plan put forth by the Center for American Progress, addresses these fundamental flaws and calls for phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year. On MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, Strategic Reset co-author Brian Katulis called out O'Hanlon for writing a "propaganda piece" and "cherry-picking the facts on Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 04:39 PM

The surge is so successful that the plan is to keep it up for another 2 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 03:35 PM

An acidic analysis of the mind-boggling stupidity behind the multi-billion Audi arms deal the Bush administration is pushing can be found here at The Nation. Highly recommended. A fine argument for impeachment (see other thread on this subject)on the grounds of betrayal of the national trust...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM

That should be SAUDI arms deal, not Audi. As far as I know the Bushies haven't started selling arms to car manufacturers yet--I think it is scheduled for 2010, in the middle of the third term.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM

Its Saudacious

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 02:53 PM

" Blame also belongs to the idiot politicians who decided 30 years ago to abandon the moon and send us on a pointless and endless journey into low Earth orbit. President Bush has sensibly called an end to this nonsense and committed us to going back to the moon and, ultimately, to Mars. If his successors don't screw it up, within 10 years NASA will have us back to where we belong -- on other worlds."

from the Washington Post,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202022.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 03:10 PM

If you are not a DC beaurocrat let me tell you the obvious.

The OMB Office of Management and Budget has become the department in which the White House uses to punish, block, defund and compromise every other department in the government.

It targets the EPA, NIH and has even attacked the GAO.

If you think the justice department is politicized the OMB is far worse.
It is staffed with lots of Regent college 20 year olds who assign entire Federal Departments with catch 22 projects of absolute waste and delay.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 03:11 PM

The Good Government

(A Fable by Ambrose Bierce)



"WHAT a happy land you are!" said a Republican Form of Government to a Sovereign State. "Be good enough to lie still while I walk upon you, singing the praises of universal suffrage and descanting upon the blessings of civil and religious liberty. In the meantime you can relieve your feelings by cursing the one-man power and the effete monarchies of Europe."

"My public servants have been fools and rogues from the date of your accession to power," replied the State; "my legislative bodies, both State and municipal, are bands of thieves; my taxes are insupportable; my courts are corrupt; my cities are a disgrace to civilisation; my corporations have their hands at the throats of every private interest - all my affairs are in disorder and criminal confusion."

"That is all very true," said the Republican Form of Government, putting on its hobnail shoes; "but consider how I thrill you every Fourth of July."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:57 PM

Amos while there will always be some rogue idiot public servants, it has always been the American Ruling class who ultimately buys the President, laws and new talent to further their ability to get more money for power and get more power to protect their money.

In a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracal of science, no question gets asked more often than the use of America's wealth and power.

To what ends do the wealth of the Wall Street Banks and the force of the Pentagon's collosal weapons. Where does America get its wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?

THe questions touch upon the nature of America's ruling class/
IF the question is too hard it is because we like to pretend there is no such thing as the American ruling class that has ever darkened an American shore or howled at the dark of an American moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 02:54 PM

From the Washington Post.



Our Chance to Capture the Center

By Martin O'Malley and Harold Ford Jr.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; Page A13

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven't voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.

A majority comes hard for Democrats. In the past 150 years, only three Democrats, one of whom was Franklin Roosevelt, have won the White House with a majority of the popular vote.

What's more, political success built on the other party's failure is fleeting. Jimmy Carter won a majority in the wake of Watergate, but his own shortcomings on national security and the economy took him from majority victor to landslide loser in four years. Repudiating the other side's approach is only half the battle. Since neither side has a monopoly on truth, the hard part is knowing when to look beyond traditional orthodoxies to do what works.

Like FDR, we can build a lasting majority only by earning it -- with ideas that demonstrate to the American people that if they entrust us with national leadership, we can deal effectively with the challenges our country faces and the challenges they face in their everyday lives.

Over the past six years, we've seen what happens when an administration writes off the political center and manipulates every decision for partisan gain. Bush's failure to solve -- or even address -- America's great challenges has left our country dispirited, disillusioned and divided.

Contrast the collapse of a conservative president with the success of the last centrist president. Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperity. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory.

Nearly seven years after Bush succeeded Clinton in the White House, America is facing challenges as great as we've ever seen -- a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. To conquer such enduring problems, Democrats will need a broad, enduring majority -- and a centrist agenda that sustains it by making steady progress.

Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great -- and too rare -- to pass up.

A new Democratic president will have the chance to unite Americans around solutions that will make all Americans proud of their country again. For the sake of the hardworking Americans who are depending on us to fix Washington and put our country on the right track, we pray that Democrats set out to build a majority that can last.

Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, is governor of Maryland. Harold Ford Jr. is a former Democratic representative from Tennessee and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 02:58 PM

Not My Grandpa's Democrats

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; Page A13

As always, I was awakened by a sudden draft through the closed windows, saw the curtains ominously stirring and sensed instantly that someone was in my bedroom. Without even looking up, I knew it was my long-dead grandfather, an immigrant of socialist leanings and what he would call common sense. Wearily, I went through the drill.

"Grandpa, is that you?"

"You were expecting maybe Lucy Lohan?"

"Lindsay," I corrected.

" 'Scuse me. Where I am we don't get People magazine."

I tried to get to the point. "What brings you down this time?" I asked.

He was holding a newspaper, always a dangerous sign.

"What's happened to the Democratic Party?" he asked.

"What do you mean?"

"What do I mean? What do I mean? Listen, college boy, in my day, the Democrats stood for the little man. You know the little man, boychik?"

"Yes, Grandpa."

"He's the working stiff. He's the guy with a lunch pail. You think it's right he pays a higher rate of taxes than those hedge-fund managers?"

"Oh, Grandpa, you're talking about something called the 'Carry.' It stands for carried interest, and it means that these money managers and hedge-fund guys, wonderful risk-takers and builders of wonderful wealth, get taxed as if their income is capital gains -- 15 percent. The IRS says it's legal."

"Legal, shmegal! You think it's fair?"

"Fair?"

"Yeah, fair. You heard of fair, Mr. Famous Columnist?"

"This is not a matter of fairness, Grandpa. Believe me, there are vast issues of macroeconomics and tax policy here, which, if not handled properly, will sink the economy."

"Who are you?" my grandfather bellowed. "The poor pay more than the rich, and you give me this macaroni economics stuff. You should be ashamed of yourself." He paused.

"You know this Schumer?"

"Chuck? The senator? Yeah."

"He's opposed to this tax fairness. What kind of Democrat is this?"

"You have to understand," I explained, "Schumer represents Wall Street."

"What about Main Street?"

" Hillary supports your view."

"You think I was born yesterday? She's not going to campaign on that. She'll let this Chuck character take the heat, and she'll do nothing."

"Do you have two sources for that?"

"Oh, wake up! Don't you know nothing about bosses and workers and who controls politicians? Too much college made your brain soft." He paused again.

"You know any subprime people?" he said.

"What?"

"These people who got these lousy mortgages. They got this fancy word for these poor suckers. Subprime."

"These are wonderful financial instruments that have made us a great nation of homeowners."

"This is a Brooklyn Bridge for poor people to buy. This is a way of selling houses to people who can't afford them. It's a way for bankers to make money. They take the loans from these poor people, and then they put thousands of them in a Vegematic or something and then sell what comes out. The lenders don't lose nothing. They didn't warn people that interest rates would go up, and they would lose everything -- their house and everything they put in it. That's a crime in my book. Someone should be punished. Instead, the mortgage people make out like bandits."

"You have a point."

"Thank you. And where is the Democratic Party? Where is the party of the little man? Nowhere. Who's yelling and screaming about this or, God forbid, leading a march or holding a rally just like the old days? Who's organizing a boycott or maybe holding a show in a theater? Not the Democrats. Too afraid of Wall Street."

"Oh, Grandpa, that's so old-fashioned."

"You think so, smarty-pants? You think honesty and fairness is old-fashioned? You think it's right for the head of this Blackstone group to make hundreds of millions of dollars and pay almost no taxes? Virtually nothing! And he gives a party for himself in New York that costs millions. He has a 35-room apartment that once belonged to a Rockefeller and fancy art on the wall and has the chutzpah to buy lobbyists by the dozen so he don't pay his fair share in taxes. Is that right?"

"Maybe he should pay more."

"Maybe? Maybe you should write columns kicking the Democrats in the pants for forgetting who they represent. Maybe you should get angry yourself. Maybe you should remember who you are and where you come from?"

"Yes, Grandpa."

"Good. How's your mother?"

"Pretty good. She was 95 on July 4th."

"Tell her I love her."

"Yes, Grandpa."

"Go back to sleep, boychik."

And, like the rest of the country, I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 03:44 PM

My hat is off to Mister Cohen. May he continue to wake others up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:05 AM

In the Times, an essay on the deeply flawed attitude of Bush's cronies toward the management of terrorism and the difference between combatants and common criminals. It was argued, by me among others, just after 9-11, that these acts should be prosecuted as crimes. Wesley Clark does a lucid job of unpacking the verygood reasons why Bush's policies of bitterness and militarism toward terrorist crimes is misguided and harmful.


"...If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities "war." The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not "unlawful combatant" but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America's legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the "deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians."

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Mr. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Mr. Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court's reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration's approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not "combatants." They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security."

Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 11:17 AM

"To their shame, 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House voted to hand the president monarchical powers that the signers of the Constitution had withheld. The Fourth Amendment has served to safeguard citizens against warrantless searches and seizures; this president says instead: Just trust me.

These Democrats will no doubt be astonished, but Republicans will not stop calling them weak on terrorism. The rest of us just think they're weak, period.

Fred Roberts

Decatur, Ga., Aug. 7, 2007"

Hmmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 03:16 PM

David Swanson writes:

..."Failure to stop Bush is not a victimless crime
by David Swanson
August 8, 2007

If you support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, I'm sure you have your reasons and that they're based in hard scientific calculations. But please indulge me for a moment and help me do this little math problem:

All the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever they may be)…

Actually, let me stop right there. The benefits you have in mind for this calculation should not include the increased price of gas, the killed and wounded U.S. servicemen and women, or the creation of a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq (that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made us less safe is the consensus opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, supported as well by a conservative British think tank). Oh, and please don't factor in the Iraqis' gratitude, since the majority of them believe the invasion and occupation have made them worse off, and they want the U.S. to leave.

As I was saying, all the benefits we've gotten out of invading and occupying Iraq (whatever in the world they may be) have come at a certain financial cost. U.S. taxpayers have shelled out $450 billion thus far. The Congressional Budget Office expects costs to end up over a trillion. And those calculations do not include the costs of providing health care for veterans and rebuilding the military, or the effects on the economy of removing workers to make them soldiers, of increasing the price of oil, of failing to spend the war money on domestic projects (such as infrastructure), etc. Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes estimate a total cost of at least $2 trillion.

The immediate impact of that expense on human lives has been the following: an estimated 995,320 Iraqis killed, many more severely injured, an estimated 2 million Iraqis displaced within Iraq, and another estimated 2 million Iraqis now living as refugees in surrounding nations. Add to this nearly 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women killed, and nearly 27,000 wounded in combat, and another 27,000 wounded in accidents or suffering illnesses requiring medical evaluation. As of the end of 2006, more than 180,000 U.S. military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had filed disability claims. Contractors and mercenaries in Iraq outnumber U.S. troops, and according to Reuters had suffered 933 deaths as of June 30, and 10,569 wounded as of March 31. About 200 of those dead were Americans.

In very rough terms, then, we have chosen to shell out a trillion dollars to kill a million people. That's $1,000 for each death (plus, again, whatever the benefits have been).

Now, here comes the math problem. What if we had spent that trillion dollars saving lives that were at risk instead of taking away lives that were relatively safe? We know, for example, that tens of thousands of children die every year for lack of basic health care. A measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, including safe injection equipment, costs about $1.00. Thousands of children die every year for lack of drinkable water. You can find a lot of people clean water with a trillion dollars. According to UNESCO's 2007 Global Monitoring Report, we could provide primary education to every child in the world who lacks it for $11 billion a year.

And if we think in terms of just the United States, our needs shrink in the face of wealth as enormous as a trillion dollars. For that kind of money, we could provide health coverage to more people than we have in this country (a misleading statistic, since we already spend more than we need to for health coverage; we don't need to spend more – we need to establish single-payer coverage and spend less). Or we could provide tens of millions of four-year college scholarships (how many soldiers would choose a fourth tour of Iraq over a free college education?). Or we could create a jobs program working on infrastructure and green energy that would boost this economy and provide young people with choices other than the military.

So, this is the question for you to calculate: how would you spend a trillion dollars? If you could save a million lives and not kill the million people we've killed in Iraq, wouldn't that be a net gain of 2 million lives saved? Wouldn't you do it? This is not an academic exercise. The deaths in Iraq are continuing, and the death rate is increasing, not slowing down. After a month's vacation, Congress will vote another gargantuan pile of cash for the occupation of Iraq in September. Don't think for a minute that they won't do it….unless we stop them.
..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 09:55 AM

Washington Post:

Admiral Scapegoat

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A17

A sadder but wiser Vice Admiral J.M. "Mike" McConnell, director of national intelligence (DNI), told a senior Republican House member last weekend that the next time he dealt with congressional Democrats he would make sure a Republican was in the room or on the phone. After a lifetime navigating the murky waters of intelligence, McConnell at age 64 was ill-prepared for the stormy seas of Capitol Hill.

Late Saturday, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a bill that is anathema to the party's base: authorization of eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations without a court warrant. It passed because Democrats could not take the political risk of going home for the August recess having shut down U.S. surveillance of threats to the country. But since they could not blame themselves, they blamed the nonpolitical DNI.

At issue is whether McConnell, in a closed-door meeting, accepted a Democratic plan sharply limiting warrantless eavesdropping and then reneged under White House pressure. The Democratic leadership hoped the admiral's approval would give enough Republicans and Democrats cover to vote for their bill. Instead, his disapproval produced a breakdown in Democratic discipline rare during this Congress.

McConnell, who spent 26 of his 29 active-duty Navy years in intelligence, is a gray spook not widely known on Capitol Hill until last week. After serving the last four years of his naval career as director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton, he was not considered a Republican. That was before last week's meeting at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office with other key House Democrats and with McConnell on the phone. As usual, no Republicans were invited, and the bill under discussion was not revealed to the GOP.

Hopes of passing the bill faded when McConnell issued a written statement saying, "I strongly oppose it," adding that it "would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the nation." Nevertheless, Democratic leaders brought up their bill on Friday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote for passage to prevent the Republicans from offering a stronger substitute. The vote, 218 to 207, fell far short.

That left Democrats in a difficult position. Could they go home without having passed a surveillance bill and face Republican taunts that Congress was permitting terrorists to communicate freely? They had no choice but to permit the administration's bill to come to a vote Saturday night just before adjourning, without imposing party discipline. Not a single Democrat spoke in favor of the bill. No committee chairman voted for it. But 41 Democrats did -- mostly junior members, including 13 freshmen from competitive districts. The bill passed 227 to 183. It also passed easily in the Senate, where 16 Democrats supported it.

To explain this defeat, Democrats in floor debate added McConnell to their gallery of rogues, along with George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York suggested McConnell accepted the Democratic restrictions "until he spoke to the White House, and now he changes politically." Off the House floor, one prominent Democrat said -- not for attribution -- that McConnell "was less than truthful." On the record, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel told me: "He was not negotiating in good faith."

What did McConnell say in his conference with the Democrats? The usually prudent House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, was measured in floor debate, saying the DNI (in a "direct quote") informed the Democrats that their proposal "significantly enhances America's security." He added: "I do not imply that he said he supported it." McConnell, a reticent professional intelligence officer, declined to talk to me about his comments to Democrats. But Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, talked with McConnell on Saturday and Monday and told me: "He never had a deal with the Democrats."

In three decades of dealing with intelligence secrets, Mike McConnell was never subjected to the abuse he encountered in the two House sessions, during which he was called a cowardly liar. With the activist Democratic base bitterly opposed to eavesdropping but the party's leadership wary of challenging President Bush on protecting the country from terrorism, the admiral became the scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 10:07 AM

BLOG | Posted 08/10/2007 @ 12:22am
Carl Bernstein: Bush More "Disastrous" Than Nixon

PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST COMMENTS (42)


Carl Bernstein will always be known as the journalist who brought down a president whose disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law disqualified the errant executive from completing a second term in the White House. And Bernstein still gets a round of applause when mention is made of the role he played, as part of a Washington Post investigative team that also included Bob Woodward, in exposing the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president named Nixon.

But 33 years after Nixon resigned in order to avoid an inevitable impeachment -- on August 9, 1974 -- Bernstein is more concerned about a president named Bush.

...But the Pulitzer Prize-winning author was under no illusions regarding the extent of Nixon's wrongdoing as compared with that of Bush and those around the current president.

Bernstein says that Bush's presidency has produced far more "disastrous consequences" for the country than did Nixon's.

Unlike the often crude and conniving but unquestionably intelligent and highly-engaged 37th president, Bernstein says of Bush: "He's lazy, arrogant and has little curiosity. He's a catastrophe..."

But that is not the worst part of the Bush era as compared to the Nixon era, explains Bernstein.

What has made this time dramatically more troubling, the 63-year-old journalist explains, is that "there is no oversight."

"The system worked in Watergate," Bernstein told the Denver Post.

...
The news media investigated Nixon, and editorialized boldly when the president's lawless behaviors were exposed.

The Congress responded to those revelations with hearings and demands for White House tapes and documents. ...Congress went to court to force Nixon and his aides to meet those demands.

The courts responded by aggressively and consistently upholding the authority of Congress to call the president to account.

And when it became clear that Nixon was governing in contradiction to the Constitution, the U.S. House took appropriate action, with Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voting for three articles of impeachment. Congressional Republicans, led by Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, then went to the White House to inform their party's president that he stood little chance of thwarting an impeachment vote by the full House or surviving a trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned and so ended a constitutional crisis created by a president's disregard for the rule of law -- a crisis that was cured by an impeachment move by House members who respected their oaths of office.

Today, says Bernstein, the system that worked in the 1970s is failing as the country witnesses presidential and vice presidential misdeeds that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly characterized as "worse than Watergate."

Referring to the media, congressional and judicial oversight that is essential to maintaining a republic, Bernstein says, "That hasn't happened here."

That failure of oversight, as opposed to any wrongdoing by George Bush or Dick Cheney, is the great tragedy of our time. But, as I reminded the crowd at the symposium during a discussion of Hunter Thompson's enthusiasm for Nixon's impeachment, it is never too late for the people to lead. Approval ratings for the current president and vice president are now below those for Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. And more and more members of Congress are taking up the call for accountability -- boldly sponsoring and cosponsoring the impeachment resolutions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had tried to keep "off the table.".

Bernstein is right. The system has not worked up to now. But with 18 months to go, it is certainly not too late for Americans to demand that the medicine that cured the Constitutional crisis of 33 years ago should again be applied. ..."

---

Perhaps Nixon's error was in not buying himself a Supreme Court first?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 11:32 AM

And THAT, by the way, was Post 800 to this honorable thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:27 AM

The bridges in YOUR state

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Full%20Committee/Structurally_Deficient_Bridges.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 10:02 AM

"The administration has refused to say how much warrantless spying it has been doing. Clearly, it is more than Mr. Bush has acknowledged, but Americans need to know exactly how far their liberties have been breached and whether the operation included purely domestic eavesdropping. And why did Mr. Bush feel compelled to construct an outlaw eavesdropping operation — apart, that is, from his broader effort to expand presidential power and evade checks and balances?

It's not that FISA makes it too hard; the court approves virtually every warrant request. It's not an issue of speed. The law allows the government to initiate surveillance and get a warrant later if necessary.

Instead of answering these questions, the administration has done its best to ensure that everyone stays confused. It has refused repeated requests by Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for documents relating to the president's order creating the spying program, and the Justice Department's legal justifications for it.

When this issue resurfaces, Mr. Bush will undoubtedly claim executive privilege, as he has done whenever he has been asked to come clean with Americans about his decision-making. But those documents should be handed over without delay for review by all members of Congress. We also agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has petitioned the FISA court, which normally works in secret, to make public its opinion on the scope of the government's wiretapping powers.

If Mr. Bush wants Americans to give him and his successors the power to spy on them at will, Americans should be allowed to know why it's supposedly so necessary and how much their freedoms are being abridged. If Congress once again allows itself to be cowed by Mr. Bush's fear-mongering, it must accept responsibility for undermining the democratic values that separate this nation from the terrorists that Mr. Bush claims to be fighting."...


New York Times,8-11-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 10:18 AM

"...President Bush took a risk when he put someone so focused on politics as blood sport at the center of his White House. Once he did, he had an obligation to ensure that Mr. Rove understood that his job was to promote the interests of the American people — not solely the Republican Party. Instead, Mr. Rove used his position and power to relentlessly pursue his declared goal of a permanent Republican majority.

Mr. Rove appears to have been deeply involved in the decision to fire nine top federal prosecutors, apparently for either bringing cases that hurt Republicans or refusing to bring cases to punish Democrats. There is also mounting evidence that he turned nonpartisan agencies into campaign boosters, quite possibly violating federal law. Earlier this month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admitted that Justice Department officials attended political briefings at the White House, some led by Mr. Rove. Officials at the General Services Administration and Peace Corps, and even six American ambassadors, among others, were also given briefings.

Mr. Rove has stonewalled Congress's legitimate efforts to investigate. Some of his key e-mail messages on the United States attorneys matter appear to have mysteriously disappeared, while others are being withheld with baseless claims of executive privilege. As for defying that Senate subpoena, some subjects might have been protected by privilege, but Mr. Rove's refusal to show up at all is outrageous — although totally in keeping with his and his boss's disdain for the separation of powers.

Mr. Rove failed his own party, as well as the American people, when he counseled President Bush to turn every serious policy debate — Social Security, the war in Iraq, even terrorism — into one more political dogfight. Today, despite Mr. Rove's claims of invincibility, both houses of Congress are back in Democratic hands, Mr. Bush's approval ratings are around 30 percent and many Republican presidential candidates are running as fast as they can away from the Bush legacy.

Mr. Rove can now contemplate that legacy from his home in Texas. But he should not get too settled in. Congress needs to use all its power to bring Mr. Rove back to Washington to testify — in public and under oath — about how he used his office to put politics above the interests of the American people."

Times editorial 8-14.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 07 - 10:45 PM

The Nation -- Dennis Kucinich may not be a front runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.


But the congressman from Cleveland has succeeded in distinguishing himself from the other contenders when it comes to speaking those truths that are self-evident.

And in an era of mass delusion and denial on the party of leaders in both major political parties, stating the obvious can be a radical act.

Such is the case with Kucinich's appropriate answer to the latest move by the Bush-Cheney administration to ramp up hostilities with Iran. That move -- the unprecedented attempt to label Iran's 125,000-strong Republican Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist" group -- is, as the congressman says "nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war -- this time with Iran."

No one who has paid even the slightest attention to the Bush-Cheney administration's approach to Middle East affairs can doubt that Kucinich is right. Yet, his is a lonely voice of clarity amid the din of Democratic obfuscation that aids and abets this White House's worst instincts.

"The belligerent Bush Administration is using this pending designation to convince the American public into accepting that a war with Iran is inevitable," argues Kucinich.

"This designation will set the stage for more chaos in the region because it undercuts all of our diplomatic efforts," he adds. explaining that, "This new label provides further evidence for Iran's leaders that there is no point to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States if our actions point directly to regime change."

Delivering the response that should be coming from New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and especially from Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he isn't campaigning for president, Kucinich argued that, "Our nation is better served by demanding sensible and responsible diplomatic foreign policy initiatives from the Bush Administration."

Kucinich, who has proposed impeaching Vice President Cheney for continually prodding the country toward an unnecessary war with Iran, may not get the political credit he deserves for calling out this administration. But history will recognize him as the man who sounded the al

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 07 - 09:27 AM

"...Those Bush dead-enders are in a serious state of denial. Just how much so could be found in the Journal interview when Mr. Rove extolled his party's health by arguing, without contradiction from Mr. Gigot, that young people are more "pro-life" and "free-market" than their elders. Maybe he was talking about 12-year-olds. Back in the real world of potential voters, the latest New York Times-CBS News poll of Americans aged 17 to 29 found that their views on abortion were almost identical to the rest of the country's. (Only 24 percent want abortion outlawed.)

That poll also found that the percentage of young people who identify as Republicans, whether free-marketers or not, is down to 25, from a high of 37 at the end of the Reagan era. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, found that self-identified G.O.P. voters are trending older rapidly, with the percentage over age 55 jumping from 28 to 41 percent in a decade.

Every poll and demographic accounting finds the Republican Party on the losing side of history, both politically and culturally. Not even a miraculous armistice in Iraq or vintage Democratic incompetence may be able to ride to the rescue. A survey conducted by The Journal itself (with NBC News) in June reported G.O.P. approval numbers lower than any in that poll's two decades of existence. Such is the political legacy for a party to which Mr. Rove sold Mr. Bush as "a new kind of Republican," an exemplar of "compassionate conservatism" and the avatar of a permanent Republican majority.

That sales pitch, as we long ago learned, was all about packaging, not substance. The hope was that No Child Left Behind and a 2000 G.O.P. convention stacked with break dancers and gospel singers would peel away some independent and black voters from the Democrats. The promise of immigration reform would spread Bush's popularity among Hispanics. Another potential add-on to the Republican base was Muslims, a growing constituency that Mr. Rove's pal Grover Norquist plotted to herd into the coalition.

The rest is history. Any prospect of a rapprochement between the G.O.P. and African-Americans died in the New Orleans Superdome. The tardy, botched immigration initiative unleashed a wave of xenophobia against Hispanics, the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country. The Muslim outreach project disappeared into the memory hole after 9/11...."

Frank Rich, columnist, NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 06:36 AM

Washington Post:

Democrats' Purity Primary

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; Page A17

Every campaign has moments when candidates substitute political preening for substance. Such an episode is unfolding now in the Democratic field, and it involves that perennial piñata, the Washington lobbyist.

John Edwards and Barack Obama won't take lobbyist money; Hillary Clinton will. Edwards, angling for attention in the purity primary, has kicked things up a notch. He is calling on all Democrats to reject lobbyist contributions, and calling on Obama to join him in that call.

"Not a dime from a Washington lobbyist," Edwards declared at the Yearly Kos convention. "Their money is no good with us."

Of course, the folks who would be most delighted with this outcome are lobbyists, the target of relentless haranguing for campaign cash. Of course, it's not going to happen: Democrats, back in partial power and desperate to keep it, aren't about to give up a dime from any (legal) source.

And, as you might have guessed from my tone, I don't think it would much matter if Democrats were to live in The World According to Edwards, who has never taken lobbyist money. Nice symbolism, perhaps, but how does it make candidates any purer to disdain checks from lobbyists while avidly vacuuming up contributions from the various industries they represent?

Edwards is no less tainted by the trial-lawyer money he scoops up by the bucketful than he would be by lobbyist contributions. Obama is no more ethical now than when he was an unknown Senate candidate dutifully calling lobbyists and asking for a check, please.

Clinton botched her initial response on this, telling the Yearly Kos-ers -- they weren't skeptical enough of her already? -- that lobbyists represent "real Americans," too. She refined her argument in time for Sunday's ABC debate, noting "this artificial distinction that people are trying to make: Don't take money from lobbyists, but take money from the people who employ and hire lobbyists and give them their marching orders."

Indeed, who takes money from lobbyists is the wrong question about an essential subject. Instead, voters who care -- and I think voters should care -- ought to ask: What is the candidate's history on campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics rules, and open government generally? How transparent is the candidate about campaign and personal finances? What steps will he or she take to limit the influence of money during the current campaign?

On these, there are revealing differences among the Democratic front-runners.

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 07:42 AM

Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2007 6:17 p.m. EDT
Zogby: Bush's Approval Twice Congress

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has taken a small dip, dropping to 32% positive, down from 34% who gave him positive job marks in mid-July, a new Reuters/Zogby International telephone poll shows.

The survey also shows that the overall job approval rating for the work of Congress remains far below the President's, as just 15% give the national legislature a collective positive rating, up one point since last month. Changes in both the ratings for the President and Congress are statistically insignificant.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll included interviews with 1,020 likely voters between August 9-11, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Bush has lingered in the low 30s all year. His most recent high was a 42% positive rating just a week before the 2006 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. At that time, the positive approval rating for Congress had languished in the low 20s or high teens, but plummeted in the wake of its handling of controversial issues, including immigration reform and the Iraq war, other Zogby polling showed.

Bush wins a positive job rating from 58% of Republicans, 29% of independents, and 11% of Democrats. Among those with a household member who is now or at one time served in the Armed Forces, 37% give the President positive marks, compared with 26% of those with no household member in the military who give him a positive job rating.

Meanwhile, Congress wins just 18% positive approval from Democrats, while 80% of Dems give them negative marks for their performance so far. Republicans watching the performance of the Democratic-controlled Congress are more harsh—just 12% give it good marks, while 86% said they are doing only a "fair" or "poor" job in Washington.

Political independents appear to agree with Republicans on this count—just 16% give Congress positive marks, while the balance give it a negative rating.

Most are not happy with the overall direction in which the nation is now headed, the poll shows. Just 24% said they think things in the country are going well, while 64% said they think things are off on the wrong track. The main problem is foreign policy, the Reuters/Zogby poll shows. Just 22% approve of foreign affairs as practiced by the Bush administration.

Despite their downcast view of the current political leadership in Washington, an overwhelming percentage said they are proud of their nation – 89% said they are either very or fairly proud of the United States.

Just 35% said they are pleased with current U.S. economic policy, but 60% said their own personal economic situation is good or excellent.
Overall, 65% said they feel secure in their current jobs, and most are optimistic about the long-term future of the nation: 64% said they expect their children to have a better life than them.

More than three-quarters—77%—said they feel America is facing threats from abroad, while 21% said they are not concerned about such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 08:15 AM

From the Washington Post:

What September Won't Settle

By George F. Will
Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A19

Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.

After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.

The Weimar Republic was fragile; America's domestic tranquility is not. Still, remember the bitterness stirred by the accusatory question "Who lost China?" and corrosive suspicions that the fruits of victory in Europe had been squandered by Americans of bad character or bad motives at Yalta.

So, consider this: When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his report on the war, his Washington audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.

One faction -- essentially, congressional Democrats -- is heavily invested in the belief, fervently held by the party's base of donors and activists, that prolonging U.S. involvement can have no benefit commensurate with the costs. The war, this faction says, is lost because even its repeatedly and radically revised objective -- a stable society under a tolerable regime -- is beyond America's military capacity and nation-building competence, and it is politically impossible given the limits of American patience.

The other faction, equal in anger and certitude, argues, not for the first time (remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple fingers, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, the capture of Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi, etc.), that the tide has turned. How febrile is this faction? Recently it became euphoric because of a New York Times column by two Brookings Institution scholars, who reported:

"We are finally getting somewhere" ("at least in military terms"), the troops' "morale is high," "civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began" and there is "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability."

But the scholars also said:

"The situation in Iraq remains grave," fatalities "remain very high," "the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark," "the Iraqi National Police . . . remain mostly a disaster," "Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position," it is unclear how much longer we can "wear down our forces in this mission" or how much longer Americans should "keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part," and "once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines."

The rapturous reception of that column by one faction was evidence of the one thing both factions share: a powerful will to believe, or disbelieve, as their serenity requires. Consider the following from the war-is-irretrievable faction:

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, House majority whip, recently said that it would be "a real big problem for us" -- Democrats -- if Petraeus reports substantial progress. Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

In the other faction, there still are those so impervious to experience that they continue to refer to Syria as "lower-hanging fruit." Such metaphors bewitch minds. Low-hanging fruit is plucked, then eaten. What does one nation do when it plucks another? In Iraq, America is in its fifth year of learning the answer.

Petraeus's metrics of success might ignite more arguments than they settle. In America, police drug sweeps often produce metrics of success but dealers soon relocate their operations. If Iraqi security forces have become substantially more competent, some Americans will say U.S. forces can depart; if those security forces have not yet substantially improved, the same people will say U.S. forces must depart. Furthermore, will the security forces' competence ultimately serve the Iraqi state -- or a sect?

Petraeus's report will be received in the context of his minimalist definition of the U.S. mission: "Buying time for Iraqis to reconcile." The reconciling, such as it is, will recommence when Iraq's parliament returns from its month-long vacation, come September.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 01:39 PM

August 23, 2007

WASHINGTON

President Bush attempted Wednesday to drape war policy in Iraq in the lessons of World War II-era Japan and Vietnam as part of a broader argument for continuing the military campaign despite fierce opposition at home and abroad.

But his remarks to a VFW convention in Kansas City, Mo., also invited stinging criticism from historians and military analysts who said the analogies evidenced scant understanding of those conflicts' true lessons.

What is more, the speech opened a new vein of attack from Bush's political opponents, including the man he defeated in 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Vietnam veteran who called the president's words "irresponsible" and "ignorant."

In drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, Bush said, "Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and if we would just withdraw, the killing would end." But, he added, "The world would learn just how costly those impressions would be."

The president spoke just weeks before the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will present his assessment of the so-called troop surge in Iraq, a report that most believe will be critical in determining the level of political support that the president will be able to sustain for the war.

Several officials, including prominent Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have returned recently from Iraq and reported signs of military progress. Those assessments, however, have been leavened by an ever-bleaker view of Iraq's political leadership on the part of those officials as well as Bush, who on Tuesday said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government must "do more" to achieve political stability.
....

(Chicago Tribune, Aug 23 2007)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 10:36 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Government and industry officials say the rules are needed to clarify existing laws, which have been challenged in court and applied unevenly.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.

All mining generates huge volumes of waste, known as excess spoil or overburden, and it has to go somewhere. For years, it has been trucked away and dumped in remote hollows of Appalachia.

Environmental activists say the rule change will lead to accelerated pillage of vast tracts and the obliteration of hundreds of miles of streams in central Appalachia.

"This is a parting gift to the coal industry from this administration," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, W.Va. "What is at stake is the future of Appalachia. This is an attempt to make legal what has long been illegal."

Mr. Lovett said his group and allied environmental and community organizations would consider suing to block the new rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 06:27 AM

"There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).

But the serious voices will prevail. When the Democratic presidential front-runner concedes that the surge "is working" (albeit very late) against the insurgency, and when Petraeus himself concedes that the surge cannot continue indefinitely, making inevitable a drawdown of troops sometime in the middle of next year, the terms of the Iraq debate become narrow and the policy question simple: What do we do right now -- continue the surge or cut it short and begin withdrawal?

Serious people like Levin argue that with a nonfunctional and sectarian Baghdad government, we can never achieve national reconciliation. Thus the current military successes will prove ephemeral.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses long term and short term. In the longer run, there must be a national unity government. But in the shorter term, our assumption that a national unity government is required to pacify the Sunni insurgency turned out to be false. The Sunnis have turned against al-Qaeda and are gradually switching sides in the absence of any oil, federalism or de-Baathification deal coming out of Baghdad.

In the interim, the surge is advancing our two immediate objectives in Iraq: (a) to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq and prevent the emergence of an al-Qaeda ministate, and (b) to pacify the Sunni insurgency, which began the post-liberation downward spiral of sectarian bloodshed, economic stagnation and aborted reconstruction."

from Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 11:32 AM

White House Shell Game

(NEw York Times editorial excerpt)

Published: August 24, 2007

The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy took another absurd turn this week. The administration is claiming that the White House Office of Administration is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, even though there are some compelling reasons to think it is. Like the fact that the office has its own FOIA officer. And it responded to 65 FOIA requests last year. And the White House's own Web site, as of yesterday, insisted the office is covered by FOIA.

The administration's logic-free claim about the Office of Administration follows fast on the heels of Vice President Dick Cheney's laughable claim that he was immune to an open-government law because his office supposedly was not an executive agency.

The fight over the Office of Administration's status is part of a larger battle over access to an estimated five million e-mail messages that have mysteriously disappeared from White House computers. The missing messages are important evidence in the scandal over the firing of nine United States attorneys, apparently because they refused to use their positions to help Republicans win elections. The Office of Administration seems to know a lot about when and how those messages disappeared, but it does not want to tell the public.

What exactly does the administration want to hide? It is certainly acting as if the e-mail messages would confirm suspicions that the White House coordinated the prosecutors' firings and that it may have broken laws. It is hard to believe the administration's constant refrain that there is nothing to the prosecutor scandal when it is working so hard to avoid letting the facts about it get out.

The administration's refusal to comply with open-government laws is ultimately more important than any single scandal. The Freedom of Information Act and other right-to-know laws were passed because government transparency is vital to a democracy. The American people cannot monitor their elected officials, and ensure that they act in the public interest, if government is allowed to operate under a veil of secrecy. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 07 - 07:08 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — The Bush administration has confirmed for the first time that American telecommunications companies played a crucial role in the National Security Agency 's domestic eavesdropping program after asserting for more than a year that any role played by them was a "state secret."

Times Topics: Surveillance of Citizens by Government
The acknowledgment was in an unusual interview that Mike McConnell , the director of national intelligence, gave last week to The El Paso Times in which he disclosed details on classified intelligence issues that the administration has long insisted would harm national security if discussed publicly.

Mr. McConnell made the remarks apparently in an effort to bolster support for the broadened wiretapping authority that Congress approved this month, even as Democrats are threatening to rework the legislation because they say it gives the executive branch too much power. It is vital, he said, for Congress to give retroactive legal immunity to the companies that assisted in the program to help prevent them from facing bankruptcy because of lawsuits over it.

"Under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us, because if you're going to get access, you've got to have a partner," Mr. McConnell said in the interview, a transcript of which was posted by The El Paso Times on Wednesday.

AT&T and several other major carriers are being sued over their reported role in the program, which permitted eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorism ties. The administration has sought to shut down the lawsuits by invoking the state-secrets privilege, refusing even to confirm whether the companies helped conduct the wiretaps.

Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is heading up the lawsuit against AT&T, said her group might ask the appeals court to consider Mr. McConnell's comments in deciding whether the state-secrets argument should be thrown out.

"They've really undermined their own case," Ms. Cohn said.

Mr. McConnell said those suits were a driving force in the administration's efforts to include in this month's wiretapping legislation immunity for telecommunications partners. "If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed," he said, "it would bankrupt these companies."

Congress agreed to give immunity to telecommunications partners in the measure , but refused to make it retroactive.

Mr. McConnell, who took over as the country's top intelligence official in February, warned that the public discussion generated by the Congressional debate over the wiretapping bill threatened national security because it would alert terrorists to American surveillance methods.

"Now part of this is a classified world," he said in the interview. "The fact we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die.".

Asked whether he was saying the news media coverage and the public debate in Congress meant that "some Americans are going to die," he replied: "That's what I mean. Because we have made it so public."

Mr. McConnell, though, put new information on the public record in the interview, on Aug. 14 while in Texas for a border conference.

Mr. McConnell said, for instance, that the number of people inside the United States who were wiretapped through court-approved warrants totaled "100 or less" but on the "foreign side, it's in the thousands." The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves national security wiretaps, told Congress it approved 2,181 eavesdropping warrants last year. The court and the administration have not been willing to break out how many Americans were in those orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:41 AM

A top-flight Patent Attorney remarks on the impact of Bush's political favors game on the United States Patent field:

"..more troubling in this whole scenario is Mr. Dudas himself. He is a young attorney who is not a patent lawyer. He should never have been nominated by President Bush. Mr. Dudas was, at the time of this nomination (and today), totally unqualified for the position of Director of the USPTO. Nevertheless, the Senate ratified his nomination, apparently preferring to fight other Presidential nominees, such as those nominated to serve as federal judges.

Mr. Dudas has instituted a number of ill-conceived policies at the USPTO, equally destructive in nature, and wholly without proper understanding of how industry functions, patent prosecution works, and the role of patents in fueling R & D and the economy. In short, he has wreaked havoc in the USPTO and has failed at the most fundamental level to manage the USPTO by ensuring that an adequate number of patent examiners are hired, properly trained and properly supervised.

What the public ended up with during Mr. Dudas' term as Director is a largely dysfunctional USPTO, continually made worse by bad policies - many probably illegal - and with a clear failure to understand the consequences of his actions.

Anybody can see that if the new rules survive the present Tafas v. Dudas lawsuit, there will be an explosion of appeals, crippling the USPTO's ability to decide patentability on the merits and delaying the grant of a huge number patents many, many years into the future. The new rules will also result in a drastic reduction in applications, and as a consequence, inevitably result in the need for the USPTO to dramatically raise fees on the remaining patent applications and patents since Congress requires the USPTO to be self-supporting from user fees.

As a political appointee of fairly high rank (Under Secretary of Commerce), it is likely that Mr. Dudas will be gone when a new administration takes over in January, 2009, regardless of whether that administration is Democrat or Republican.

At that time, hopefully the new President will nominate one of literally hundreds of qualified patent attorneys to the post of Director of the USPTO. Almost any in-house patent counsel from a Fortune 500 company is far more qualified than Mr. Dudas, and I cannot imagine any of them doing more harm to the US patent system than Mr. Dudas has caused in a very short number of years."

Yet another aspect of ignorance made official in the interest of a low-0caliber ole boy network.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 02:36 PM

President Bush Signs Landmark Bill Investing in Science

President Bush has signed into law the America COMPETES Act, the landmark innovation and competitiveness legislation that outlines investing in basic research and promoting math and science programs to keep the U.S. globally competitive.

At a press conference held at the White House on Aug. 9. he praised Congress for working in a bipartisan fashion to get the bill passed and added that the legislation reflected priorities he outlined in his American Competitiveness Initiative.

---

While this is nice news, I cannot but think it is superficial and self-serving on his part, and intellectually hypocritical. Bush has one of the worst records vis-a-vis science of any President the country has had, not to mention other areas on incompetence such as diplomacy, foreign policy, strategy, life-sciences, etc., etc.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:34 AM

On the recent Administration stonewall over children's health care reductions it initiated:

"Acting during a Congressional recess, and making a distinct effort to stay beneath the radar of the news media, the administration enacted insidious new rules that make it much harder for states to bring additional children under the umbrella of the program, known colloquially as CHIP.

The program is popular because it works. It's cost effective and there is wide bipartisan support for its expansion. But President Bush, locked in an ideological straitjacket, is adamant in his opposition.

In addition to the new rules drastically curtailing the ability of governors to expand local coverage by obtaining waivers from the federal government, the president has threatened a veto of Congressional efforts to fund a more robust version of the overall program.

"It's stunning," said New York's Gov. Eliot Spitzer. "He says he's going to veto health care for kids because it's too expensive at the same time that these continuing resolutions for the war, where we don't even know what the cost is, are going through unabated. This is insanity.

"Everybody agrees this is the right thing to do except the Bush administration."

---

From the NY Times, 8-28-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:38 AM

"You underline our government's cult-of-personality solution to every crisis. Those directing our misguided adventure in nation-building in Iraq believed that Ahmad Chalabi, an exiled secular Shiite, would automatically solve all Iraq's sectarian problems. They supported similar solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with eroding results.

What is even more unnerving is to see the current Republican presidential candidates presenting themselves in the same bogus heroic guise.

It is hoped that voters will avoid our foreign policy mistakes and this time around will pick a substantive candidate. Our democracy does not need another quasi Napoleon. "

(Emphasis added. From the Letters department, Ibid,.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:00 AM

from the Washington Post:

Congress's Ill-Timed Iran Bills

By Danielle Pletka
Tuesday, August 28, 2007; Page A13

This month, the Bush administration tightened the screws on Iran yet again. Its move to formally designate Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is the latest in a wave of state, federal and international efforts to pressure the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into reconsidering its nuclear weapons program and increasingly aggressive sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East.

Five bills are pending in Congress that would encourage divestment and eliminate loopholes in the Iran Sanctions Act, among other things. At the state level, bills are pending in at least 13 legislatures to compel state pension funds to divest from companies and financial institutions doing business with Iran; in Florida and Louisiana, such measures have become law. More broadly, the U.N. Security Council will consider a third resolution in September responding to Iran's failure to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

There is growing recognition that Iran's nuclear activities must be stopped, and the voluntary divestment movement is gaining ground. Yet this moment of harmonious convergence -- possible only because of the gravity of the threat from Iran -- may come to an abrupt end if Congress has its way.

Most of the bills pending in the House and Senate would, if passed, tighten the provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act (formerly known as the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act) and strip the president of authority to waive U.S. sanctions on a variety of firms, many in Europe. Currently, the act allows the president to waive sanctions on firms that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector or to choose from a menu of sanctions, ranging from a slap on the wrist to major penalties.

Soon after the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act became law in 1996, the Clinton administration made clear to European governments that it had no intention of implementing its provisions. European leaders, uniformly insistent that engagement with Iran was the most effective means of moderating Iranian misbehavior, roundly rejected efforts to punish Tehran's business partners. The Clinton administration, and later the Bush administration, looked away as tens of billions of dollars flowed into Iran's energy sector. European investment in Iran skyrocketed with no pressure from London, Paris or Berlin on nuclear or terrorism issues. And with Iran earning upwards of 85 percent of its foreign currency from the sale of petroleum and related products, it was possible to draw a direct line from that investment to the funds available to the regime for nuclear weapons, missiles and funding for terrorist groups.

Congress acquiesced in this executive disregard for more than a decade. Yet, just as lawmakers have gotten riled about enforcing the law, European nations are beginning to grasp the importance of curtailing their economic ties with Tehran. Since early last year, France, Germany and Britain, among other European Union nations, have cut back export credits -- essentially taxpayer subsidies -- to companies doing business in Iran. Germany's export credit agency, Hermes, has reportedly cut guarantees 30 percent and aims to cut a further 10 percent this year. Deutsche Bank last month announced that it is ceasing to do business with Iran. Two major British banks, HSBC and Standard Chartered, have cut back significantly. The French Embassy touts hundreds of millions in French divestment from Iran in recent years.

On principle, many European foreign and finance ministries continue to resent American hectoring on trade with Iran. A senior German Foreign Ministry official recently characterized Treasury Department lobbying against business with Iran as "outrageous." Such protestations notwithstanding, word has quietly spread from Paris, London and Berlin that banks and companies now do business with Iran at their own risk.

Japan, once Iran's top trading partner, has also begun to cool its once warm relations, though not to the same extent as the Europeans. But it is a model when compared with China and Russia, which have raced to do business where the West has pulled back. Indeed, China and Russia have been facilitators not just for Iran's energy sector but also for its missile and nuclear programs.

As Congress watches the international community crawl toward a consensus, slapping down European firms that irresponsibly continue to underwrite Iran's energy sector will be tempting. To be sure, Europe could do much more. But the European Union has come a great distance since the 1990s, and with each month, Europeans are doing more to withdraw support from the Iranian economy.

A more appropriate focus of congressional action would be Russian arms and nuclear sales to Iran and growing Chinese investment in Iran's energy sector. Closing loopholes that permit U.S. firms to do business with Tehran through subsidiaries would also show admirable consistency.

For many years, a key element of Iranian strategy has been to divide Europe from the United States, leaving America with only unilateral options. It would be a cruel irony if, just as European governments finally begin doing the right thing, Congress deepens the Atlantic rift.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:48 AM

LEtters on the President's defense of Gonzalez, the Attorney General who acted like a non-attorney and without any air of generalship...

"The shame of the Bush administration is that it allows cronyism and loyalty to trump integrity and competence in many of its appointments in an effort to infest all federal departments with its misguided ideology.

That the president's politics will change over the remaining 18 months of his administration as a result of the resignations of Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is probably too much to hope for.

Congress should not view these resignations as substitutes for accountability and should continue to pursue all legitimate charges. Patricia A. Weller

Westminster, Md., Aug. 28, 2007

•

To the Editor:

President Bush's assertion that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has been treated unfairly is wonderfully ironic. No attorney general has been more unfair to the American people and to the Constitution of this great country.

The only unfairness here is that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Gonzales will be prosecuted for subverting the Constitution and for committing human rights abuses as part of his advocacy of and support for torture at home and abroad.


Watertown, Mass., Aug. 28, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Albert R. Gonzales seemed to be a paradox: an attorney general who emphasized the limitation and restriction rather than the protection of human rights and freedoms.

It is to be hoped that the next attorney general our country has will support people's rights and freedoms rather than deny them.

Isn't that the way America is supposed to be, and what makes it so great?

Huntington Beach, Calif., Aug. 28, 2007

•

To the Editor:

That Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's "good name was dragged through the mud," as President Bush suggests, is more a result of the company he chose to keep than any amorphous political reasons.

Mr. Gonzales simply hung out with the wrong crowd and, influenced by its members, tarnished his own, perhaps once fine, name.

It's too bad our Constitution has been tarnished along with it.


Bloomington, Ind. Aug. 28, 2007"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:20 PM

An interesting study on the parallels between Bush's approach to Middle East diplomacy and that of Napoleon Bonaparte in the 18th century, entitled Bush's Napoleonic Folly, is wortth a read, even if only to refresh familiarity with history. The parallels are interesting, as well. And I don't need to mention that the verdict of history on Bonaparte was that he was a dyspeptic psycho.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:30 PM

"... When Bill Clinton was president, Mr. Tenet sent forbidding intelligence that accurately predicted the terrorist attacks to come. He apparently didn't worry too much about being seen as an alarmist.

During the Bush administration, reflecting changed priorities, the terrorism alerts faded into the background. Nor was the terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, any more successful when he tried to get Condoleezza Rice's attention. When he personally briefed George W. Bush before leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton told him that Osama bin Laden was one of the biggest threats facing the country.

Again, no one got Mr. Bush's attention, and the country paid dearly for the bureaucratic confusion and ineptitude at the top.

...Malvern, Pa., Aug. 23, 2007"

Letter to the NY Times.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:32 AM

... A new report from Congress's investigative arm provides a powerful fresh dose of nonpartisan realism about Iraq as President Bush tries to spin people into thinking that significant — or at least sufficient — progress is being made. With a crucial debate on Iraq set for next month, the report should be read by members of Congress who may be wavering in the fight with the White House over withdrawing American troops.

The Government Accountability Office, in a draft assessment reported yesterday, determined that Iraq has failed to meet 15 out of 18 benchmarks for political and military progress mandated by Congress. Laws on constitutional reform, oil and permitting former Baathists back into the government have not been enacted. Among other failings, there has been unsatisfactory progress toward deploying three Iraqi brigades in Baghdad and reducing the level of sectarian violence.

These conclusions are in line with a recent National Intelligence Estimate that found that violence in Iraq remained high, terrorists could still mount formidable attacks and the country's leaders "remain unable to govern effectively."

Mr. Bush earlier this year ordered a massive buildup of American troops in Iraq in a desperate attempt to salvage his failed strategy and stave off Congressional moves to bring the forces home. Despite the cost of more American lives, he argued that he was buying a period of relative calm for Iraqi politicians to achieve national reconciliation.

The top American officials in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, are to present their assessments on how calm things are at eagerly awaited Congressional hearings in mid-September. Their findings, and a White House report due Sept. 15, are seen as a potential trigger for a change in Iraq strategy.

Two things, however, are already clear. Iraq's leaders have neither the intention nor the ability to take advantage of calm, relative or otherwise. And a change in strategy seems the farthest thing from Mr. Bush's mind.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 10:59 AM

"THE Sun, a feisty tabloid, once ran a headline asking sarcastically whether the last person to leave Britain would turn out the lights. A similar taunt could be made about the White House. One by one, the president's men are leaving: Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and now Alberto Gonzales, the hapless attorney-general. The Democrats scent more expulsions, more Bushies yearning to spend time with their families. The Republicans talk of witch hunts. The image of George Bush tottering around an empty building—empty, that is, except for mad old Uncle Dick in the cellar—is hard to resist.

Hard to resist, but also sad. This presidency still has nearly 17 more months to run. With Iraq, Iran, a global credit crunch and so much more to deal with, the world needs an engaged White House, not one peopled only by ghosts and newly hired defence lawyers. Both Mr Bush and the ruling Democrats in Congress would be wise to find a way out of this mess.

None of this is to mourn the departure of Mr Gonzales. As with Mr Rumsfeld, the tragedy lay not in his ouster, but in the length of time Mr Bush put up with an incompetent crony. At least the former defence secretary hid his uselessness under an impressive, pugnacious veneer. By contrast, Mr Gonzales was simply not up to the job—something that became depressingly obvious during the recent hearings called to discover whether he had sacked nine federal prosecutors for political reasons. Worse, his main qualification—a friendship with the president that went back to Texas—was an especially unhealthy one for the Justice Department.
..."

The Economist, London

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM

Brent Scowcraft, writing in today's NY Times:

...he United States was not previously a homeland, it was just our land, and that unhappy neologism with its Orwellian echoes, its sense of exclusion rather than inclusion, its faint fatherland-like echoes, seems to capture the closing and the menace and the terror-terror refrain with which we have all learned to live.

That refrain, for Americans, but not only them, has a pursed-lipped face called Bush-Cheney, and the braggadocio-smirk of the bring-it-on duo has come to form yet another shorthand for a certain grimness, one as relentless as the U.S. national debt clock.

For many around the world, sympathy has turned to alienation over six years, and that's something else Americans have had to learn to live with, the feeling that we owe an explanation of the inexplicable, a step-by-step guide of how we got from there to here, an accounting of who we really are and, you know, it's not us doing the fingerprinting and we still like rock 'n' roll.

You can't talk about the Belgian idea, or even the Indian idea, but the American idea is inseparable from this country's global resonance, and it's in the tarnishing of that idea — the partial replacement of a liberating notion by a threatening one — that a sea change has occurred.

As Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush, put it to me: "Historically, the world has always given us the benefit of the doubt because it believed we meant well. It no longer does."

He added: "It is easy to lose trust, but it takes a lot of work to gain it. Can the sense of confidence in us be restored? Sure. But not easily."

The American idea, in other words, is dimmed, but endures. On a clear day and holiday weekend, that now lopsided prow of Manhattan still stirs something noble, a sense of "the huddled masses yearning to breathe free" who stepped ashore and made their can-do American way.

Last year, 702,663 people became citizens; there are 877,039 naturalization cases pending. Countries are still divided into those people want to leave and those people want to get into. That division is also a measure of where oppression reigns and freedom resides.

I gazed past the Statue of Liberty to the tip of Manhattan the other day with my 89-year-old uncle, Bert, who first saw the city in 1947, two years after the end of a war in which, as a young South African officer, he had fought his way with the Allied army up through Italy. The Queen Mary had brought him, six to a cabin, from the English port of Southampton to New York.

"You know, when I got to London from Johannesburg, I thought it was the middle of the world," he said. "But I can't tell you what it felt like to step into the canyons of New York. I had this overwhelming feeling of promise and of being at the center of the New World, the coming world."

It is this sense of promise that the United States must restore to provide the leadership without which the big issues facing the world do not get resolved. Sometimes I imagine that a piece of the terrible white confetti of 9/11 has blown all the way around the globe to arrive, like a message in a bottle, and that I open it and read: "September is not the cruelest month."..."




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM

One of the key metrics by which George the Fake is judged is his hobby horse war in Iraq.

An interesting cmparison of core metrics of the operation is provided here by the Nww York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/09/03/opinion/20070904_IRAQ_GRAPHIC.html. It accompanies this article on the state of Iraq.

It provides hard numbers (a small subset of the many that coudl be gathered) in support of charges of incompetence, not to mention unnecessary deaths of thousands, as a direct result of the Bush administrations policies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

Paul Krugman looks back on the tragic responses to Katrina:


"....Today, much of the Gulf Coast remains in ruins. Less than half the federal money set aside for rebuilding, as opposed to emergency relief, has actually been spent, in part because the Bush administration refused to waive the requirement that local governments put up matching funds for recovery projects — an impossible burden for communities whose tax bases have literally been washed away.

On the other hand, generous investment tax breaks, supposedly designed to spur recovery in the disaster area, have been used to build luxury condominiums near the University of Alabama's football stadium in Tuscaloosa, 200 miles inland.

But why should we be surprised by any of this? The Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina — the mixture of neglect of those in need, obliviousness to their plight, and self-congratulation in the face of abject failure — has become standard operating procedure. These days, it's Katrina all the time.

Consider the White House reaction to new Census data on income, poverty and health insurance. By any normal standard, this week's report was a devastating indictment of the administration's policies. After all, last year the administration insisted that the economy was booming — and whined that it wasn't getting enough credit. What the data show, however, is that 2006, while a good year for the wealthy, brought only a slight decline in the poverty rate and a modest rise in median income, with most Americans still considerably worse off than they were before President Bush took office.

Most disturbing of all, the number of Americans without health insurance jumped. At this point, there are 47 million uninsured people in this country, 8.5 million more than there were in 2000. Mr. Bush may think that being uninsured is no big deal — "you just go to an emergency room" — but the reality is that if you're uninsured every illness is a catastrophe, your own private Katrina.

Yet the White House press release on the report declared that President Bush was "pleased" with the new numbers. Heckuva job, economy!

Mr. Bush's only concession that something might be amiss was to say that "challenges remain in reducing the number of uninsured Americans" — a statement reminiscent of Emperor Hirohito's famous admission, in his surrender broadcast, that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage." And Mr. Bush's solution — more tax cuts, of course — has about as much relevance to the real needs of the uninsured as subsidies for luxury condos in Tuscaloosa have to the needs of New Orleans's Ninth Ward.

The question is whether any of this will change when Mr. Bush leaves office.

There's a powerful political faction in this country that's determined to draw exactly the wrong lesson from the Katrina debacle — namely, that the government always fails when it attempts to help people in need, so it shouldn't even try. "I don't want the people who ran the Katrina cleanup to manage our health care system," says Mitt Romney, as if the Bush administration's practice of appointing incompetent cronies to key positions and refusing to hold them accountable no matter how badly they perform — did I mention that Mr. Chertoff still has his job? — were the way government always works.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:08 PM

IRAQ -- BUSH KNEW BEFORE INVASION THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD: Two former CIA officers have confirmed to Salon that President Bush was told in Sept. 2002 that Saddam Hussein did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. According to the officer, CIA director George Tenet provided Bush with top-secret information that "detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissible material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons." Bush reportedly dismissed the warning immediately. According to one of the officers, "Bush didn't give a f*ck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up." Tenet never brought up the information again; in fact, only a few months later he infamously referred to the case that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction as a "slam dunk." The intelligence about the lack of weapons of mass destruction was never provided to Congress before their vote to authorize military operations in March 2003, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair depended on this faulty information to make his decision to support the Iraq war. "Blair was duped," said one of the CIA officers. "He was shown the altered report." Even though Bush finally publicly admitted in 2004 that "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," he continued to believe that they were. In his new book on Bush, Robert Draper writes that the President repeated conviction that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction "to Andy Card all the way up until Card's departure in April 2006."

JUSTICE -- SEN. WHITEHOUSE SEEKS TO RESTRICT EXCESS WHITE HOUSE INTERFERENCE IN DOJ INVESTIGATIONS: In April, during testimony by outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) revealed that during the Bush administration, the number of White House officials allowed to intervene in pending criminal investigations by the Justice department increased by 10,325 percent, from four to 417. In a subsequent hearing in July, Whitehouse also revealed that Gonzales had given Vice President Cheney's office increased access. Whitehouse is now seeking to limit "the number of people in the White House who can be briefed by Justice on pending criminal matters." His bill, which is co-sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), "states that only certain 'covered officers' in both the Justice Department and White House may discuss ongoing criminal or civil investigations carried out by the Justice Department. The bill also requires the Attorney General and President to notify the Senate and House Judiciary Committees when new covered officers are designated." The Senate Judiciary Committee will discuss the bill in a business meeting today.

IRAQ -- UPSET OVER GAO'S FINDINGS ON IRAQ, CONSERVATIVES ATTACK AGENCY'S QUALIFICATIONS: Now that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported little to no progress in Iraq and the administration may be cooking the books on levels of violence, conservatives are desperately trying to attack the agency's credibility. Yesterday at a House International Relations Committee hearing, ranking member Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) complained, "I just feel uncomfortable listening to a report by the Government Accountability Office about a war effort." GAO Comptroller General David Walker explained the work his agency does is based on "looking at hard data, interviewing qualified individuals, and appropriate parties have an opportunity to review and comment on our work," he said. "It's my understanding that Secretary of Defense Gates does not have any military experience either." Ros-Lehtinen has had no problem citing the work of the GAO in a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff or enlisting the GAO's resources to pursue her agenda. Similarly, Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon, a staunch war supporter, attacked the GAO's work as "flat-out sloppy." It's only when the right wing doesn't like the agency's conclusions that it finds fault with the work of the office.


(Excerpted from a mailing from the Center for American Progress.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 09:35 AM

The Bush administration reached a deplorable, preordained verdict yesterday when it denied New York State permission to expand a valuable health insurance program to help cover middle-class children. The administration, which makes no effort to disguise its disdain for government insurance programs, imposed new, excessively stringent requirements last month that not only guaranteed New York's denial but will make it nearly impossible for any state to expand coverage.

The denial shows the White House at its most ideological and intransigent. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of children in New York — and many more nationally — will end up paying the price.

New York wanted to raise its income threshold for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, from the current $51,000 for a family of four to more than $82,000. There is room to debate whether that level — four times the poverty level — is too high, but the administration is not basing its rejection on those grounds. Federal officials say they have no authority to reject a state's plan based on income eligibility alone.

That is apparently why the administration cooked up new requirements that allow it to block middle-class coverage on other grounds. This is a distressing change for a program that had previously given states great leeway to devise coverage to fit their own circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:59 AM

From the Washington Post:


The Senate's Ethics Sleight of Hand

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, September 10, 2007; Page A15

The final version of the widely celebrated ethics bill, approved by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate a month ago, finally and quietly made its way last week from Capitol Hill to the White House. It surely will soon be signed into law by President Bush. What only a handful of leaders and insiders realize is that this measure, avowedly dedicated to transparency, actually makes it easier for the Senate to pass pet projects without the public -- or many senators -- being aware of it.

Until now, one or two senators could block provisions not passed by the Senate or House from being inserted, usually at the end of a session, into the final version of a bill. Under the new rule, it will take 40 senators to block any such provisions that are protected by the majority or even the bipartisan leadership. That will make it much easier to enact any number of special-interest measures, the goal of all too many members of Congress.

This momentous change could not have slipped by without bipartisan Senate leadership connivance, but it was unknown to rank-and-file senators -- much less the general public. Deception is the watchword on Capitol Hill. Indeed, outsiders do not realize that the ethics bill was held for a month after final passage before going to the president's desk. It was delayed to prevent Bush from exercising a "pocket veto": not signing the bill during the August recess to eliminate any opportunity for a congressional override.

On Aug. 2, reform Republican Sen. Tom Coburn called the just-passed ethics bill "a landmark betrayal, not a landmark accomplishment. Congress had a historic opportunity to expose secretive pork-barrel spending but instead created new ways to hide that spending." As for the act's highly publicized restrictions on lobbyists, Coburn asserted that "the problem in Washington is not the lobbyists" but "members of Congress." He voted no as the bill passed the Senate, 83 to 14, on Aug. 2 (it had been approved in the House two days earlier, 411 to 8).

Coburn objected to the bill taking new policing of pork-barrel earmarks away from the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian and giving it to the majority leader. "That makes the quarterback the referee," he said.

But not even Coburn's detailed analysis of the bill's treatment of earmarks mentioned the audacious change to Senate Rule 28, which covers inclusion in a Senate-House conference report of "extraneous matter" that neither chamber has passed. For years, at the end of a session, party leaders have solicited senators for dozens of pet projects to insert into conference reports. However, it took 67 votes in the 100-member Senate to suspend the rules and enact such provisions. In practice, if a party leader learned of serious opposition by one or two senators in his caucus, he would remove a provision because the dissenters could derail the entire conference report.

But the ethics bill's revision of Rule 28 removes that safeguard. Under the change, any senator could propose that points of order on the conference report be waived for all extraneous provisions, with a mere one-hour debate permitted for the lot of them. That could mean the addition to a bill of 40 or more provisions that never really will be debated. The floodgates will be open.

Multiple earmarks will now be added to conference reports with only 60 votes after just this one hour of debate. As Coburn has complained, the final version of the ethics bill permits the newly required identification of earmarks and posting on the Internet to be waived by the majority or minority leader. The leaders can also waive the new requirement that conference reports be posted on the Internet no less than 48 hours before the Senate vote. So much for transparency.

With recourse to a pocket veto denied him, George W. Bush ought to be in a quandary. Should he consider the option of vetoing the pride and joy of the Democratic Congress and be accused, however unfairly, of pandering to lobbyists? He could at least avoid the signing ceremony for a pork-prone ethics bill and maybe even let it become law without his signature.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

Heartbroken Bush Runs After Departing Rove's Car -- a touching description of the loss of one's beloved master/father-figure/nanny/brain.

Brings tears to my eyes to read it, honest...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:40 PM

Thank God that the Petraeus report has fianlly explained why we need to delay any withdrawl from Iraq for 10 years.


I trust him as much as I trusted Colin Powell.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

A sense of purpose

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:32 PM

Holy Moly, Bill, where'd you find that little gem??!! Just goes to show ya his history of self-serving du-plicity goes back quite a stretch.


It would seem some local commander felt he should be required to declare his intentions, honorable or dishonorable. Unless that is a form they ALL sign, I wonder what prompted such a suspicious management action on the commander's part. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:29 PM

Why, right here, Amos...

(actually, I found it in a roundabout way...*grin*..while doing an image search on "Pumkin head")

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:51 PM

And another cute lil piece of paper from his lubricious timeline. The marks in the left hand column are labeled "Not observed". Hard to grade the man when he isn't around to be graded, I suppose.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM

LOL...yep, he was hard to find! I expect the same column would have been checked if they had done a brain scan on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:23 PM

Dan Rather got fired for pursuing that story with dubious photo records and documents.

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

Yeah, but the funny things was the documents were all they could complain about. The FACTS that the documents reported were apparently true. So the SwiftBoaters nailed Rather on document provenance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:10 AM

The ruling class does not even need a plausible excuse to destory a voice of the people or even a voice of reason.

However I am starting to see how their clarion call of (HE/SHE IS DISLOYAL) no longer cuts the mustard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:49 AM

from the Washington Post:

The Assault on Petraeus

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, September 12, 2007; Page A19

There is a long American tradition of savaging failed generals, from George McClellan to William Westmoreland. It is a more novel tactic to attack a successful one. Sen. Dick Durbin accuses Gen. David Petraeus of "carefully manipulating the statistics." Sen. Harry Reid contends, "He's made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual." A newspaper ad by MoveOn.org includes the taunt: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- perhaps the first time since the third grade that this distinguished commander has been subjected to this level of wit.

Gen. Andrew Jackson probably would have responded to these reflections on his honor with a series of duels. Gen. Petraeus, in the manner of the modern Army, patiently answered with a series of facts and charts showing military progress in Iraq that seemed unimaginable even six months ago.

On Petraeus's brief watch, al-Qaeda in Iraq has suffered a major setback. It has been cleared out of the main population centers of Anbar province; its cells scattered into the countryside. The resentment of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda's highhanded brutality predated the surge -- but the surge gave those leaders the confidence and ability to oppose al-Qaeda. And this approach is showing promise among other Iraqi tribal groups as well.

In Baghdad, the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy -- a kind of community policing with very serious firepower -- has reduced sectarian murders significantly. Some militia activity has been pushed outside Baghdad or gone underground -- and this is also a victory of sorts, because order in Iraq's capital has great symbolic and practical importance.

But for opponents of the war, such progress is beside the point. Anything less than perfection in reaching a series of benchmarks is evidence of failure and reason for retreat. Former senator John Edwards, bobbing like a cork on every current of the left, calls for "No timeline, no funding. No excuses" -- a sudden cutoff of resources for American combat troops. Other critics recommend that American forces withdraw into a noncombat, supportive role, with a "small footprint," while unprepared Iraqis are pushed into the lead -- exactly the strategy that led to the escalation of violence in 2006.

These are not serious options. But the administration does face a serious question: Even if this military progress continues, how does it lead to the endgame of American withdrawal instead of Iraqi dependence? In spite of recent gains, civilian casualties remain high, sectarian groups are still deeply at odds, and the central government remains corrupt and ineffective.

Administration officials answer that they are seeing a promising, bottom-up change in Iraq -- something organic, not imposed or designed. Instead of national, political agreement, Iraq is experiencing local, tribal reconciliation. Even without a national oil law, oil revenue is being shared. Even in the absence of a de-Baathification law, tens of thousands of former Baathists are getting their pensions. Grass-roots progress, the argument goes, will eventually produce more responsible, pragmatic political leaders -- Sunnis who oppose al-Qaeda and Shiites who fight Iranian influence -- as well as more capable and professional Iraqi military forces. And this would allow America to provide the same level of security with fewer and fewer troops.

Petraeus's recommendation of troop reductions beginning in December, with a return to pre-surge troop levels by summer, is a down payment on this expectation. But future reductions, he made clear, will be based on conditions in Iraq, not timelines. And those conditions are hard to predict.

At least three factors could complicate future withdrawals:

First, as the British leave, Basra and the south could descend into a chaos of battling militias -- threatening Iraqi oil fields and American supply lines. Would U.S. troops be forced to intervene?

Second, Iran may not tamely accept American progress in Iraq. Its government is already involved in the training and arming of proxies in Iraq. How would America need to respond if the Iranians escalate further and provide, for example, surface-to-air missiles to militias?

Third, even if Iranian-backed groups are isolated and undermined, the regular Shiite militias, often infiltrated into the police and Interior Ministry, are still forcing Sunnis out of mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. What needs to be done to stop them?

Despite real military progress, the situation in Iraq remains difficult. Gen. Petraeus is a skilled leader, but we do not know if even he can win. We know, however, one thing: If he is slandered, his advice is dismissed and Congress cuts off funding for the troops he commands, defeat in Iraq will be certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:20 AM

From the Washington Post- Miss this one, Amos?


The Least Bad Plan

President Bush's long-shot strategy for Iraq is less risky than the alternatives.
Friday, September 14, 2007; Page A12


PRESIDENT BUSH'S explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure -- because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.

Mr. Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops he announced. The president said that the tactical military successes meant that American forces could be reduced in the coming year to pre-surge levels. What he didn't say is that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr. Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments. Another way of describing Mr. Bush's plan is that it leaves every available Army and Marine unit in place in Iraq for as long as possible. If the war were going worse than it is, the deployment schedule probably couldn't have been much different.

Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker have argued this week that the maximal troop levels are necessary to prevent Iraq from returning to the downward spiral into sectarian war it suffered before the surge. They also have emphasized that political accords will be slower in coming than Washington has expected, if they are achievable at all. Yet Mr. Bush's plan for the coming year is based, once again, on the hope that Iraqis will take steps that will make the added security provided by U.S. troops sustainable -- and prevent a worsening of the situation when American brigades withdraw. Though this hope proved illusory during the past eight months, there will be no change in the U.S. mission.

It's impossible not to be skeptical that the necessary political deals and improvements in Iraqi security forces will take place. Unless there is progress that justifies withdrawals going well beyond those he announced last night, Mr. Bush is unlikely to achieve the agreement in Washington on Iraq he said he now aims for. Still, there are no easy alternatives to the present policy. In the past we have looked favorably on bipartisan proposals that would change the U.S. mission so as to focus on counterterrorism and training of the Iraqi army, while withdrawing most U.S. combat units. Mr. Bush said he would begin a transition to that reduced posture in December. But according to Gen. Petraeus, Mr. Crocker and the consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, if the U.S. counterinsurgency mission were abandoned in the near future, the result would be massive civilian casualties and still-greater turmoil that could spread to neighboring countries.

Mr. Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order. For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that U.S. troops will "return on success" in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: "Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:24 AM

Or this one? (also from the Washington Post)

A 'Realistic Chance' of Success

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 14, 2007; Page A13

As always, the inadvertent slip is the most telling. Discussing the performance of British troops, Gen. David Petraeus told Sen. Joe Biden of the Foreign Relations Committee that he'd be consulting with British colleagues in London on his way back "home." He had meant to say "Iraq," where he is now on his third tour of duty. Is there any other actor in Washington's Iraq war drama -- from Harry Reid to the Joint Chiefs -- who could have made such a substitution? Anyone who not only knows Iraq the way Petraeus does but feels it in all its gravity and complexity?

When asked about Shiite militia domination of southern Iraq, Petraeus patiently went through the four provinces, one by one, displaying a degree of knowledge of the local players, terrain and balance of power that no one in Washington -- and few in Iraq -- could match.

When Biden thought he had a gotcha -- contradictions between Petraeus's report on Iraqi violence and the less favorable one by the Government Accountability Office -- Petraeus calmly pointed out that the GAO had to cut its data-gathering five weeks short to meet reporting requirements to Congress. And since those most recent five weeks had been particularly productive for the coalition, the GAO numbers were not only outdated but misleading.

For all the attempts by Democrats and the antiwar movement to discredit Petraeus, he won the congressional confrontation hands down. He demonstrated enough military progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude: "I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq."

The American people are not antiwar. They are anti-losing. Which means they are also anti-drift. Adrift is where we were during most of 2006 -- the annus horribilis initiated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's bringing down the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- until the new counterinsurgency strategy of 2007 (the "surge") reversed the trajectory of the war.

It was being lost both in Iraq and at home. On the home front, Petraeus deftly deflated the rush to withdrawal that appeared poised to acquire irresistible momentum this summer. First, by demonstrating real and irrefutable territorial gains on the ground. Second, by proposing minor immediate withdrawals to be followed by fully liquidating the "surge" by next summer. Those withdrawals should be enough to hold the wobbly Republican senators. And perhaps even more important, the Pentagon brass.

The service chiefs no longer fight wars. That's now left to theater commanders such as Petraeus. The chiefs' job is to raise armies -- to recruit, train, equip and manage. Petraeus's job is to use their armies to win wars. The chiefs are quite reasonably concerned about the enormous strain put on their worldwide forces by the tempo of operations in Iraq. Petraeus's withdrawal recommendations have prevented a revolt of the generals.

Petraeus's achievement is no sleight of hand. If he had not produced real, demonstrable progress -- reported by many independent observers, including liberal Democrats, even before he came back home (i.e., the United States) -- his appearance before Congress would have swayed no one.

His testimony, steady and forthright, bought him the time to achieve his "realistic chance" of success. Not the unified, democratic Iraq we had hoped for the day Saddam Hussein's statue came down, but a radically decentralized Iraq with enough regional autonomy and self-sufficiency to produce a tolerable stalemated coexistence between contending forces.

That's for the longer term and still quite problematic. In the shorter term, however, there is a realistic chance of achieving a separate success that, within the context of Iraq, is of a second order but in the global context is of the highest order -- the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Having poisoned one country and been expelled from it (Afghanistan), al-Qaeda seized upon post-Hussein instability to establish itself in the very heart of the Arab Middle East -- Sunni Iraq. Yet now, in front of all the world, Iraq's Sunnis are, to use the biblical phrase, vomiting out al-Qaeda. This is a defeat and humiliation in the extreme -- an Arab Muslim population rejecting al-Qaeda so violently that it allies itself in battle with the infidel, the foreigner, the occupier.

Just carrying this battle to its successful conclusion -- independent of its larger effect of helping stabilize Iraq -- is justification enough for the surge. The turning of Sunni Iraq against al-Qaeda is a signal event in the war on terrorism. Petraeus's plan is to be allowed to see it through.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:11 AM

Thanks, Bruce. These sound reasonable, and I had not seen them.

I do feel concerned that this positive news-spin will (a) make people feel unnecessarily optimistic about the state of affairs in the Arab world and (b) that Mister Bush and those like him will have established an imperial precedent of unique magnitude, presenting the notion that a unilateral invasion, costing thousands in deaths and billions in treasure, framed on false rationale and clouded in intentional distortions, can be justified.

Men like Bush, and his key henchmen, energize and disseminate the idea that a good end justifies foul means. He is a paradigmatic example of the idea. And it's a shitty idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:14 AM

I do feel concerned that the previous negative news-spin will (a) make people feel unnecessarily pessemistic about the state of affairs in the Arab world and (b) that the "anti-war" folks will have established a precedent of unique magnitude, presenting the notion that a NO action, under any circumstances, even a direct threat to this country and its people, can be justified.

Subject: RUMSFELD ON THE MOVE
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39249

He has joined the think tank 'The Hoover Institute' which has an affiliation with Stanford University.

Nixon was right about Don.
In 1971, President Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld "at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:18 PM

Bruce:

You're mi-mi=mi-mimicking me again, gawdammit. Your proposition is ridiculous on the face of it. Such a notion would have a very hard time getting any traction in this country. The precedent of unilateral initiation of war is a much more dangerous one.

It is possible that you are confusing terror wwith actual threat. They are very different.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Rotkopf
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:02 AM

The genius of GWB is that he is able to get his enemies to fight each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 08:55 PM

"Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. … To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.

"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.

He adds three pages later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Greenspan says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric."

He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation."

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. … I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

He says, "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

Greenspan was intensely criticized for endorsing a large tax cut in 2001 in congressional testimony during the first weeks of the Bush administration. He notes that he was recommending any tax cut, even a smaller one proposed by some Democrats. He acknowledges that those who had warned him about the perception he was backing Bush's plan were right. "The tax-cut testimony proved to be politically explosive," he writes.

Yet, he adds: "While politics had not been my intent, I'd misjudged the emotions of the moment. … Yet I'd have given the same testimony if Al Gore had been president."

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. … Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional.""

Excerpted from The San Francisco Sentinel.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:12 AM

From today's NY Times:

"ollowing the dastardly attacks of 9/11, it was evident that the nation had to do some careful thinking about the proper balance between national security and civil liberties. Instead of care and balance, sadly, the Bush administration immediately lunged to claim extraordinary, and largely unnecessary, new powers. Aided by a compliant Congress, the administration repeatedly tried to shield the resulting intrusions on people's rights from meaningful scrutiny, even by the courts.

Recently, however, a federal district judge in New York declared unconstitutional one notorious outgrowth of the Bush team's approach: the Federal Bureau of Investigation's overreliance on informal demands for information, called national security letters, to obtain private records from telephone and Internet companies, banks and other businesses without a court warrant.

The decision by Judge Victor Marrero struck down 2006 revisions to the Patriot Act that expanded the bureau's power to use national security letters, and a 1986 law that first authorized such letters. The recent provisions not only compelled companies to turn over customers' records without a warrant, but forbade them to tell anyone what they had done, including the customers involved. The authority of the courts to review challenges to the gag rule was extremely limited.

Judge Marrero took proper umbrage at the attempt to tightly confine the courts' authority and to silence recipients of national security letters without meaningful judicial review. He declared that the measure violated both the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers. The deference that the law required courts to give to the executive branch, he stated, could amount to "the hijacking of constitutional values."..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:25 AM

Hey, as for Patraeous being slandered, yeah, I think MoveOn was over the top...

I also am getting purdy sick and tired of the Swift Boat Liars, with millions and millions of fat cat dollars behind them marchin' into my living room with one wounded vet or vets family telling me that their sacrifices would mean nothing if we don't "win" in Iraq...

This is the same old worn our sup0wer-patriotism crap that was shoved down our throats in Nam while another 26,000 of our troops were killed while the politicans played a hot potato... All Bush is doing is trying to run out the clock herer and pass his mess on...

I used to think that Bush was going to somehow figure out a way to impiose martial law before the '08 election and call off the election so he could hold power but Iraq has made me change my thinkin'... Jan. 20, 2009 can't come soon enough fir either Bush, the American people or the world...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:12 PM

The Promotion of Failure in Bush Administration
    By Keith Olbermann
    MSNBC Countdown

    Wednesday 12 September 2007

Transcript from Crooks and Liars.

" To this day, millions of Americans believe we invaded Iraq because of 9/11.

    33 percent still believe there was some interconnection between Saddam Hussein and the nightmares here and in Washington and in Pennsylvania.

    Iraq, of course, had nothing to do with 9/11. Then. Six years later, that has changed.

    Iraq has distracted us from punishing those responsible for 9/11.

    If another 9/11 comes, our focus on Iraq will surely have been central to that nightmare.

    How did we get here? What consequences have been paid by those who brought us here?

    In our number one story tonight, no one person is to blame. And only some of those who are, recognize it.

    As we reported yesterday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell tells G-Q magazine he is "sorry" he gave the world wrong information when he told the U-N of the threat Iraq supposedly posed.

    He was not fired for doing so.

    He paid no price we know of, other than the admitted "blot" on his record, and whatever toll his conscience exacted.

    Unrepentant, however, is former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, also talking to G-Q;

    Saying he does not lose sleep over the war… declining to apologize for it… despite pushing for it… despite using 9/11 - the day after 9/11 - for his own benefit, to pursue his goal of bombing Iraq.

    Rumsfeld, not fired for his performance, but for politics… now in private life… reportedly trying to see how much he must tell, to make for a profitable tell-all. Rumsfeld was served, and the nation ill-served, by a flock of Pentagon hawks, bent on war, seeing 9/11 not as an obligation to answer,. but an opportunity to exploit.

    Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who also tied Iraq to 9/11, who ridiculed warnings we needed more troops to invade Iraq - not fired - named head of the World Bank, until resigning in disgrace.

    Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle - not fired - forced to retire not for pushing the war, but for allegedly profiting off it.

    Undersecretary Doug Feith, who cherry-picked anti-Iraq intel - not fired - despite a Pentagon report later refuting Feith's claim that Iraq and al Qaeda were in league.

    And as you go higher in the administration, your reward for being wrong on the war grows proportionately.

    Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley - responsible for the 16-word lie about Iraqi pursuit of yellowcake from Niger - not fired - promoted to National Security Advisor.

    His boss, Condoleezza Rice, who threatened us with mushroom clouds - not fired - promoted to America's chief diplomat: Secretary of State.

    CIA Director George Tenet, who called the case for war a "slam dunk" - not fired - given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    And within the president's circle of advisors, marketing the war:

    Andy Card and Dan Bartlett - neither fired. Card retired, Bartlett promoted, then retired.

    Karen Hughes - not fired - promoted, stunningly, to the task of winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

    But let us go higher still.

    Vice President Dick Cheney, creator of his cherry-picking intel apparatus, gave its poisoned fruit to the media and then fed the lie to us on national television - even after truth, and shame, rendered its mendaciousness, manifest. He continues to do so to this day. Not fired.

    Cheney's aide, Lewis Libby, came closest of all to suffering genuine consequences. Convicted of covering up Mr. Cheney's role in sliming critics of the war, his consequences nullified at the last minute. When the president commuted his prison sentence -ensuring that no one in his circle, least of all him - paid any price for selling us the lie of Iraq; for failing to punish the bombing of the U-S-S Cole; for neglecting the warnings pre-9/11;. for turning back at Tora Bora; for ultimately ensuring that while the rest of the world suffers painful, deadly consequences for his actions, only he does not.

    Only he and one other. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, his reach, and recruiting, all benefiting from Mr. Bush's war, his group's strength today at a six-year high. His Afghan allies, the Taliban, as NBC reported tonight, also resurgent, planning the death of Americans, just 25 miles from Kabul.

    All while bin Laden himself operates freely, unmolested, with his own media operation, thanks to a regional Pakistani truce endorsed by Mr. Bush in a region where Mr. Bush will not go - cannot go even if he chose to.

    Because he has spent so much American blood and treasure, in the desert of a nation that had neither means nor motive to threaten us, but that tempted Mr. Bush and those around him who wished to transform the Middle East, so much so that he forswore the vow he made, standing here, literally atop New York's dead… that their killers would hear us soon.

    Six years later, we still hear them, because now, finally, Iraq and 9/11 really are connected - by him.

    And we suffer the consequences."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 10:16 PM

I saw that...and hearing Olbermann read it aloud is compelling stuff. There are VERY few guys anywhere with a better pulpit who can make the needed points as well as Keith Olbermann.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 07:42 AM

The sad thing part now is that even as it has become incresingly obvious to almost any thinking person that there were no real factual reasons for attacking Iraq (notice I used the term "thinking person") that we now are getting more of the same cherry-picked intellegence on the security situation in Iraq...

Plus a dose of the Swift Bioat liars commercials, to boot...

But the scarey thing is that 33% who still believe the first round of lies... Seems that is about the same number of folks that regharless of how bad things are still support Bush... I reckon this number is an accurate barometer of the number of people who never were taught to, ahhhhhh, think...

That's a lot of people... Ahhhhhhh, make that epsilons...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 09:04 AM

What ever happened to earning respect.
Why is someone now a hero for accepting cash acess and priviledge for lieing for their boss?

I don't know General Petraeus.
Why he should be an untouchable American hero beyond reproach is the same "SHUT UP" anti liberty anti democracy credo that labled people disloyal Americans for "Bashing" Bush.

General, if its too hot in kitchen, if having to answer to Congress and the American people is too much to bear, Get Out.

Since no one believes Bush now his mouthpiece Petraeus is supposed to be untouchable? Tough. You took the job. If you want to earn respect, do something truthful and deserving of heroic respect.

You are not a Hero because the Bush administration says you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Sep 07 - 05:15 PM

. . . What She Ducked
After Petraeus Is Slimed, Spineless Silence

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 18, 2007; Page A19

If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than "the politics of personal destruction," it does not come to mind. All the others -- "It's the economy, stupid," for instance -- are linked to one or the other, but "the politics of personal destruction" is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly -- so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as "General Betray Us," Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.

The swipe at Petraeus was contained in a full-page ad the antiwar group MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times last week. It charged that Petraeus was "cooking the books" about conditions in Iraq and cited statements of his that have turned out to be either (1) not true, (2) no longer true, (3) possibly not true or (4) like everything else in Iraq, impossible to tell. Whatever the case, using "betray" -- a word associated with treason -- recalls the ugly McCarthy era, when for too many Republicans dissent corresponded with disloyalty. MoveOn.org and the late senator from Wisconsin share a certain fondness for the low blow.

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. "I don't buy into that," he said. "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth." But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she does indeed have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

It is an odd standard Clinton has when it comes to smears. When the entertainment mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter, called both Bill and Hillary liars, Hillary not only decried the remark as a particularly vivid example of the "politics of personal destruction," but she also demanded that Barack Obama do the same -- and return a $2,300 donation from Geffen. Yet when Clinton herself was asked to repudiate the abuse of Petraeus, she either saw no reason to do so or, much more likely, was afraid to alienate an important constituency, the 3.3 million members of MoveOn.org, who stand symbolically at the frontiers of New Hampshire and Iowa. She would, it seems, rather be president than be right.

Yesterday, Clinton announced her health-care plan. Good for her. But you never had any doubt, did you, that she was going to have one -- and a plan for everything else. The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but whether she has -- how do we say this? -- the character to be president. Behind her, after all, trails the lingering vapor of all those gates: Travel, File, Whitewater and other scandals to which she was a party only through marriage. In a hatless society, she is always wearing a question mark.

Certain Republicans, particularly Rudy Giuliani, have attempted to exploit the MoveOn.org ad for their own political purposes, even wondering whether the Times violated election law by selling the page at a (standard) discount. This is silly. But it is not silly to wonder -- yet again -- about what makes Hillary run.

The MoveOn.org ad was the moment for Clinton to rise above hackdom. It was a moment for her to insist that the business of politics, not to mention governing, is made even uglier and more difficult when people who merely differ with one another resort to insult. It was a moment for her to say that an Army general, under orders and attempting to fulfill a mission, should not be so casually trashed -- especially since she herself has been on the other side of the Iraq war issue and said things she must now regret. And it was a moment for her to trot out her favorite phrase and use it, not in her own defense for once but in defense of someone else. That moment is gone -- maybe because for Hillary Clinton it never arrived in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 09:39 AM

I think the MoveOn ad was overheated, myself, and a wasted opportunity because it resorted to ad hominem slur tactics. I've seen others do that, notably here on Mudcat for time to time. It never brings about any good result.

That said, it is up to examination whether Petraeus' dreams of a presidential future or his loyalty to the present Administration did or did not slant his analysis of their efforts in IRaq.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:51 AM

Remember in the 2004 campaign when the band aids were put over purple heart medals? Cheney wore one of those as well as many of the delegates at the convention. They stood for Kerry's war record in Viet Nam as advertised by Swift Boat Veterans for truth.

Well if you don't remember, it happened.

People are being (Dan) rather selective when it comes to pointing fingers of derision at men who wear the uniform.


I see no reason to automatically bestow respect and hero worship on Petraeus.
I will remind everyone that respect is earned and not something that is bestowed by a Republican war profiteer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 03:59 PM

ase Dismissed?
The secret lobbying campaign your phone company doesn't want you to
know about

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Updated: 4:00 a.m. PT Sept 20, 2007


Sept. 20, 2007 - The nation's biggest telecommunications companies,
working closely with the White House, have mounted a secretive
lobbying campaign to get Congress to quickly approve a measure wiping
out all private lawsuits against them for assisting the U.S.
intelligence community's warrantless surveillance programs.

The campaign—which involves some of Washington's most prominent
lobbying and law firms—has taken on new urgency in recent weeks
because of fears that a U.S. appellate court in San Francisco is
poised to rule that the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed.

If that happens, the telecom companies say, they may be forced to
terminate their cooperation with the U.S. intelligence community—or
risk potentially crippling damage awards for allegedly turning over
personal information about their customers to the government without
a judicial warrant.

"It's not an exaggeration to say the U.S. intelligence community is
in a near-panic about this," said one communications industry lawyer
familiar with the debate who asked not to be publicly identified
because of the sensitivity surrounding the issue.

But critics say the language proposed by the White House—drafted in
close cooperation with the industry officials—is so extraordinarily
broad that it would provide retroactive immunity for all past telecom
actions related to the surveillance program. Its practical effect,
they argue, would be to shut down any independent judicial or state
inquires into how the companies have assisted the government in
eavesdropping on the telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. residents in
the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks.

"It's clear the goal is to kill our case," said Cindy Cohn, legal
director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based
privacy group that filed the main lawsuit against the telecoms after
The New York Times first disclosed, in December 2005, that President
Bush had approved a secret program to monitor the phone conversations
of U.S. residents without first seeking judicial warrants. The White
House subsequently confirmed that it had authorized the National
Security Agency to conduct what it called a "terrorist surveillance
program" aimed at communications between suspected terrorists
overseas and individuals inside the United States. But the
administration has also intervened, unsuccessfully so far, to try to
block the lawsuit from proceeding and has consistently refused to
discuss any details about the extent of the program—rebuffing
repeated congressional requests for key legal memos about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

Remember this?

    * If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.

    *
       George H.W. Bush to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, in response to the question, What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 08:27 PM

Said of Hillary in BB's article: "She would, it seems, rather be president than be right."


I have never yet seen ANY presidential candidate whom you could not have said that about at some point! ;-) Why feign outrage and surprise over something they are all guilty of? It goes with the job. The most important thing about a Presidential campaign is not to be "right" or to tell the truth...it is to win. To win you merely need to creat the impression that you are right, and that you are telling the truth. It's salesmanship.

If you don't know that, BB, maybe you still believe in Santa Claus too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 09:37 PM

A brief summation of the accurate analysis of what would happen in Iraq if Bush's Idiot Team went ahead with their plans is covered on this Washington Post article.

The CIA has a long history of bad intelligence. But on these projections they were spot on and were roundly ignored. I guess a pre-requisite for flaming stupidity is a commitment to bland ignoral of truth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Banjiman
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:55 AM

Daddy's Real Proud of Me!

2nd song down!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Holden deMayo
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 05:46 PM

I'm so fed up with the plethora of "choices" facing me in the next election, I had a bumper sticker made that says, VOTE NO FOR PRESIDENT!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 09:00 PM

Three Cheers!


PORTLAND, Ore. Sep 26, 2007 (AP)

Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.



U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 09:54 AM

"Reform feels good, take it from me. To correct course and avoid the reef and find clear sailing is the great tonic of life. A man grows a beard for the pleasure of cutting it off. And now I have the pleasure of boycotting bottled water for tap.

There is much we do not understand - power cords in the briefcase, for example: you set them in neatly and a few hours later they are completely entangled with each other, and who knows why? - but the stupidity of buying bottled water in America is easily grasped by even the dullest.

And now, if liberals can cut consumption of foreign water, then maybe conservatives can start to face up to the disaster they visited on this country with the election of the Current Occupant. None of the current Republican hopefuls can quite bring himself to do this.

Face it. When you push an incompetent frat boy on the country, what you get is what has happened.

Republicans prize loyalty above all things, so the Republican Congress carried the White House water for years, not bothering with any sort of oversight, but loyalty to the Occupant now is like marriage to a drunk, a very iffy proposition. If they can't get a grasp on this, the Republicans can't win in 2008."

Garrison Keillor, host of the public radio program "A Prairie Home Companion." This article was distributed by Tribune Media Services

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:18 AM

Today's NY Times reports:

"BAGHDAD (AP) -- Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilian deaths fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.

The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.

A total of 64 American forces died in September -- the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.

The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq's ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.

In August, AP figures showed 1,809 civilians and 155 police and Iraqi soldiers were killed in sectarian violence.

The civilian death toll has not been so low since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

''There is no silver bullet or one thing that equates as a reason to the drop in Iraqi and Coalition casualties and deaths,'' said Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus.

But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that has allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq."

---

It's really nice that the death toll among Iraqi civilians is down to less than 2000 per month.At the cost of only 65 American lives per month! Surely, in the grim economics of warfighting, this is a major bargain! These are figures American can live with, don't you think? Pardon my sarcasm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:56 AM

The Politics of Confidence
            

By ROGER COHEN
Published: October 1, 2007

The unpopularity of George W. Bush has led many to believe global America-hating will ebb once he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. That's a dangerous assumption.

It's dangerous because the extent of American power will continue to invite resentment whoever is in the White House, and because America's perception of the terrorist threat will still differ from that of its Asian and European allies. Asians are focused on growth, Europeans on integration: different priorities cause friction.

The Iraq-linked damage to U.S. credibility is too severe to be quickly undone. The net loss of Western influence over the world means the ability of Bush's successor to shape events is diminished.

Still, the next U.S. leader will enjoy a honeymoon. To prolong it, several steps are essential. The most critical is a switch from the politics of anxiety to the politics of confidence.

Bush and Cheney never emerged from the 9/11 bunker. Their attack-dog snarl alienated a globe asked to step in line or step aside. The expectation of fealty must give way to the entertainment of dissent.

The next leader has to be curious. Presidential body language needs to say "I'm one of you." Facebook engagement must supplant fearful estrangement.

---

I wondered today what it would be like if we bit the bullet, in December 2008, pulled the armed forces out of Iraq, reconfigured our counter-terrorism operations to high-speed small operations backed with excellent intel, and diverted the billions that Bush has cost us by making a global war out of it since 9-11 into an all-out assault on our own environmental footprint, energy independence of the nation being a first priority.

If we refused to be drawn into wasting out national substance by what are essentially criminal acts (even big dramatic ones like 9-11), and instead focused on making what is great even better, what is shoody into what is good about our infrastructure, how much better off would we be after five years, or ten? And by 2020, when the fruits of our efforts had begun to roll out into widespread application?

Using hatefulness, greed, cronyism and fear-mongering as a substitute for vision, positive planning, actions drawn from principle, and a will to make things better is a great confession on the part of Bush-types the country wide -- a confession of moral rot, a failure to imagine, and a squirming adhesion to self-importance over all things.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 02:15 PM

I have not heard any comment on the fact that it was not Moveon.org that first used the phrase 'General Betray Us'.

Frank Rich, columnist on The New York Times, used it in July.

It might have been the caption- done by the caption writer - rather than in the body of the column. I don't remember. But it was most definitely there.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 11:52 PM

Conservatives Are Such Jokers

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2007
NY Times

"...And on the day of the veto, Mr. Bush dismissed the whole issue of uninsured children as a media myth. Referring to Medicaid spending — which fails to reach many children — he declared that "when they say, well, poor children aren't being covered in America, if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that."

It's not just the poor who find their travails belittled and mocked. The sick receive the same treatment.

Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox's affliction was obvious.

And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers" and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. "In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." Heh-heh-heh.

Of course, minimizing and mocking the suffering of others is a natural strategy for political figures who advocate lower taxes on the rich and less help for the poor and unlucky. But I believe that the lack of empathy shown by Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Kristol, and, yes, Mr. Bush is genuine, not feigned.

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of "The Bush Dyslexicon," once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family," and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that's when he's speaking from the heart. The only animation Mr. Bush showed during the flooding of New Orleans was when he declared "zero tolerance of people breaking the law," even those breaking into abandoned stores in search of the food and water they weren't getting from his administration.

What's happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. If you identify with the downtrodden, even a little, you don't belong. If you think ridicule is an appropriate response to other peoples' woes, you fit right in.

And Republican disillusionment with Mr. Bush does not appear to signal any change in that regard. On the contrary, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to condemn "socialism," which is G.O.P.-speak for any attempt to help the less fortunate.

So once again, if you're poor or you're sick or you don't have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny."

Krugman, columnist, NY Times, 10-5-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,pops
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 12:04 AM

Bush is a mother fucking asshole. He should have sent his goons down to NO and forcibly evacuated everybody instead of thinking the local authorities would do it. How stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 10:58 AM

I have often argued that one of the major blind spots in estimating the effort of the invasion of Iraq by Bush and Co. was the shattering of American lives in those exposed to brutality and violence, after they returned -- if they did.

The NY Times has an interesting editorial today, with some preliminary sizing up of this problem.

An excerpt:

"Slogging on the Home Front
Published: October 6, 2007

It's more painfully clear that wounded soldiers who seek disability care and benefits face bureaucratic chaos worthy of an infernal ring from Dante. Seven months after news accounts detailed the appalling neglect of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressional investigators have found promised repairs already lagging at the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs.

It still takes almost half a year for the average veteran's claim for disability benefits to be decided in a tortuous process that can involve four separate hearings. The promised pilot program to make a single efficient system out of dueling military and veterans bureaucracies — the knotty heart of a mammoth backlog running into hundreds of thousand of cases — should have begun last month. Now the promise is slipping into next year. At the same time, the Army's plan for creating special "warrior transition units" to deliver more personalized care at 32 national centers is bedeviled by staff shortages that mean close to half of the eligible troops are unable to get the service...."

In another strong op-ed piece, Mario Cumo urges Congress to reestablish the Consitutional authority that requires Congress be the sole voice in declaring a war. I think it is terribly important that we not allow the executive branch to abrogate that critical judgement. Cuomo's ideas on the matter are found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 07 - 11:04 AM

More on the blandishments of Bush on the SCHIP veto:

"Misleading Spin on Children's Health
E-Mail
Print
Save
Share

Published: October 5, 2007
Trying to justify his ideologically driven veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush and his staff have fired a barrage of misinformation about this valuable program. Before the House votes on whether to override the veto, all members — especially those from Mr. Bush's party who say they are concerned about millions of uninsured children — must look behind the rhetoric.

Mr. Bush stretched the truth considerably when he told an audience in Lancaster, Pa., that he has long been a strong supporter of the S-chip program. "I supported it as governor, and I support it as president of the United States," he said. As governor of Texas, Mr. Bush fought — unsuccessfully — to restrict the state's program to children with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, well below the 200 percent allowed by federal law. As president, he is again trying to shrink the program for the entire country. His proposed five-year budget does not provide enough to continue enrollments at current levels, let alone cover millions of the uninsured."...


It looks like his propensity for feeding the American public horse--manure is unchecked; he has not reflected on his need for penance or sought to change his lying ways. He is a reprobate, and he is incorrigible.

A

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

"With many Iraqis still seething after Blackwater guards killed as many as 17 people two weeks ago, it is evident that Blackwater and other security contractors are undermining the military's efforts to win over Iraqis.

Now an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has underscored the lavish extent of Blackwater's payments and its relationship to the Bush administration. The committee, which held hearings on the use of security contractors in Iraq yesterday, should investigate these links further.

Former Bush administration officials are peppered throughout Blackwater's highest executive positions. Erik Prince, the former Navy Seal who founded the company, was a White House intern under President George H. W. Bush and has been a Republican financier since, with more than $225,000 in political contributions.

Mr. Prince's sister, Betsy DeVos, is a former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party and a "pioneer" who raised $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004. Her husband, the former Amway chief executive Richard DeVos Jr., was the Republican nominee for governor of Michigan in 2006.

Mr. Prince denied yesterday that his connections had anything to do with it, but he certainly has done well under the Bush administration. Federal contracts account for about 90 percent of the revenue of Prince Group holdings, of which Blackwater is a subsidiary. Since 2001, when it made less than $1 million in federal contracts, Blackwater has received more than $1 billion in such contracts — including at least one with the State Department for hundreds of millions of dollars that was awarded without open, competitive bidding."

Hmmmm...lack of moral fiber at the top levels of American leadership? Political prostitution in high places?

Shocking...

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

The Washington Post contemplates whether or not the Bush administration does torture people in fact, despite lip-service to the contrary:

"The Bush administration's secret legal decisions defy Congress and the courts.
Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page B06


PRESIDENT BUSH said Friday, as he has many times before, that "this government does not torture people." But presidential declarations can't change the facts. The record shows that Mr. Bush and a compliant Justice Department have repeatedly authorized the CIA to use interrogation methods that the rest of the world -- and every U.S. administration before this one -- have regarded as torture: techniques such as simulated drowning, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and prolonged standing.

The New York Times reported last week that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued two classified memos in 2005 to justify techniques that the Central Intelligence Agency had used when interrogating terrorism suspects abroad -- and to undercut a law passed by Congress that outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." Those opinions form part of a continuing pattern, beginning in 2002 and extending until this past summer, of secret -- and highly questionable -- legal judgments by Bush-appointed lawyers intended to circumvent U.S. law, treaty commitments, legislation passed by Congress and Supreme Court decisions -- all of which should have prevented the abuse of prisoners.

The administration has essentially been operating its own clandestine legal system, unaccountable to Congress or the courts. The resulting violations of basic human rights have cost the country incalculable prestige abroad and put its own citizens in danger of being subjected to similarly harsh treatment. That is particularly true since July, when Mr. Bush signed an executive order that allowed the CIA to resume using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on prisoners after a hiatus of more than 18 months.

For nearly six years, Congress has failed to take effective action against these abuses. Predictably, lawmakers are now calling for the administration to release the two Justice Department memos from 2005. Fair enough, but the relevance of those documents has been diminished by last year's passage of the Military Commissions Act, which contained new, if inadequate, strictures on prisoner treatment. Mr. Bush's executive order of July was tailored to that law; while some techniques, such as simulated drowning, have been dropped, others are again in use...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 09:53 AM

Paul Krugman discusses the notion that the shocking deficits in responsibility and competence demonstrated by the Bush administration are actually perfectly consistent with the conservative legacy and tradition.

Go figger...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Oct 07 - 01:34 PM

New Heart Device Allows Cheney To Experience Love October 3, 2007 | Issue 43•40

(NOTE: The following is a humorous, fictional article. Mister Cheney has had no such experience.)
   
WASHINGTON, DC—Recovering from minor heart surgery Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney stunned both the medical and political establishments when he mysteriously began to experience love for the first time in his life, sources reported Tuesday.


A replaced defibrillator is having unexpected effects on the vice president, as this photo taken Monday reveals.
It is believed to have been the first recorded incident of Cheney exhibiting compassion for his fellow man.

Calling the vice president's sudden ability to love "mystifying" but a possible medical breakthrough that could aid other Americans who suffer from acute mulishness and generalized misanthropy, Dr. Jonathan Samuel Reiner, Cheney's cardiologist, said in a press conference at George Washington University Hospital that the vice president exhibited a series of unexpected side effects almost immediately after regaining consciousness following his surgery. ...
(From the Onion)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 12:38 PM

On Torture and American Values

Published: October 7, 2007
Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper's front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined "torture" to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush's loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the "reality-based community" — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the "opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality" of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:21 AM

Defibulators do not keep people from fibbing, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 12:50 PM

An interesting column on the NY Times revelation about torture, and a link to a mighty fine explanation of the media's reaction to it by Steven Colbert, no less, can be found on this page of a Blog called Brad. Recommended.

Bush's so-called Justice Department has done more to corrode and ruin the American ideal of justice than the Mississippi legal system in the 1930s.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:58 AM

I think this little excerpt from a longer editorial in the NYT is important.

"Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis of the effect of a tax cut on economic growth and tax revenues. It found that even under the rosiest of assumptions, cutting taxes led, inevitably, to lower revenues and a bigger deficit. But perhaps those assumptions were not rosy enough for the Republican presidential candidates."

The rest of the editorial is about the rose-colored unreality in which Giuliani and similar Repub hopefuls seem to be indulging. It can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:20 AM

When the Democrats selected Graeme Frost, a 12 year old, to represent the protest against Bushian wrongheadedness on the SChip veto, the Republicans went into high gear to slime the boy, his family, and those they represent.

In Sliming Graeme Frost, Paul Krugman lays these tactics plainly out on the table. He concludes,

"All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're "phony soldiers"; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

Meanwhile, leading conservative politicians, far from trying to distance themselves from these smears, rush to embrace them. And some people in the news media are still willing to be used as patsies.

Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.

I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children. "

---

While distortive rhetoric is not the sole province of the Republicans, it is evident that they are the major hatemongers in their preferred style, the inventors of "swift boating" which relies on chest beating and hollering false pushbutton assertions designed to make stimulus-response mechanos out of thinking citizens. Generating groundless nasty rumors seems to be a Rovian sphere of expertise.

There was a time in the nation's past when an underlying respect for truth was used as a basis for debate. Or at least, I believed there was such a time. If not, now would be a good time to start.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 09:54 AM

In an editorial today, the NY Times looks over the "truthiness" of Bush's claims on reasons for electronic eavesdropping:

"As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on electronic eavesdropping, the White House is pumping out the same fog of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress this summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any change would deny the government critical information, make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it harder "to save American lives."

There is no truth to any of those claims. No matter how often Mr. Bush says otherwise, there is also no disagreement from the Democrats about the need to provide adequate tools to fight terrorists. The debate is over whether this should be done constitutionally, or at the whim of the president.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, requires a warrant to intercept international communications involving anyone in the United States. A secret court has granted these warrants quickly nearly every time it has been asked. After 9/11, the Patriot Act made it even easier to conduct surveillance, especially in hot pursuit of terrorists.

But that was not good enough for the Bush team, which was determined to use the nation's tragedy to grab ever more power for its vision of an imperial presidency. Mr. Bush ignored the FISA law and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and e-mail between people abroad and people in the United States without a warrant, as long as "the target" was not in this country.

The president did not announce his decision. He allowed a few lawmakers to be briefed but withheld key documents. The special intelligence court was in the dark until The Times disclosed the spying in December 2005.

Mr. Bush still refused to stop. He claimed that FISA was too limiting for the Internet-speed war against terror. But he never explained those limits and rebuffed lawmakers' offers to legally accommodate his concerns.

This year, the administration found an actual problem with FISA: It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on communications between foreigners that go through computers in the United States. It was a problem that did not exist in 1978, and it had an easy fix. But Mr. Bush's lawyers tacked dangerous additions onto a bill being rushed through Congress before the recess. When the smoke cleared, Congress had fixed the real loophole, but also endorsed the idea of spying without court approval. It gave legal cover to more than five years of illegal spying.

Fortunately, the law is to expire in February, and some Democratic legislators are trying to fix it. House members have drafted a bill, which is a big improvement but still needs work. The Senate is working on its bill, and we hope it will show the courage this time to restore the rule of law to American surveillance programs.

There are some red lines, starting with the absolute need for court supervision of any surveillance that can involve American citizens or others in the United States. The bill passed in August allowed the administration to inform the FISA court about its methods and then issue blanket demands for data to communications companies without any further court approval or review.

The House bill would permit the government to conduct surveillance for 45 days before submitting it to court review and approval. (Mr. Bush is wrong when he says the bill would slow down intelligence gathering.) After that, ideally, the law would require a real warrant. If Congress will not do that, at a minimum it must require spying programs to undergo periodic audits by the court and Congress. The administration wants no reviews.

Mr. Bush and his team say they have safeguards to protect civil liberties, meaning surveillance will be reviewed by the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the inspectors general of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. There are two enormous flaws in that. The Constitution is based on the rule of law, not individuals; giving such power to any president would be un-American. And this one long ago showed he cannot be trusted."...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 07 - 11:13 AM

"Indeed, Mr. Bush, rather than taking all that unity and using it to rebuild America for the 21st century, took all that unity and used it to push the narrow agenda of his "base." He used all that unity to take a far-right agenda on taxes and social issues that was going nowhere on 9/10 and drive it into a 9/12 world.

Never has so much national unity — which could have been used to develop a real energy policy, reverse our coming Social Security deficit, assemble a lasting coalition to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe even get a national health care program — been used to build so little. That is what historians will note most about Mr. Bush's tenure — the sheer wasted opportunity of it all.

Yes, Iraq was always going to be hugely difficult, but the potential payoff of erecting a decent, democratizing government in the heart of the Arab world was also enormous. Yet Mr. Bush, in his signature issue, never mobilized the country, never punished incompetence, never made the bad guys "fight all of us," as Bill Maher put it, by at least pushing through a real energy policy to reduce the resources of the very people we were fighting. He thought he could change the world with 50.1 percent of the country, and he couldn't."...
From here.


Worth the reading.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 12:24 PM

Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Oct 17, 2007
(ABC News)
   
   (Reuters) - Deepening unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush's approval rating to another record low this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 -- the second consecutive month it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.

Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low.

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.

---

Hey -- 24 per cent of American voters can't be wrong, can they? I mean, that's such a big number of people!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 12:30 PM

Phone Companies Refuse to Turn Over Spying Info To Congress
Jason Mick (Blog) - October 18, 2007 9:00 AM



Your friendly phone company may have been listening to your calls.


Three top American telephone carriers -- Verizon, AT&T and Qwest -- have set what some believe may be an alarming precedent in refusing to turn over information on their wiretapping and snooping programs to the U.S. Congress.

A Congressional panel is investigating whether citizens' rights to privacy and personal freedoms were violated by executive branch mandated snooping programs, which allegedly monitor users' email and phone calls.

The phone companies claim they want to release the information, but can't. They say that other branches of the government are preventing them from releasing the information about the Bush administration's spy programs to Congress.

AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts wrote a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee stating, "Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities."

Congress had request three specific pieces of information. The first was what information the carriers had turned over to government organizations without warrant. The second question was whether they were compensated for any such occurrences. The third question was whether they had installed any equipment for the express purpose of intercepting user emails or calls.

The three major carriers all claimed they were not at liberty to discuss any of these details. All three carriers did submit limited reports to Congress, which did not contain any of the requested information.

Representative Ed Markey, D. Massachusetts, leads the telecommunications subcommittee and is among the congressional lawmakers frustrated by the carriers' refusal and the executive branch's secrecy. He voiced his frustration in a public statement. "The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past time for the administration to come clean."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:38 PM

If any of you are interested in avoiding World War III...
you could support bush's WW 2 1/2.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:46 PM

From the Washington Post:

Portents of A Nuclear Al-Qaeda

By David Ignatius
Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A25

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is paid to think about the unthinkable. As the Energy Department's director of intelligence, he's responsible for gathering information about the threat that a terrorist group will attack America with a nuclear weapon.

With his shock of white hair and piercing eyes, Mowatt-Larssen looks like a man who has seen a ghost. And when you listen to a version of the briefing he has been giving recently to President Bush and other top officials, you begin to understand why. He is convinced that al-Qaeda is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb that will leave the ultimate terrorist signature -- a mushroom cloud.

We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy. And truly, I wish I could dismiss Mowatt-Larssen's analysis as the work of an overwrought former CIA officer with too many years in the trenches.

But it's worth listening to his warnings -- not because they induce more numbing paralysis but because they might stir sensible people to take actions that could detect and stop an attack. That's why his boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is encouraging him to speak out. Mowatt-Larssen doesn't want to anguish later that he didn't sound the alarm in time.

Mowatt-Larssen has been gathering this evidence since a few weeks after Sept. 11, when then-CIA Director George Tenet asked him to create a new branch on weapons of mass destruction in the agency's counterterrorism center. He helped Tenet prepare the chapter on al-Qaeda's nuclear efforts that appears in Tenet's memoir, " At the Center of the Storm." Now that the uproar over Tenet's mistaken "slam dunk" assessment of the Iraqi threat has died down, it's worth rereading this account. It provides a chilling, public record of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions.

Mowatt-Larssen argues that for nearly a decade before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear device, according to testimony presented in federal court in February 2001. When the al-Qaeda leader was asked in 1998 if he had nuclear or chemical weapons, he responded: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so."

Even as al-Qaeda was preparing to fly its airplane bombs into buildings, the group was also trying to acquire nuclear and biological capabilities. In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. Al-Qaeda also had an aggressive anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001 after bin Laden was driven from his haven in Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda proclaimed a religious rationale to justify the WMD attacks it was planning. In June 2002, a Kuwaiti-born cleric named Suleiman Abu Ghaith posted a statement on the Internet saying that "al-Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans" in retaliation for U.S. attacks against Muslims. And in May 2003, at the same time Saudi operatives of al-Qaeda were trying to buy three Russian nuclear bombs, a cleric named Nasir al-Fahd issued a fatwa titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." Interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives confirmed that the planning was serious. Al-Qaeda didn't yet have the materials for a WMD attack, but it wanted them.

Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know.

After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know.

So what to do about this spectral danger? The first requirement, says Mowatt-Larssen, is to try to visualize it. What would it take for al-Qaeda to build a bomb? How would it assemble the pieces? How would the United States and its allies deploy their intelligence assets so that they could detect a plot before it was carried out? How would we reinvent intelligence itself to avert this ultimate catastrophe?

A terrorist nuclear attack, as Tenet wrote in his book, would change history. If we can see how this story might end, perhaps we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

President Bush is pressing the Senate to help him cover up his illegal wiretapping, and the Senate may well go along with his plan if they don't hear from you right away. 1

Here's what's going on: For years the Bush administration has been illegally spying on Americans' phone calls and emails with the willing assistance of big telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T. Lawsuits moving forward against these companies may be the only way we ever find out how far the Bush administration went in breaking the law.2

So the White House is putting enormous pressure on Congress to give the phone companies retroactive immunity for all the laws they broke spying on innocent Americans. And some key Democrats are ready to go along!

Can you help us reach 250,000 signatures on this petition demanding that Congress reject the president's cover-up? The petition text is in the blue box on the right. Clicking the link below will add your name.

http://pol.moveon.org/noimmunity/o.pl?id=11473-7901518-_dxKVH&t=3

It seems hard to believe, but it's true. Just months after Congress capitulated to President Bush and politics of fear, they seem ready to do it again.

This happens again and again because politicians are afraid of being seen as weak on security—and because they buy the conventional wisdom that voters don't really care about constitutional freedoms.

But the truth is that voters understand something that Washington doesn't: There is no trade-off between fundamental liberties and security. In fact, a recent poll by our friends at the ACLU found that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress to exercise its oversight authority by forcing the Bush administration to get warrants before wiretapping Americans. Further, Americans strongly oppose giving lawbreaking phone companies amnesty for their actions.3

The New York Times put it perfectly this Saturday:

"The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism... This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It's about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they've broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable." 4

News reports indicate that Democratic senators agreed to give phone companies retroactive immunity after the Bush administration presented a one-sided case that these companies "acted in good faith."5

That's ridiculous. A judge appointed by President Bush Sr. wrote an opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."6

The bottom line is that President Bush is trying to cover up his own lawbreaking with this immunity.

We need Congress to stop him. Senator Chris Dodd has courageously vowed to block this bill if the immunity provision is not taken out.7 We need to make sure other members of Congress come out and support his strong stand.

If enough of us sign, we can make it plain just how broad the support for preserving the Constitution is.

http://pol.moveon.org/noimmunity/o.pl?id=11473-7901518-_dxKVH&t=4

Thanks for all you do,

–Nita, Tanya, Karin, Jennifer, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
  Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

>Priests Jailed for Protesting Fort Huachuca Torture Training
>    By Bill Quigley
>    t r u t h o u t | Report
>
>    Wednesday 24 October 2007
>
>    Louis Vitale, 75, a Franciscan priest, and Steve Kelly, 58, a Jesuit
>priest, were sentenced to five months each in federal prison for attempting
>to deliver a letter opposing the teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca in
>Arizona. Both priests were taken directly into jail from the courtroom after
>sentencing.
>
>    Fort Huachuca is the headquarters of military intelligence in the US and
>the place where military and civilian interrogators are taught how to
>extract information from prisoners. The priests attempted to deliver their
>letter to Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, commander of Fort Huachuca. Fast was
>previously the head of all military intelligence in Iraq during the
>atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
>
>    The priests were arrested while kneeling in prayer halfway up the
>driveway to Fort Huachuca in November 2006. Both priests were charged with
>trespassing on a military base and resisting orders of an officer to stop.
>
>    In a pre-trial hearing, the priests attempted to introduce evidence of
>torture, murder and gross violations of human rights in Afghanistan, at Abu
>Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo. The priests offered investigative reports
>from the FBI, the US Army, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and
>Physicians for Social Responsibility documenting hundreds of incidents of
>human rights violations. Despite increasing evidence of the use of torture
>by US forces sanctioned by President Bush and others, the federal court in
>Tucson refused to allow any evidence of torture, the legality of the
>invasion of Iraq, or international law to be a part of the trial.
>
>    Outside the courthouse, before the judge ordered them to prison, the
>priests explained their actions: "The real crime here has always been the
>teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca and the practice of torture around the
>world. We tried to deliver a letter asking that the teaching of torture be
>stopped and were arrested. We tried to put the evidence of torture on full
>and honest display in the courthouse and were denied. We were prepared to
>put on evidence about the widespread use of torture and human rights abuses
>committed during interrogations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in Iraq and
>Afghanistan. This evidence was gathered by the military itself and by
>governmental and human rights investigations."
>
>    Fr. Vitale, a longtime justice and peace activist in San Francisco and
>Nevada, said, "Because the court will not allow the truth of torture to be a
>part of our trial, we plead no contest. We are uninterested in a court
>hearing limited to who was walking where and how many steps it was to the
>gate. History will judge whether silencing the facts of torture is just or
>not. Far too many people have died because of our national silence about
>torture. Far too many of our young people in the military have been
>permanently damaged after following orders to torture and violate the human
>rights of other humans."
>
>    Fr. Kelly, who walked to the gates of Guantanamo with the Catholic
>Worker group in December of 2005, concluded, "We will keep trying to stop
>the teaching and practice of torture whether we are sent to jail or out. We
>have done our part for now. Now it is up to every woman and man of
>conscience to do their part to stop the injustice of torture."
>
>    The priests were prompted to protest by continuing revelations about the
>practice of torture by US military and intelligence officers. The priests
>were also deeply concerned after learning of the suicide in Iraq of a young,
>devout, female military interrogator, Alyssa Peterson of Arizona, shortly
>after arriving in Iraq. Peterson was reported to be horrified by the
>mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
>
>    Investigation also revealed Fort Huachuca was the source of infamous
>"torture manuals" distributed to hundreds of Latin American graduates of the
>US Army School of Americas at Fort Benning, GA. Demonstrations against the
>teaching of torture at Fort Huachuca have been occurring for the past
>several years each November and are scheduled again for November 16 and 17
>this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:16 PM

The OBVIOUS needs to be said from time to time...


What the establishment hopes to achieve is an amnesty for the corporation entities that obeyed the call to break the law.

After that, a scape goat to hang will be sought to deflect criminal charges away from the unelected policy makers and their political stooges like W.

Does anyone here really believe charges will stick to a Bush family member or if a multinational corporation will suffer fines or prison time over "privacy" issues ?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

This is a small excerpt from a very interesting essay on the gradual subornment of people allayed in their suspicions.



A

---

They Thought They Were Free

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:53 PM

Interesting from a historical perspective.

But "sense of identification" and "trust in him"--at this point, with Bush, that don't compute. Not even the people running the Republican party identify with Bush--the search is on for a Republican anti-Bush.   Somebody competent, capable of thought--his own thought, not "a higher father". Somebody of integrity. Obvious choice: McCain--but he has sunk his own ship by, ironically enough, by loading it down with Bush's Iraq war.

So the Republicans continue to flounder--and founder.

And the country at large does not identify with the Bush "administration"--to say the least---so the danger of said group taking over on a permanent basis is not high, to put it mildly.

And I suspect many groups--not just Mudcatters-- are monitoring to make damn sure it doesn't happen. Which is perfectly understandable after all the abuses of the past 7 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:01 PM

Now here is more propaganda and lies we have to deal with:

Sharp drop in violence seen in Iraq
Mon Oct 22, 2007 By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala, southwest of the capital.

Washington began sending reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.

While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling the violence.

Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighbourhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.

Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters there had been a 70 percent reduction in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September from the previous quarter.

In Baghdad, considered the epicentre of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had been a 28 percent drop in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.

"These figures show a gradual improvement in controlling the security situation," Khalaf said.

Data from the health, interior and defence ministries in September showed a 50 percent drop in civilian deaths across the country from August, when 1,773 fatalities were recorded.

The figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:32 AM

Homey--

"...the leaders have failed to agree on key laws..."

And just what was the purpose of the "surge"? Would you mind refreshing our memories?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM

More lies:
Ramadi war zone now rare bright spot KIM CURTIS, Associated Press Sun Oct 28

RAMADI, Iraq - For veterans of Ramadi, it seems like a different place and a different war. Just last year, soldiers were breaking down doors, hunting insurgents and struggling to secure the city block by block. U.S. troops now are invited into the homes of sheiks for lunch.

Life is not all good in this former Sunni extremist fiefdom about 70 miles west of Baghdad, but it's better. Today's worries aren't car bombs or shelling in the streets. There's peace enough to complain about the crippled electricity grid, dirty water, broken sewers. Marines and soldiers also have adopted different roles: urban planners, community relations managers and political operatives.

"We're knee-deep in counterinsurgency here," said Marine Capt. Brian Cillessen, who's in charge of a group of about 150 Marines living and working in a house they rent in southern Ramadi. "We came here with a very conventional mind-set. We weren't expecting this. ... I joined the Marine Corps to be a point man on a patrol," chuckled the San Juan, N.M., native.

Instead, Cillessen and his troops are conducting a census and registering weapons, repairing sewer systems, ensuring fuel for cooking and heat is sold for fair prices, approving contracts to build new schools, parks and playgrounds, and perhaps most important, cultivating relationships with Iraqi police and citizens. The violence in Anbar province is by no means over. So far this year 135 troops have died here — 16 percent of all military deaths in Iraq, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

But from 2004 through 2006, an average of 345 members of coalition forces died each year in Anbar province or about 41 percent of all military deaths. The decline of violence rests on a widening basis of trust. It's cultivated in handshakes, platters heaped with rice, chicken and lamb, cup after cup of sweet tea and clouds of cigarette smoke.

Anbar is a sprawling western province that includes Ramadi and stretches through mainly desert from near Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Last year, U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officials declared Anbar lost. "The social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" where U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency," according to a five-page report written in August 2006 by Col. Peter Devlin, a military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force.

The Sunni insurgency had sunk roots so deep in Anbar that the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida front group, declared Ramadi its capital. "These guys were ruthless," said Col. John W. Charlton of Spokane, Wash., the American commander responsible for Ramadi. "They would come in and cut young men's heads off and drag their bodies through the streets."

An important turning point was the founding late last year of the Anbar Awakening Council by the charismatic Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. He united dozens of Sunni tribes against al-Qaida. Fed up with the violence and eager for revenge against al-Qaida members who killed 10 family members, including his father, Abu Risha persuaded citizens to join the police force. They did — in droves — despite past attacks against recruits.

"Sheiks see themselves as prominent leaders of the community. They recognize you have to have good, intelligent people running things," Charlton said. "(Abu Risha) wasn't saying, 'Do this for me.' He was saying, 'Do this for your family, for your country.'" There are now 8,000 police officers and 14 police stations in Ramadi, according to the U.S. military. That's compares with fewer than 200 officers in spring 2006.

"Al-Qaida was just reeling," Charlton said. "They lost their capital. They lost all their good areas around there. ... We essentially made a gated community out of a city of 300,000 people."

But al-Qaida struck its own shocking blow — killing Abu Risha last month. U.S. military leaders called the fatal bombing an inside job, organized by one of Abu Risha's bodyguards. All the alleged perpetrators were rounded up.

The sheik's death could easily have shattered the fragile peace.Instead, Charlton said, the people declared Abu Risha a martyr. His image now appears on posters in the streets, on walls in offices and on placards in car windshields. A parade was held in his honor on Oct. 23. Schoolgirls, bunches of silk flowers in one hand, waved the yellow flag of the Anbar Awakening, now renamed the Iraqi Awakening.

"People do feel the weight's off," said Ambassador Ryan Crocker. "Al-Qaida simply is gone." What remains of al-Qaida in the province is a contingent near Lake Tharthar, just north of Ramadi, according to Charlton, who initiated an attack there last week.

In Ramadi, fresh paint spruces up concrete barriers put up by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Shops selling meat, fruit, clothing, candy and cigarettes are open for business alongside crumbling buildings battered by gunfire. Children play alongside heaps of rubble from demolished buildings. Dozens of workmen wearing coveralls sweep streets, collect garbage and repair power lines. Uniformed police officers direct traffic. The city bustles with life from dawn to well-past sunset.

As U.S. troops walk patrols, they're swarmed by children asking for candy, chocolate or pencils. Basic phrases in Arabic — hello, how are you, what is your name — fly back and forth to the delight of both the children and adults. Attacks, including those by small-arms fire, explosive devices, have decreased from about 30 a day in January to fewer than one a day now, according to the U.S. military. Last year, during the holy month of Ramadan, there were 442 incidents in the area; this year, there were four, the military said.

Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha has taken over the movement from his slain younger brother. They were always close, talking daily while the elder brother ran family businesses in Dubai and the younger took care of things at home. Despite his loss, Ahmed Abu Risha seems to accept — though not relish — his new leadership role. His brother embraced the spotlight, but Ahmed seems to shy from it. He's soft-spoken, friendly, but not extroverted. He said he meets about 300 people a day who come looking for jobs, offering advice, asking for help. He is now on his first visit to the U.S., and plans to meet with President Bush.

"We are the only movement that is supported by all the people," he told The Associated Press. "We are the only people who fought al-Qaida and won. We are good fighters and we are good builders and now we want to rebuild this country."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 09:23 PM

Amazing what local initiative can do.

BTW, Homie, while the stories you have posted have a certain bias to them (such as failing to distinguish between Al Queda in Iraq and Al Queda itself) I see no reason to call them lies. I find them hopeful, actually. I suppose you are just being heavily sardonic and sarcastic. Not unusual for folks of the rightward stripe. But thanks, anyway for finding some positive tidbits.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:25 AM

Four years after his pointless invasion of Iraq, President Bush still confuses bullying with grand strategy. He refuses to do the hard work of diplomacy — or even acknowledge the disastrous costs of his actions. The Republican presidential candidates have apparently decided that the real commander in chief test is to see who can out-trash talk the White House on Iran.

The world should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there is no easy fix here, no daring surgical strike. Consider Natanz, the underground site where Iran is defying the Security Council by spinning a few thousand centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel. American bombers could take it out, but what about the even more sophisticated centrifuges the administration accuses Iran of hiding? Beyond the disastrous diplomatic and economic costs, a bombing campaign is unlikely to set back Iran's efforts for more than a few years. ...

(NY Times Monday Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:43 AM

This Times Op-Ed is interesting enough to warrant inclusion here, particularly with its insights into the roots of "terrorism".

---

Montreal

MUCH as George W. Bush's presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush's presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.

Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.

The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.

The stakes could not be higher, and on these matters there could be no nuance or hesitation. One was either for the Revolution or for tyranny.

By 1792, France was confronting the hostility of neighboring countries, debating how to react. The Jacobins were divided. On one side stood the journalist and political leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, who argued for war.

Brissot understood the war as preventive — "une guerre offensive," he called it — to defeat the despotic powers of Europe before they could organize their counter-Revolutionary strike. It would not be a war of conquest, as Brissot saw it, but a war "between liberty and tyranny."

Pro-war Jacobins believed theirs was a mission not for a single nation or even for a single continent. It was, in Brissot's words, "a crusade for universal liberty."

Brissot's opponents were skeptical. "No one likes armed missionaries," declared Robespierre, with words as apt then as they remain today. Not long after the invasion of Austria, the military tide turned quickly against France.

The United States, France's "sister republic," refused to enter the war on France's side. It was an infuriating show of ingratitude, as the French saw it, coming from a fledgling nation they had magnanimously saved from foreign occupation in a previous war.

Confronted by a monarchical Europe united in opposition to revolutionary France — old Europe, they might have called it — the Jacobins rooted out domestic political dissent. It was the beginning of the period that would become infamous as the Terror.

Among the Jacobins' greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot's newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.

Even the Jacobins' dress distinguished "true patriots": those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.

Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.

To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government's police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — "domicilary visits," they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, "when the homeland is in danger."

Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the "treacherous insinuations" cast by those who questioned "the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest." He warned his political opponents, "This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty." Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.

If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: "No liberty for the enemies of liberty." Saint-Just's pithy phrase (like President Bush's variant, "We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself") could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.

On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.

Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term "terrorist" has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to "Islamofascism."

A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:07 AM

Rhinholt Neebor

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 11:33 PM

This cannot possibly true because everybody knows that the US war on terrorism is a miserable failure:

Al-Qaida shows signs of being in slow decline.
Midland Reporter-Telegram 10/30/2007

It is evident the terrorist organization known as al-Qaida still is working hard to disrupt the Western culture across the world, including in Iraq, but there are emerging signs the influence of the network is somewhat waning.

Oh sure, al-Qaida still is capable of carrying out devastating attacks in Iraq and other world venues, but the organization's structure pretty much has been disrupted. Al-Qaida continues to recruit Europeans for explosives training in Pakistan because Europeans can enter the United States more easily without a visa.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, "All across the Arab world, where al-Qaida had sought to build influence and bases of operation on the back of widespread anger against the U.S. over its war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism, the movement is now showing signs that it is stalled, if not in retreat."

In Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and other parts of Anbar Province, al-Qaida simply is gone. The al-Qaida network is having a hard time finding safe harbor anywhere in the world. And when they do it is in some remote area like Pakistan where they have local support among sympathtic tribal leaders.

Al-Qaida keeps limping along, popping up with these little groups here and there, causing trouble, producing a showdown, and then losing. Muslims in general are beginning to reject al-Qaida. Fewer and fewer Muslims are seeing al-Qaida as the organization seeking to defend the purity of the Muslim world.

This is not to say al-Qaida's recruiting efforts have stopped, but their efforts have been hindered. Suicide bombings in Iraq, for instance, still take place almost daily, but those attacks are down from 60 a month to 30 a month and less deadly overall. Also, the foreign flow of suicide bombers has dwindled as al-Qaida is finding fewer and fewer Muslims willing to give their lives for the cause.

The U.S. is doing something right in this war on terror, but that is the part of the story that is not being told. Al-Qaida increasingly is being sent underground and on the run. We understand successes in this area are hard to see and feel when there are still evidences of treacherous acts at every turn.

But this is a war that will be won by eliminating one piece of the puzzle at a time. It is tedious, costly and tests our resolve. We just hope we don't lose that resolve before the job is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 10:32 AM

Wal, Homey, I hope that article is true; although they don't seem real strong on sources.

And they don't say whether they are referring to Al Queda, as seems to be the case, or Al Queda in Iraq.

Do you think it is true?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 08:18 PM

Mission Accomplished, II
By The Editorial Board
Karen Hughes, a close confidante of President Bush, announced today that she is leaving her job as undersecretary of state, where she was responsible for improving America's reputation and standing overseas.

Ms. Hughes used a variety of techniques, including dispatching the figure skater Michelle Kwan as a good-will ambassador.

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, America's popularity in the world has slid during the Bush Administration, especially in the Muslim world. Favorable opinion of the United States in Indonesia fell from 75 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2006, and in Turkey, it fell from 52 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2006.

While Ms. Hughes was hardly a success in her job, we think the precipitous drop in America's standing has more to do with President Bush's unnecessary and incompetently managed invasion of Iraq and the way he has mistreated prisoners in American detention camps than Ms. Hughes's lack of good ideas about how to spin that reality.

(NY Times Editorial Board)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 07:09 AM

From the Washington Post:

Committee of One

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, November 1, 2007; Page A21

A story told in cloakrooms of the House of Representatives shows how ironic life on Capitol Hill can be. Jim McCrery, the low-key, hardworking ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, has spent all year trying to establish good relations with the tax-writing committee's first Democratic chairman in 12 years, Charles Rangel. He succeeded, only to discover that Rangel does not really run Ways and Means. Nancy Pelosi does.

Rangel, a crafty New York politician, so far looks like the weakest Ways and Means chairman during my 50 years in Washington. That's only because Pelosi so far is the most powerful speaker of the House during that same period, a reality obscured by her historic role as the first woman to hold that office. She does not confer with or defer to standing committee chairmen, whose predecessors made previous speakers dance to their tune.

On both sides of the aisle, the 67-year-old grandmother from San Francisco is referred to as the "Committee of One" who rules the House. Many speakers over the years relied on their majority leader, as Republican Dennis Hastert let Tom DeLay handle day-to-day operations. But not Pelosi, who actually opposed Steny Hoyer's election as majority leader.

Ruling absolutely does not mean all Democrats think she rules well. Her misguided effort to pass a resolution condemning the 1915 Armenian genocide constitutes a rare public blunder, but beyond that she has not crafted a coherent Democratic message. This month's Harris Poll puts her nationwide job disapproval ("fair" or "poor") at 57 percent. But she is an icon at the Democratic grass roots, and none of the committee chairmen who have been downgraded by her -- certainly not Rangel -- utters a word of public criticism.

Rangel's massive tax reform proposal, released last week, gets less respect than is normally accorded to a Ways and Means chairman's plan, because Pelosi is not on board. Rangel's desire to compromise with the Bush administration on international trade agreements has been frustrated because the speaker defers to Rangel's trade subcommittee chairman, Sander Levin, who follows organized labor's protectionist line.

Much the same treatment has been experienced by John Dingell, the senior member of Congress, as Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. In bygone days, Dingell deferred to neither Democratic presidents nor speakers. But Pelosi is determined to pass an energy bill this year even though it means crossing Dingell, who as a Detroiter opposes Californian Pelosi on vehicle mileage and emission standards. A sage old professional, Dingell knows there is no political profit in publicly clashing with Madam Speaker.

No committee chairman wants to take the risk of going public against Pelosi, including one who sought her advice -- and, hopefully, support -- on a controversial matter of House business. This anonymous chairman was rebuffed by the speaker, who declined to talk to him, in person or over the telephone.

Being the "Committee of One" does not mean Pelosi is without lieutenants. She is close to two fellow Californians, both fiercely partisan, who head committees: George Miller (Education and Labor) and Henry Waxman (Oversight and Government Reform). Miller is regarded as her consigliere, always at her side. She is also considered close to moderate chairmen Ike Skelton (Armed Services) and John Spratt (Budget), plus liberal chairman Barney Frank (Financial Services).

That does not mean, however, that she always takes their advice. Witness her big blunder as speaker. Skelton, a seasoned student of international relations, told her the Armenian resolution would antagonize Turkey and thus constituted a foreign policy debacle in the making. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also opposed it (as he had when serving as President Bill Clinton's political aide). Pelosi insisted until some 45 House Democrats -- including Skelton -- opposed her.

The Armenian episode suggests a Pelosi decision has to approach the brink of disaster before Democrats speak out. Her popularity in the party beyond Capitol Hill is too great. When I asked one esteemed Democratic operative whether Pelosi's authority is without restraint, he called that a sexist question because I never would have asked that about Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill. Indeed, I would not have. They were not that powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:58 AM

BB:

PErhaps you should start a thread on the topic of popular views of the Democratic Congress.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 10:30 AM

They have had a consistantly lower rating than the Bush Administration, haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 10:49 AM

I doubt that's possible.

"Consider how President Bush has degraded the office of attorney general.

Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
His first choice, John Ashcroft, helped railroad undue restrictions of civil liberties through Congress after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Ashcroft apparently had some red lines and later rebuffed the White House when it pushed him to endorse illegal wiretapping. Then came Alberto Gonzales who, while he was White House counsel, helped to redefine torture, repudiate the Geneva Conventions and create illegal detention camps. As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales helped cover up the administration's lawless behavior in anti-terrorist operations, helped revoke fundamental human rights for foreigners and turned the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican National Committee.

Mr. Gonzales resigned after his extraordinary incompetence became too much for even loyal Republicans. Now Mr. Bush wants the Senate to confirm Michael Mukasey, a well-respected trial judge in New York who has stunned us during the confirmation process by saying he believes the president has the power to negate laws and by not committing himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas. He also has suggested that he will not uphold standards of decency during wartime recognized by the civilized world for generations.

After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Mr. Mukasey refused to detail his views on torture, he submitted written answers to senators' questions that were worse than his testimony. They suggest that he, like Mr. Gonzales, would enable Mr. Bush's lawless behavior and his imperial attitude toward Congress and the courts.

In a letter to the 10 Democrats on the committee, Mr. Mukasey refused to say whether he considered waterboarding (a method of extracting information by making a prisoner believe he is about to be drowned) to be torture. He said he found it "repugnant," but could not say whether it is illegal until he has been briefed on the interrogation programs that Mr. Bush authorized at Central Intelligence Agency prisons.

This is a crass dodge. Waterboarding is torture and was prosecuted as such as far back as 1902 by the United States military when used in a slightly different form on insurgents in the Philippines. It meets the definition of torture that existed in American law and international treaties until Mr. Bush changed those rules. Even the awful laws on the treatment of detainees that were passed in 2006 prohibited the use of waterboarding by the American military.

And yet the nominee for attorney general has no view on whether it would be legal for an employee of the United States government to subject a prisoner to that treatment? The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the C.I.A. to use waterboarding — a judgment that the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability...."

NY Times editorial 11-1-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:25 AM

Amazing as it may be, according to all the polls I have seen the last year or so, the Democratic Congress has about HALF the approval rating of the Bush Administration.

Go look at the NYTimes, and see what it says...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:33 AM

My ake is that she's not putting up with those that want to compromise their duties when faced with a fight. She's made some blunders but her move on the Armenian issue was not one of them, it's not her fault that more of the Dems in Congress aren't willing to fight by her side instead of just caving in when the going gets tough. If she were to go along with the present Administration she would be doing a disservice to the people of this nation & to her post. The disgrace falls on those that continue to allow Bush & Co. to get their way, they've already driven US over the cliff do we need to let them drown US too? The recent Health Bill for children veto is just one more example of how little this Administration cares for it's people. They've no idea of what is best for this nation & they're so out of touch with the life of their everyday citizen that dying on their doorstep would only mean one more giant step to work their way over US!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 01:37 PM

Well, I dunno. There was no question about whether or not they got voted in, despite all the dirty tricks Gonzalez, Bush and Rove could field.

But I haven't seen any recent polls, and I am disappointed in them myself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM

I see no reason to be happy with either George Bush OR the Democratic Congress, BB, so what is your point? To be opposed to George Bush's administration hardly indicates unquestioning support of the Democrats...at least not in my mind, anyway. I regard them both as serving the same essential backing interests...mind you, not in exactly the same out front manner. They have to maintain the appearance of being different in order to preserve the illusion that the 2-party system in the USA provides its voters with a genuine choice that can lead to significant change.

There are some specific indiduals among the Democrats, such as Mr Kucinich, for example, who are offering a genuinely new choice that could lead to significant change...but they are not the people who are going to be chosen to lead the Democratic Party into the next election.

The $ySStem will make quite sure of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:32 PM

Poll: Vermont Wants Bush, Cheney Impeached
Nearly Two-Thirds Of State's Likely Voters Want President, VP Removed Before Term Ends

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 1, 2007

President Bush and Vice President Cheney still have almost 15 months left in their term, but that's too long for some: A poll of likely voters in Vermont shows almost two-thirds want impeachment proceedings initiated to remove them from office now.

(CBS) Earlier this year, town meetings across Vermont asked citizens if impeachment proceedings should be initiated against the president and vice president. Thirty-seven towns voted yes, and the Senate approved a resolution calling for impeachment.

Now a statewide poll conducted by CBS affiliate WCAX in Burlington, Vt. posed the question to 400 likely voters. Sixty-one percent said they would be in favor of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Thirty-three percent opposed it, and 6% were not sure.

The numbers for Vice President Cheney differed only slightly: Sixty-four percent favored impeachment, while 31% opposed it.

Seventy-five percent of respondents said they categorized the president's performance as "fair" or "poor."

"I'm really overjoyed by this," said Jimmy Leas, a South Burlington lawyer who has been a vocal advocate of impeachment. He told WCAX correspondent Kate Duffy that the poll shows "here in Vermont, nearly two-thirds of the public understand we have a serious problem, and the way to address this is to remove the officials who are usurping power."

"The impeachment results are somewhat surprising, frankly, to me," Middlebury College professor and columnist Eric Davis said.

He said the numbers are a sign that Vermonters are extremely dissatisfied with the administration.

"Even though their terms are ending in a little bit more than a year, a majority of Vermonters don't want to even see them remaining in office until January 20, 2009."

Vermont's legislature took up the impeachment issue last spring. The Senate passed a resolution calling for the president's impeachment, but a similar effort failed in the House.

Constitutionally, only Congress can impeach an executive, yet it could be spurred to do so by a state legislature, or by the motion of a single representative. According to the Jefferson Manual, if a House member introduces impeachment as a question of privilege, it would supersede all other business before the Congress and must be addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:21 AM

The New Fellow Travelers

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; Page A19

Ninety years ago this week, a Bolshevik mob stormed the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, arrested the provisional government and installed a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Though the Russian Revolution is no longer widely celebrated (not even by Russians, who instead commemorate the expulsion of the Poles from Moscow in 1612), I felt it important to mark the occasion. In honor of the anniversary, I reread " Ten Days That Shook the World," the famed account of the revolution by John Reed, the American journalist and fellow traveler. Then I reread last week's press reports of the recent encounter between Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, and Naomi Campbell, the British supermodel.

Just as I'd remembered, Reed's book superbly transmits the breathless energy of the autumn of 1917 -- "Adventure it was, and one of the most marvellous mankind ever embarked upon, sweeping into history at the head of the toiling masses" -- as well as his fascination with, and approval of, the violence he saw around him. After attending a mass funeral, he understood, he writes, why the Russians no longer need religion: "On earth they were building a kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer, and for which it was a glory to die." By contrast, he is abashed when he has to explain that in America, people try to change things by law -- a state of affairs that his new Russian comrades find "incredible."

Fast-forward 90 years, and surprisingly little has changed. True, the Russian Revolution itself is no longer much admired, not even by Reed's heirs on the far left. But the impulse that drew Reed to St. Petersburg remains. The Western weakness for other people's revolutionary violence, the belief in the glamour and benevolence of foreign dictators, and the insistence on seeing both through the prism of Western political debates, are still very much with us.

Exhibit A is Campbell. Though better known for her taste in shoes than for her opinions about Latin American economics, she nevertheless turned up in Caracas last week gushing about the "love and encouragement" Chávez pours into his welfare programs. Wearing what a Venezuelan newspaper called "a revolutionary and exquisite white dress from the prestigious Fendi fashion house," she praised the country for its "big waterfalls." Not surprisingly, Campbell did not mention the anti-Chávez demonstrations held in Caracas the week before her visit; proposed constitutional changes designed to let Chávez remain in power indefinitely; or Chávez's record of harassing opposition leaders and the media.

But then, that wasn't the point of her visit, just as it wasn't the point when actor Sean Penn, a self-conscious "radical" and avowed enemy of the American president, spent a whole day with Chávez. Together, the actor and the president toured the countryside. "I came here looking for a great country. I found a great country," Penn declared. Of course he found a great country! Penn wanted a country where he would win adulation for his views about American politics, and the Venezuelan president happily provided it.


In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration Reed once felt -- the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all of his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all of his wealth, fame, media access and Hollywood power, Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions.

As for Venezuelan politics, or the Venezuelan people, they don't matter at all. The country is simply playing a role filled in the past by Russia, Cuba and Nicaragua -- a role to which it is, at the moment, uniquely suited. Clearly, Venezuela is easier to idealize than Iran and North Korea, the former's attitude toward women not being conducive to fashion models, the latter being downright hostile toward Hollywood. Venezuela is also warm, relatively close and a country of beautiful waterfalls.

Most important, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president -- after all, many other heads of state do, too -- but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman" and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian Revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow travelers. As long as the oil lasts.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:32 AM

BB:

I think you need a different thread! At least Id on't see why the last post, which I found interesting, was related to views of the Bush Administration. I am glad you posted it, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:35 AM

"Most important, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president -- after all, many other heads of state do, too -- but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman" and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? "


All depends on what public you want the opinion of...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 12:45 PM

"n the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we've propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We've become inured to democracy-lite. That's why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.

This is a signal difference from the Vietnam era, and not necessarily for the better. During that unpopular war, disaffected Americans took to the streets and sometimes broke laws in an angry assault on American governmental institutions. The Bush years have brought an even more effective assault on those institutions from within. While the public has not erupted in riots, the executive branch has subverted the rule of law in often secretive increments. The results amount to a quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf's.

More Machiavellian still, Mr. Bush has constantly told the world he's championing democracy even as he strangles it. Mr. Bush repeated the word "freedom" 27 times in roughly 20 minutes at his 2005 inauguration, and even presided over a "Celebration of Freedom" concert on the Ellipse hosted by Ryan Seacrest. It was an Orwellian exercise in branding, nothing more. The sole point was to give cover to our habitual practice of cozying up to despots (especially those who control the oil spigots) and to our own government's embrace of warrantless wiretapping and torture, among other policies that invert our values.

Even if Mr. Bush had the guts to condemn General Musharraf, there is no longer any moral high ground left for him to stand on. Quite the contrary. Rather than set a democratic example, our president has instead served as a model of unconstitutional behavior, eagerly emulated by his Pakistani acolyte.

Take the Musharraf assault on human-rights lawyers. Our president would not be so unsubtle as to jail them en masse. But earlier this year a senior Pentagon official, since departed, threatened America's major white-shoe law firms by implying that corporate clients should fire any firm whose partners volunteer to defend detainees in Guantánamo and elsewhere. For its part, Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department did not round up independent-minded United States attorneys and toss them in prison. It merely purged them without cause to serve Karl Rove's political agenda.

Tipping his hat in appreciation of Mr. Bush's example, General Musharraf justified his dismantling of Pakistan's Supreme Court with language mimicking the president's diatribes against activist judges. The Pakistani leader further echoed Mr. Bush by expressing a kinship with Abraham Lincoln, citing Lincoln's Civil War suspension of a prisoner's fundamental legal right to a hearing in court, habeas corpus, as a precedent for his own excesses. (That's like praising F.D.R. for setting up internment camps.) Actually, the Bush administration has outdone both Lincoln and Musharraf on this score: Last January, Mr. Gonzales testified before Congress that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution."

To believe that this corruption will simply evaporate when the Bush presidency is done is to underestimate the permanent erosion inflicted over the past six years. What was once shocking and unacceptable in America has now been internalized as the new normal...."

New York Times editorial, 11-11-07

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 09:27 PM

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

(From Vanity Fair magazine. Link below.)

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy
of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz,
sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712?printable=true¤tPage=all

The American economy can take a lot of abuse, but no economy is
invincible. Illustration by Edward Sorel.

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush
administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq
war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil
liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-
page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond
the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not
driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven
years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent.
Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a
tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a
national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time
this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage
defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that
are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an
American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—
becomes a venture in high finance.

And it gets worse. After almost seven years of this president, the
United States is less prepared than ever to face the future. We have
not been educating enough engineers and scientists, people with the
skills we will need to compete with China and India. We have not been
investing in the kinds of basic research that made us the
technological powerhouse of the late 20th century. And although the
president now understands—or so he says—that we must begin to wean
ourselves from oil and coal, we have on his watch become more deeply
dependent on both.
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:02 PM

The late Norman Mailer had an interesting dialogue with his son, John Buffalo Mailer, in a 2006 interview. An excerpt:

"NM: Come on, man, save time. These administration honchos are very, very intelligent with what they are intelligent at, but they're stupid as sludge when they are stupid. I will say this characterizes almost all political regimes. Take Camelot. As open and bright and quick as the Kennedy administration proved to be, look at how wrong they were on the Bay of Pigs. Why? Because they didn't know a lot about Cuba when they came into office, so they listened to Allen Dulles and the CIA. It was a very painful lesson, but they learned that the CIA wasn't always right.

OK, all I'm getting at is the Bushies in the wake of the 2000 election had a host of problems for which war could be a pro-tem solution. The novelist in me would even warrant that the cynics among the Bush honchos loved the idea of selling America on bringing democracy to Iraq. They may even have known they were not going to succeed on any real level. But they did have great faith in the stupidity of the American people. So, they assumed they could carry it off one way or another. With our mighty military, how could they not find something they could paint as a positive?

JBM: I was twenty-four years old at the time, a writer/actor in LA, and I saw what was going to happen if we invaded. How could they not have seen it? It's hard for me to believe that they didn't know Iraq would turn into a quagmire.

NM: Listen, these are men who have been successful all their lives. They've gone through many crises. Their feeling is, "Yes, there's going to be trouble. A lot of shit will hit the fan, a good deal is probably going to go wrong. But we will handle it." Not Bush, but Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Take a guy like Cheney. His whole attitude is: "Can do. Will do." I would say their honcho feeling goes like this: "We'll take the sludge that comes our way, but it will be a lot better than chasing bin Laden all over Afghanistan and Pakistan. That won't do it. The Democrats will be too ready to carp about everything that's going wrong in America. So let's shift the war to Iraq. This country is so patriotic. 9/11 brought us back again to operating speed and now we can coast on that patriotism." You have to understand the depth and breadth of the cynical optimism these guys possess. They are able to live with very bad odors, spiritual stinks most of us can't endure. Their strength is in their ability to avoid bad conscience. Immoral is not even a word to apply to these guys. Amoral is no better. They have a God-given or diabolically driven capacity to live with bad conscience. They really don't give a damn. "Hey," goes their credo, "I'm tough. So I can live with this. Others couldn't, but I can take it. I will endure. And even if it doesn't work, it will work anyway, because we will always be able to find a new slew of spokesmen, even intelligent people, who will claim that democracy is beginning to work in Iraq. All those neocons. They keep saying that the Middle East is ready for democracy. Well, I think they are a bunch of Israel-serving, self-serving sons of bitches myself, but if they are right, then we get the oil, and if they're wrong, we'll yet be able to blame them for the consequences." So, yes, John, to speak for myself again, I take them seriously. As they saw it in 2001, the country was in bad shape and they needed a tool big-time to clear it up, especially when they were bound and determined to send all that tax money upstairs to the rich.

JBM: So, instead, they send the poor to die in Iraq.

NM: Don't you think that is one of the themes of history, which repeats itself over and over?

JBM: My question is, Why is the chain never broken?

NM: The reason may be that there are too many strong and skilled people who spend their lives working to keep the chain intact. They labor at it reverently. So they succeed in keeping the majority stupid, even if in a democracy it's just fifty-two percent of the voting populace. They know so well that stupidity is their greatest asset, their political mojo. They work, systematically, to enhance it. They take pride in generating more and more stupidity even as advertising men take pride in selling a piece of crap. After all, anyone can market a Rolls Royce. But try palming off sleaze on a big scale. Hell, yeah! "Bring 'em on.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:31 PM

The Los Angeles Times reports on new estimates for the overall cost of Bush's adventures in the Middle East:

"WASHINGTON -- The total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could balloon to $3.5 trillion over the next decade because of such "hidden" costs as oil market disruptions, foregone investments, long-term health care for veterans and interest payments on borrowed war funding, according to a report released by congressional Democrats on Tuesday.

The projection, by the Democratic majority on the Joint Economic Committee, is more than $1 trillion higher than a recent forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which accounted only for direct spending and interest payments and assumed a moderate withdrawal of troops between now and 2017.
...
"The full costs of this war to our economy are manifested in ways that have never been accounted for by this administration: We are funding this war with borrowed money, Americans are paying more at the gas pump, and it will take years for our military to recover from the damage of the president's failed war strategy," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told a news conference Tuesday.

For the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so far, those costs total about $1.6 trillion, the report found -- almost double the direct appropriations of $804 billion in the 2003-2008 fiscal years. Of that, $1.3 trillion, or more than twice the $607 billion appropriated, is for Iraq alone.

The report by the Joint Economic Committee Democrats -- Republicans on the panel did not participate -- comes as the House and the Senate prepare to vote, probably this week, on a $50-billion spending bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide the funding on the condition that the Bush administration begins immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, with a goal of complete withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008.

If Bush does not agree to the conditions and vetoes the bill, then he "won't get his $50 billion," Reid said, and the Pentagon would have to use its own budget to cover the costs of the conflicts. President Bush recently signed a $470-billion Defense Department appropriations bill that covers mainly costs unrelated to the wars.

Press Secretary Dana Perino defended the administration's Iraq policies, pointing to reduced violence and improvements in the Iraqi economy. She said the Joint Economic Committee report has "obvious motivations" behind it.

"This committee is known for being partisan and political," Perino said. "They did not consult or cooperate with the Republicans on the committee. And so I think it is an attempt to muddy the waters on what has been some positive developments being reported out of Iraq."

Aside from the obvious costs of direct appropriations and the interest on borrowed funds, the report said the war takes money from such "productive investments" as education, law enforcement and health care.

The report noted that more than 30,000 troops had been wounded so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, and although it does not specify how many have been significantly disabled, it found that costs related to their inability to return to productive work and to their need for care, thus requiring family members to quit their jobs, could total more than $30 billion.

The price of oil also has been affected by the war, the report said, with the cost of a barrel almost tripling from $37 a barrel the week before the U.S. invasion to more than $98 a barrel last week. Although it is difficult to quantify the size of the war's effect on prices, the report said, it has "been one factor contributing to a generally unsettled state of oil markets over the past several years."

---

The notion that this war has directly driven the rising cost of gas is one which I had not thought of; I have often mentioned the huge hidden costs to the country in human agony of neurosis and psychosis derived directly from mind-wrenching battle in a nebulous cause. I can't think of any more dissonant, mind-breaking position for a young man to be in than to destroy other humans and find his justification wanting.

A
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:21 AM

Washington Post:

An Opening For Mr. Competent

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Karl Rove is the not the genius he used to be. Partially responsible for the mismanagement of two wars, the collapse of American prestige around the world, the failure to get Osama bin Laden dead or alive, the loss of Republican control of Congress, the passage of nothing much in terms of legislation, the almost-certain defeat of a Republican presidential candidate next time out, and the virtual evisceration of the GOP, he is easy to dismiss if only on account of his record. But when he (gleefully) lambastes the Democratic Congress as a failure, he is certainly on to something. This is a man who knows ineptness when he sees it.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week, Rove enumerated the negatives: "No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform." The noes roll on and on, and aside from a partisan dig here or there, no one can quarrel with this. The Democratic Congress, like the pudding that Churchill rejected, lacks theme. To the left, it is a failure; in the middle, it is immaterial; and to the right, it presents an opportunity for restoration.

The equilibrium of ineptitude -- fools at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue -- is not lost on the American people. They award Congress even lower approval ratings than they do the president, about 20 percent in the case of the Hill, about 30 percent in the case of George W. Bush. What they think of the crop of presidential candidates is not yet clear, but I, for one, pick up the paper in the morning and read that the economy is sinking, that oil could top $100 a barrel and that a pandemic of house foreclosures is sweeping our nation of sweet cul-de-sacs -- and the people who want to be president have precious little to say about any of these issues.

Enter Mike Bloomberg. He is the mayor of New York, endowed with near-universal support in his city and about $13 billion in the bank. Intimations of his presidential ambitions are getting stronger. He cooperated with a Newsweek cover story that, whether he intended it or not, left the clear impression that he can hardly be restrained from running. More to the point, his associates and friends do not, as you might expect, caution me against believing that a presidential run is under consideration. On the contrary, they fairly drool like Pavlov's famous mutts when the words "White House" are mentioned.

How such a feat can be accomplished -- how the electoral college can be won and how an independent can govern with a Congress composed of Democrats and Republicans -- is not the issue for the moment. Instead, what animates and energizes the hope of a Bloomberg candidacy is the utter failure of the current political establishment to deal with, not to mention solve, the immense problems facing us.


Michael Dukakis ran for the presidency partially on a platform of competence. The American people took one look at him in a battle tank and concluded that someone else should be commander in chief. Yet things may be different for a different Mike from, of all places, Massachusetts (Bloomberg grew up in Medford).

A glance at the sky shows more than winter's coming -- maybe a recession, too. All sorts of things are going wrong and some of them, like the crisis on Wall Street, cannot even be gauged. Just who will be stuck owning worthless paper based on worthless mortgages secured by nearly worthless houses is still unknown. Not even the financial institutions -- Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, etc. -- knew what was happening or know, will you believe, what is now happening. Bad times -- probably very bad times -- are coming.

So competence will have a certain charm. (And Bloomberg is not short on actual charm, either.) These circumstances, not to mention an ability -- if not a determination -- to spend maybe $1 billion on a campaign, could radically change American politics. The chances of this happening are not great, I know, but Ross Perot did get 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 (nary a vote in the electoral college, though) and he was perceived as a bit weird and totally unsuited for the presidency. Bloomberg is a different story altogether.

Will Mayor Mike run? He might. Can he win? I still doubt it. But my doubts are nothing compared with my chagrin when I read an op-ed by Karl Rove with which I keep nodding in agreement. It takes a pretty broken system for Rove to be right. Maybe it will take a Bloomberg billion to fix it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:34 AM

Washington Post:

The Can't-Win Democratic Congress

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; Page A19

Democrats in Congress are discovering what it's like to live in the worst of all possible worlds. They are condemned for selling out to President Bush and condemned for failing to make compromises aimed at getting things done.

Democrats complain that this is unfair, and, in some sense, it is. But who said that politics was fair?

Over the short run, Democratic congressional leaders can count on little support from their party's presidential candidates, particularly Barack Obama and John Edwards. Both have decided their best way of going after front-runner Hillary Clinton-- who has been in Washington since her husband's election as president in 1992 -- is to criticize politics as usual.

At this weekend's Democratic fundraising dinner in Des Moines, Obama and Edwards not only attacked Bush fiercely but also issued broadsides against the larger status quo.

When Obama assailed "the same old Washington textbook campaigns" and declared that he was "sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans," he was aiming at Clinton. But Obama was echoing what many in his party have been saying about their congressional leadership.

And when Edwards said that "Washington is awash with corporate money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it," he was criticizing a system in which his own party is implicated.

It makes sense for Democratic presidential candidates to distance themselves from the party's Washington wing. A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of Democratic congressional leaders, an increase in dissatisfaction of 18 points since February. Among Democrats, disapproval of their own leaders rose from 16 percent in February to 35 percent now; in the same period, disapproval among independents rose from 41 percent to 56 percent.


Democrats in Congress say that their achievements of a minimum-wage increase, lobbying reform, improvements in the student loan program and last week's override of Bush's veto of a $23 billion water-projects bill are being overlooked -- and that Bush and his congressional allies have systematically blocked even bipartisan efforts to produce further results.

For example: The increases in financing for the State Children's Health Insurance Program passed after Democrats made a slew of concessions to Republicans to win broad GOP support. But in the House, Democrats were short of the votes needed to override the president's veto, so the proposal languishes.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notes that he has bargained productively with Republicans and that his budget bills have secured dozens of their votes. But the president seems intent on a budget confrontation.

In a letter to Bush on Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to underscore the president's role in the stalemate by calling for a "dialogue" to settle budget differences that "have never been so great that we cannot reach agreement on a spending plan that meets the needs of the American people."

They went on: "Key to this dialogue, however, is some willingness on your part to actually find common ground. Thus far, we have seen only a hard line drawn and a demand that we send only legislation that reflects your cuts to critical priorities of the American people."

Pelosi and Reid have a point, and they want Bush to get the blame for a budget impasse. But Bush seems to have decided that if he can't raise his own dismal approval ratings, he will drag the Democrats down with him. So far, that is what's happening.

Yet the budget is just one of the Democrats' problems. Their own partisans are furious that they have not been able to force a change in Bush's Iraq policy. In the Pew survey, 47 percent said the Democrats had not gone "far enough" in challenging Bush on Iraq. Many in the rank and file are also angry that the Democratic-led Senate let through the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general even though he declined to classify waterboarding as a form of torture.

Congressional Democrats are caught between two contradictory desires. One part of the electorate wants them to be practical dealmakers, another wants them to live up to the standard Obama set in the peroration of his Iowa speech when he praised those who "stood up . . . when it was risky, stood up when it was hard, stood up when it wasn't popular." Is there a handbook somewhere on how to be a courageous dealmaker? Pelosi and Reid would love to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:09 PM

WIMBERLY, TEXAS -- Los Angeles Times

Matthew Dowd knows sorrow and loss. ... And then there is the added heartbreak -- a word he uses -- of his split with President Bush.

Dowd, 46, is one of the nation's leading political strategists, a onetime Democrat who switched sides to help put Bush in the White House, then win a second term. He spent years shaping and promoting Bush's policies -- policies that Dowd now views with a mixture of anguish and contempt.

He began expressing his disillusionment, tentatively at first, at a UC Berkeley conference in January. Since then, he has grown more forceful.

On the administration's response to the Sept. 11 attacks: "I asked, 'Why aren't we doing bonds, war bonds? Why aren't we asking the country to do something instead of just . . . go shopping and get back on airplanes?' "

On the White House stand against same-sex marriage: "Why are we having the federal government get involved? . . . Does a thing limiting someone's rights and aimed at a particular constituency belong in the U.S. Constitution?"

On the war in Iraq: "I guess somebody would make the argument, well, the Iraq war was about defending ourselves. But it seems an awfully huge stretch these days to say that."

With a rueful laugh and, at one point, a catch in his throat, Dowd offered a lengthy account of his break with Bush during hours of conversation at his 18-acre ranch in the green Hill Country outside Austin. He puffed a cigar, and then another, as the fading sun glinted off the Blanco River. A CD player cycled through sacred music and country songs.

Dowd is not the first Bush ally to part with the administration. Former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill contributed to a book that likened the president at Cabinet meetings to a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people." John J. Dilulio Jr., who led the White House office of faith-based initiatives, left with a shot at "Mayberry Machiavellis." Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who once led U.S. forces in Iraq, accused the administration of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan.

But Dowd was a part of Bush's political inner circle, enjoying a degree of power and intimacy that made his criticism all the more unexpected -- and hurtful to those still close to the president, many of whom are Dowd's friends.

"I care about him as a human being," said Mark McKinnon, a former Dowd business partner who produced Bush's campaign ads and sometimes bicycles with the president. "The problem was not just what he said, but that he never voiced any of those concerns directly to people he was supposed to be advising."

Dowd responded that he shared his feelings with McKinnon and others close to Bush more than once before going public.

In speaking out, Dowd has not only strained personal relationships but raised larger questions about loyalty in the political realm. Is he obliged to stand by his old boss, whose success made Dowd one of the most sought-after consultants in the campaign business? Or does he owe it to the country to openly dissent, even if he didn't do so from the start?

The answer, for Dowd, is simple, even if his life these days is less so. "When you're a public advocate of something in the high-profile way that I was, and all of a sudden it doesn't turn out the way you thought, the counterweight is not to just sit quietly and let it go," Dowd said. "I had to say something in a high-profile way."

His disenchantment with the president built over several years. Dowd went public at a Berkeley seminar on the 2006 California governor's race; Dowd was both a senior advisor to the Republican National Committee, where he landed after Bush took office, and a top strategist for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reelection effort. It was a question about the president that set Dowd off and, looking back, liberated him.

"Do you lose sleep at night knowing that you gave this country probably the worst administration we've ever had?" asked a young man. "I mean, have you thought about maybe trying to save your soul by calling for impeachment?"

Dowd tensed and leaned forward. Rather than defend Bush, he spoke of the oldest of his three sons, an Army language specialist then facing deployment to Iraq. "Now, am I a person who stays up at night thinking about that? Yeah. . . . Do we have hopes and dreams and disappointments? . . . Yes," Dowd said.

But when things don't turn out as hoped "it does not mean that you somehow have to walk down the street in a hair shirt with a sign that says, 'Forgive me, forgive me, forgive me,' " he said. "We move on."

Dowd now sees the confrontation as "a gift [that] gave me the opportunity to start expressing things more and more publicly."

In March, he wrote a piece for Texas Monthly magazine suggesting Bush had undercut his "gut-level bond with the American public." Finally, applying torch to bridge in spectacular fashion, Dowd detailed his break with Bush in a front-page interview in the New York Times. No one in the White House was alerted. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:05 AM

From the Washington Post:

The Icebergs Ahead For the Democrats

By David S. Broder
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A25

As the Democratic presidential race finally gets down to brass tacks, two issues are becoming paramount. But only one of them is clearly on the table.

That is the issue of illegal immigration. A very smart Democrat, a veteran of the Clinton administration, told me that he expects it to be a key part of any Republican campaign and that he is worried about his party's ability to respond.

I think he has good reason to worry. The failure of the Democratic Congress, like its Republican predecessor, to enact comprehensive immigration reform, including improved border security, has left individual states and local communities to struggle with the problem. Some are showing a high degree of tolerance and flexibility. Others are being more punitive. But all of them are running into controversy.

I noticed a new Siena College Research Institute poll of registered voters in New York. It found heavy opposition to Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to permit undocumented aliens to obtain driver's licenses; nearly two-thirds opposed the latest version.

Moreover, the issue is part of a weakening of support for Spitzer, who now has an almost 2-to-1 negative job rating and, for the first time, an unfavorable image overall. Asked if they are inclined to support him for reelection in 2010, only 25 percent said yes, while 49 percent said they would prefer an anonymous "someone else." It was just last year that Spitzer was elected in a landslide. Spitzer announced yesterday that he was abandoning the driver's license idea.

That is New York, home state of both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani. And the driver's license question is the one that tripped up Clinton when she was asked about it at the Philadelphia debate last month and gave answers that were indecisive -- and nearly indecipherable.


The other candidates had more time to compose an answer, so they were spared the embarrassment. It was the pummeling she received from Barack Obama and John Edwards during and after that debate (and from moderator Tim Russert) that brought her husband, former president Bill Clinton, into the campaign, with the charge, as he put it, that "those boys have been getting tough on her lately."

The former president's intervention -- volunteered during a campaign appearance on her behalf in South Carolina -- raised the second, and largely unspoken, issue identified by my friend from the Clinton administration: the two-headed campaign and the prospect of a dual presidency.

In his view, which I share, this is a prospect that will test the tolerance of the American people far more severely than the possibility of the first female president -- or, for that matter, the first black president.

As my friend says, "there is nothing in American constitutional or political theory to account for the role of a former president, still energetic and active and full of ideas, occupying the White House with the current president."

No precedent exists for such an arrangement, and no ground rules have been -- or probably can be -- written. When Bill Clinton was president, the large policy enterprise that was entrusted to the first lady -- health-care reform -- crashed in ruins.

The causes were complex, and some of the burden falls on other people -- Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the interest groups and, yes, the press. But as one who reported and wrote in great detail and length about that whole enterprise, I can also tell you that the awkwardness of having an unelected but uniquely influential partner of the president in charge affected every step of the process, from the gestation of the plan to its final demise. She was never again asked to take on such a project.

And this was simply the confusion sown by having the first lady in charge. Put the former president into the picture -- however "sanitized" or insulated his role is supposed to be -- and the dimensions of the problem become even larger.

No one who has read or studied the large literature of memoirs and biographies of the Clintons and their circle can doubt the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership.

No one can reasonably expect that partnership to end should Hillary Clinton be elected president. But the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land.

It is a difficult question for any of the Democratic rivals to raise. But it lingers, even if unasked.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 10:11 AM

An interesting point, BB. ALthough, I grump because it is in no wise related to the thread topic.

I dunno though. I wouldn't mind having Bill Clinton OR ELizabeth Kucinich or Michele Obama coaching from the sidelines. I think any one of them would provide much-needed balance, energy, and a resonant sounding board.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:10 PM

From the UK Independent:

US power company linked to Bush is named in database as a top polluter
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 16 November 2007
An American power company with close financial links to President George Bush has been named as one of the world's top producers of global warming pollution.

The first-ever worldwide database of such pollution also reveals the rapid growth in global-warming emissions by power plants in China, South Africa and India. Power plants already produce 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas and 25 per cent of the world's.

But it is the enormous carbon footprint of Southern Company – among the largest financiers of Republican Party politicians – which has raised eyebrows. Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected twice, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990 according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia already emits more carbon dioxide annually that Brazil's entire power sector. The company is in the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters and sixth worst in the world.

Apart from vague promises by the Democratic presidential hopefuls, there is no pressure on this or any other power company to clean up their act and cut back on CO2 emissions.

Politicians from both parties fear the influence of Southern, which spends huge sums both on lobbying and on political campaigns and is among the biggest power players in Washington. It has seen off numerous attempts to impose controls on the amounts of pollution it pumps out.

The link between massive cash contributions by America's power companies and political arm-twisting in Washington has rarely been put into such sharp relief. Environmentalists have long suspected that President Bush's dogged refusal to sign up to international agreements to control global warming was linked to campaign contributions.

Yesterday's report has finally identified the impact these power companies are having on global warming. Southern, which earned $14.4bn in revenues in 2006, is using its influence to block the introduction of wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources on the grounds that it would eat into its profits. ..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 09:41 AM

Another story from the madness imposed on the nation by merchants of war. This one is a study of a man who carries the horror in his head, and wants his life back. Multiply by hundreds of thousands to get the impression of W's contribution to the American mind.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 01:07 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502032.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

...Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week.
ad_icon

All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America." ....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:50 PM

Politics undercut species act, suits say

In a twist, an Interior Department investigation provides much of the grist for the legal action.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 20, 2007 edition
.

...
Wiped out across most of its range in the American Southwest, the Mexican garter snake was considered a shoo-in for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It got nothing.

Neither did the Mississippi gopher frog. Though listed as endangered in 2001, the now-rare amphibian got not a single acre of habitat set aside on its behalf. The loach minnow, once common in Arizona and New Mexico rivers, saw 143,680 acres of proposed critical habitat chopped by more than half.

In each case, Bush administration political appointees overrode federal scientists' recommendations, with little or no justification, according to six lawsuits filed Thursday by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an endangered species advocacy group.

The Bush administration is no stranger to being sued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). But in a tack that could signal a major new legal challenge, last week's suits mark one of the few times Interior Department officials have been sued not merely for bureaucratic foot-dragging, but because of deliberate political interference with the ESA, observers say.

"This wave of lawsuits is different – and what makes them so different is that the agency itself and its inspector general have provided a lot of compelling evidence of political interference with the proper functioning of the act," says J.B. Ruhl, a law professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee and an expert on the ESA.

A big factor in the CBD's legal fusillade hinges on the April release of a scathing report by the Interior Department's inspector general on the actions of Julie MacDonald, the department's former deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. The report found numerous questionable actions on endangered species and criticized her release of internal documents to outside groups opposed to the ESA.

After Ms. MacDonald resigned in May, agency officials reviewing her work identified at least eight species cases that may have been affected. But the CBD claims documents show a pattern of ESA interference affecting many more cases – and by other officials besides MacDonald.

Though declining to comment on the lawsuits, an Interior Department spokesman says they are part of an ongoing wave of litigation by activists that dates back more than a decade. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 07:47 PM

What is popular now is manufacturing support for WW 3

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BAR20071122&articleId=7411

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM

Putin puts Russia on nuclear alert and aligns with China and middle east.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2910112.ece


It looks like they are going to let us have one more Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:34 AM

Former press secretary accuses Bush, Cheney of deceiving public about CIA leak case




Associated Press - November 20, 2007 5:43 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is accusing President Bush and Vice President Cheney of deceit in the CIA leak case.

In an excerpt from his upcoming book, McClellan describes the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were not involved in the leak.

He writes, "There was one problem. It was not true." McClellan says he had unknowingly passed along false information. He says 5 of the highest-ranking White House officials were involved, including Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush and his chief of staff Andrew Card.

...(AP)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 10:00 AM

...President Bush recently vetoed Congress's main social spending bill, for the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. He said it — along with Congress's other planned spending bills — would recklessly overshoot his spending target by a total of $205 billion over five years. By Mr. Bush's own earlier reasoning, that figure is bogus. Adjusted for inflation and population, Congress's proposed increases amount to zero.

Mr. Bush's sudden passion for fiscal discipline is hypocritical in other ways. The bill he vetoed would pay for programs like college financial aid, Head Start, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer research, rural health programs, mine safety and job training. Mr. Bush wanted to cut $7 billion in 2008, while Congress wanted a $5 billion increase. But even as he was vetoing the bill, his aides were proposing to add another $51 billion to the deficit to shield the nation's wealthiest money managers from having to pay their fair share of taxes. The House had passed a bill to raise taxes on hedge fund managers and buyout partners, and to use the revenue to offset tax relief for less affluent taxpayers. The White House rejects the tax increase, but is happy to borrow the $51 billion, thus sparing today's titans from taxes while passing on the cost to future taxpayers.

It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress's proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to.

There are signs, however, that Congressional Republicans are becoming uneasy. The House upheld Mr. Bush's veto of the social spending bill, but narrowly. With polls showing Americans increasingly anxious about the economy, ever fewer Republicans can risk linking their fates to Mr. Bush's obstinacy.

...

(NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 01:56 PM

RESUME
GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington , DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

Military

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
- I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
- I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
- I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
- With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT
- I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
- I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
- I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
- I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
- I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
- I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
- I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
- I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
- I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
- I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
- My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
- My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
- I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to
intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
- I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
- I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
- I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
- I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
- I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
- I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
- I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
- I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
- I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
- I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
- I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
- I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
- I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
- I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
- I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.
- In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
- I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
- I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.
- I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES
-All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
- All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
- All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 04:19 PM

can anyone here help me pay back about $9 Trillion that I borrowed?
http://stb.msn.com/i/D0/A2D5F7163097D3E91EBCC4879A16D1.gif

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 02:34 PM

TWO BOOBS FINALLY SEE EYE TO EYE...

"It was, let's face it, inevitable. And so, on Wednesday, at the swearing-in of Attorney General Michael Mukasey at the Justice Department, former attorney general John D. Ashcroft was reunited with "The Spirit of Justice," the 12-foot Art Deco-era sculpture his aides once famously covered with giant blue drapes at a cost of more than $8,000.

The statue, also known as "Minnie Lou," was ordered uncovered in 2005 in one of the signal achievements of the Alberto R. Gonzales attorney generalship. The decision was made by Paul Corts, assistant attorney general for administration, who is now president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.

Blame, or credit, for the coverup fell to advance aide Lani Miller, who reportedly acted after Ashcroft expressed unhappiness about appearing in news photos with the bare-breasted statue over his head.

Meanwhile, a report by the department's inspector general yesterday listed "Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice" as the No. 2 priority (after terrorism) in the Top Management and Performance Challenges for 2007.

"An immediate challenge facing Department of Justice leadership is the need to restore confidence in the department," the report said, "both with department employees and with the public. ..."

See picture of Ashcroft and the left other right boob at the Washington Post.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 08:50 AM

As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
New York Times November 25, 2007

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq:

acknowledging that success,

trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there,

highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Former Senator John Edwards regularly brings up Iraq, but focuses on his opponents' judgment.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party's primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party's nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

"The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton's and a proponent of the military buildup. "If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in."

At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.

Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president. Former Senator John Edwards, by contrast, has emphasized that he would remove all combat troops from the country, while Mr. Obama favors withdrawal at a rate of one to two brigades a month. Those plans stand in contrast to the latest American strategy of keeping most American combat brigades in Iraq but giving them an expanded role in training and supporting Iraqi forces....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?hp

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 01:23 PM

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE DECREE

We have a new colony/protectorate

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 01:26 PM

NEW ILLEGAL BELIEFS http://www.rense.com/general79/rduh.htm


this is the worst news I have seen this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 02:50 PM

''(a) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this subtitle,
Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department
prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown
rorism as described in this subtitle do not violate
stitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties
States citizens and lawful permanent residents."

Donuel, I have read this act all the way through. It establishes a commission to study the root causes of radicalism in individuals, which is to produce a report on its findings, and then disband.

While I think it is misguided in many ways, and makes unwarranted assumptions, it does not make acts of speech illegal, as far as I can see, that are legal. It does provide wiggleroom for abuse under the notion that threatening violence is comparable to acts of violence, granted, but it provides no penalties or enforcement actions against them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 08:33 PM

The Mistresses of George W. Bush is a stunning pinup calendar of secret relationships maintained by the Resident.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 11:41 AM

After concluding that a Bush administration appointee "may have improperly influenced" several rulings on whether to protect imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service has revised seven decisions on protecting species across the country.

The policy reversal, sparked by inquiries by the Interior Department's inspector general and by the House Natural Resources Committee, underscores the extent to which the administration is still dealing with the fallout from the tenure of Julie MacDonald, the deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks who repeatedly overruled agency scientists' recommendations on endangered-species decisions. MacDonald resigned from the department in May after she was criticized in a report by the inspector general and as she was facing congressional scrutiny.

In a letter dated Nov. 23 to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.), acting Director Kenneth Stansell of the Fish and Wildlife Service said that the agency spent four months reviewing eight Endangered Species Act decisions made under MacDonald and is revising seven of them. Those rulings affected 17 species, including 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies.

In the course of those reviews, for example, Mitch King, then the agency's Region 6 director, said in a June memo to headquarters that while the field and regional office's scientific review concluded there is "substantial" evidence that the white-tailed prairie dog faces a risk of extinction, "the change to 'not substantial' only occurred at Ms. MacDonald's suggestion."

Stansell wrote to Rahall that Fish and Wildlife will launch a one-year investigation into whether to protect the white-tailed prairie dog. Agency officials have also decided not to de-list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, a threatened mammal that lives in Wyoming and Colorado.

"The Service believes that revising the seven identified decisions is supported by scientific evidence and the proper legal standards," Stansell wrote. "As resources allow, these revisions will be completed as expeditiously as possible."


Rahall, who released the letter yesterday, said in a statement that the agency's move highlights the extent to which political ideology had influenced the administration's approach to protecting plants and animals.

"Julie MacDonald's dubious leadership and waste of taxpayer dollars will now force the agency to divert precious time, attention, and resources to go back and see that the work is done in a reliable and untainted manner," Rahall said. "The agency turned a blind eye to her actions -- the repercussions of which will not only hurt American taxpayers, but could also imperil the future of the very creatures that the endangered species program intends to protect."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 04:34 PM

Amos, this is not unusual or new, this is what's been happening in all departments. Look at the Health, Education & Energy Departments for blantant examples. These bastards have been fucking with every facet of our well being. To them we are pawns in their play for power, money & politics. We the people are the next species to expire.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 03:55 PM

Cheney's Doctors Detect Signs of Heart

Sudden Appearance of Major Organ Confounds Experts
((From the Borowitz Report)

In a stunning development that has confounded medical experts around the world, doctors examining Vice President Dick Cheney said today that they have detected signs of a heart.

The vice president was rushed to the hospital over the weekend after complaining of chest pains, but no one in Mr. Cheney's inner circle suspected that a human heart was the cause.

"We had been operating under the assumption that he didn't have one," said chief of staff David Addington, who said that Mr. Cheney also has not had a soul since 1995, when it was purchased by the Halliburton Company.

At George Washington University Hospital, doctors struggled to contain their excitement about what appeared to be the medical anomaly of the century: the sudden appearance of a human heart in a 66-year-old man.

"It is too early to say conclusively," said Dr. Carol Foyler, head of the team of doctors who examined the vice president. "But so far the beating and pumping sounds we are hearing in the vice president's chest cavity are very much consistent with his having a heart." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 04:10 PM

There aren't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 06:08 PM

Dr. Fink suggests that the lack of breast feeding may be the cause.

By the way I have a great photo of Mrs Cheney and Dan Foley

and the video of the singing Republicans doing Elvira including Lott, Foley and Ashcroft.

My most treasured video of all time is of then Vice President GHW Bush kissing Sadddam on both cheeks as part of the vice president's duties to diplomatically celebrate Saddam Hussein's birthday in Baghdad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 08:25 AM

Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year's elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.

Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.

"There's a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic," said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. "Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies." ... (NY Times for 12-2-07)

The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 08:44 AM

"resident Bush's veto of Congress's main social spending bill has Democratic leaders looking for places to make trims to satisfy the president's sudden zeal for fiscal discipline. A small, but sensible, place to begin would be to eliminate the bill's $28 million increase for one of Mr. Bush's signature boondoggles — abstinence-only sex education.

Federal government spending on highly restrictive abstinence-only sex education has ballooned under President Bush, while evidence of the program's danger as a public health strategy has continued to mount.

Last April, a Congressionally mandated evaluation found that students who received abstinence instruction in elementary and middle school were just as likely to have sex in the following years as students who did not get such instruction.

States are catching on. Last month, Virginia became the 14th state to reject federal grant money for abstinence-only sex education to pursue the comprehensive approach supported by science and most Americans. That approach encourages abstinence but also arms young people with information about sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and pregnancy...."

(From Science, Sex and Savings, a Times editorial.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 03:52 PM

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND
The Progress Report
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, and Ali Frick
December 3, 2007

IRAQ
Rove's Revisionist History

A little over a week ago on PBS's The Charlie Rose Show, President Bush's former political adviser Karl Rove attempted to re-write the history of the lead-up to the Iraq war by claiming the Bush administration did not push war in the fall of 2002 for political purposes. It is widely believed that "the vote's timing" was part of an effort to increase pressure on the party's wavering senators to back the president. Yet Rove told Rose, "The administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002." "We didn't think it belonged in the confines of the election." Rove's version of events was disputed last Friday by former White House chief of staff Andrew Card, who told MSNBC, "that's not the way it worked." Direct contradiction by a senior member of the administration, however, did not deter Rove. He reiterated his claim in an interview with the Washington Post, saying that it is "disingenuous" for "Democrats to suggest they didn't want to vote on it before the election." Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer also discredited Rove's claims, flatly saying that "it was definitely the Bush administration that set it in motion and determined the timing, not the Congress." "Karl in this instance just has his facts wrong," added Fleischer. While multiple people have contradicted Rove in the days since he first made his comments, not a single individual has stepped forward to support his "far-fetched" claims.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S POLITICAL PUSH: Nine months before the war began, Rove and then-White House Political Director Ken Mehlman delivered a power-point presentation to California Republicans "about the outlook for the GOP in House and Senate races in November," in which they counseled that a "focus on war" should be the top priority of the party's electoral strategy. A top White House aide who was involved in pre-war discussions told Newsweek's Michael Isikoff that "the president's advisers wanted to use the upcoming election to pressure skeptical Democrats to back the president -- or face being portrayed as soft on national security." "The election was the anvil and the president was the hammer," the aide told Isikoff. Bush pollster Matthew Dowd told a group of Republicans that "the No.1 driver for our base motivationally is this war." "Weeks before the vote, Republican candidates across the country began running ads attacking their Democratic opponents on issues of war and national security, with some even using imagery of Saddam Hussein. When Bush was asked on Sept. 13, 2002, about Democrats who wanted to delay the vote until after the U.N. Security Council acted, he replied with political pressure. "If I were running for office," said Bush, "I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act." In a press conference days later, Bush exclaimed "we've got to move before the elections."

CONGRESS'S HESITATIONS: During a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting, Bush "made it clear" to congressional leaders that "he wanted Congress to vote before it adjourned." Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), said he tried to put the brakes on Bush's plans, asking "directly" if they "could delay" the vote until after the election" in order to "depoliticize it." Daschle later recounted that Bush just "looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.'" Daschle conceded that he would go along with the President if Bush insisted on a vote before the election, saying on Sept. 10, "I don't think we have much choice but to respect the decision." But Daschle spoke ardently in public on multiple occasions against politicizing the vote. "We've got to be very careful about politicizing a war in Iraq or military efforts," Daschle told reporters. A vote too close to the election "could jeopardize a thoughtful and deliberative debate," he added. Daschle wasn't the only member of Congress speaking out against a rushed vote. "I do not believe the decision should be made in the frenzy of an election year," said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA). "I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

ROVE'S DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENTS: On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) confronted Rove on his revisionist history, challenging him to "retract" his "outrageous comments." But Rove refused while changing his story in the process. On The Charlie Rose Show, Rove had said definitively that "the administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002." But after being confronted about this statement, Rove backtracked, claiming that he was just saying that it's "simply not true" that Bush "was the only person pushing the Congress to vote on the war resolution before the November election." Rove then cherry-picked old Daschle quotes that he claimed supported his point. In particular, Rove pointed to a Sept. 16, 2002 quote from Daschle, in which he said, "I think there will be a vote well before the election, and I think it's important that we work together to achieve it." Rove doesn't mention that at the time Daschle made his comment, he had already tried to stop Bush from pushing for an early vote, but had been rebuffed by the President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 10:46 PM

while this post http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20071202&articleId=7525
is guaranteed uncheckable, you know I would vouch for every point made.

The seven things probably need to be expanded to include a few more families.

(in case the link is bad)
It is sort of like the Readers Digest version of "I was an economic hitman"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM

A Key Moment for Justice
      


Published: December 5, 2007

The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case that offers a chance to redress an enormous wrong done by President Bush and Congress when they denied justice to a group of prisoners. It is the latest phase of a battle over whether detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to bring a habeas corpus challenge to their confinement. The narrow legal issues have changed since the court considered the question last year, but the principle remains the same: The detainees have a right to have a court determine whether the government has a valid basis for imprisoning them. ...

Habeas corpus is an important bulwark against authoritarianism, so vital that the Constitution expressly protects it. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration has fought to weaken it both for foreigners held by the United States and for American citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:49 AM

The inimitable Maureen Dowd writes:

"...After getting Iraq wrong and Iran wrong in 2005 and almost every other big thing wrong since the nation began spending billions every year on intelligence, the burned spooks may not have wanted to play the patsy again while W., Cheney and the neocons beat the drums for an Iran invasion.

Now the apple-polishing George Tenet is gone. The man who oversaw the new estimate is Tom Fingar, a former State Department intelligence officer who was smart and brave enough to object to the cooked-up intelligence on Iraqi W.M.D.

"The way they used to do business was to write estimates in a way that couched things so they said, 'We may not always be right, but we're never wrong,' " said Tim Weiner, the reporter for The Times who wrote the award-winning history of the C.I.A., "Legacy of Ashes." "This is a slam-dunk reversal, admitting error. Now, when they play poker, they show their hands to each other, so they don't get another curveball."

The president, who has shut out reality for seven years, justified continuing in his world of ideological illusion by saying that he would not be "blinded" to the realities of the world. You can't get more Orwellian than that.

"And so," W. concluded triumphantly, and nonsensically, "kind of Psychology 101 ain't working."

W. loves to act as though psychology is voodoo even though his whole misbegotten foreign policy has been conducted from his gut, by checking the body language of his inner circle and looking into the hearts and souls of dictatorial leaders.

If I were looking at the latest fiasco from a Psych 101 point of view, I'd say it was another daddy issue for W.

Poppy Bush, who was once C.I.A. director, loved the agency and liked to sign notes: "Head Spook." The C.I.A. headquarters bear his name.

W., by contrast, has voiced contempt for the intelligence community. In 2004, he dismissed a pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate that didn't match his sunny vision of the Iraq occupation, saying that the analysts were "just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

When W.'s history is written, he will be seen as the rebellious teenager crashing the family station wagon into his father's three most cherished spots — diplomacy, intelligence and the Gulf. ..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:29 PM

We all saw what happened with FEMA's response to Katrina. What many don't know is that rampant corporate cronyism is pervasive throughout the entire Department of Homeland Security, not just FEMA.

Our good friends at CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) have done critically important work in exposing corruption. They just released a report on the first five years of DHS showing how taxpayers are being looted by profit-greedy corporations.

Based on the report, we created this video: http://homelandsecurityforsale.org/

You can read the full report on the website as well.

Corporate profiteers are raiding systems put in place for the nation's security. It's yet another example of reckless privatization. This is homeland security, not a homeowner's association!

The first step is making people aware of the problem. Check out the video and report and spread the word. Blog it, email it, call local radio, write a letter to the editor.

Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New Foundation team

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:11 PM

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos - PM
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:28 PM

Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse; but if he was making the point T says he was making, it is a fair point -- that the spirit of independence had been heavily suppressed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the culture was not likely to be generating heroic leaders.



Got to give credit where credit is due...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 07:59 PM

Well, yeah, Amos...

The profiteering is rampant... Billions of dollars just evaporate... No trail... No idea of where they went??? "Oh, well" seems to be the usual response... I mean, like "Bill Clinton did this or that" is the o9nly response we get from the Bushites... They are not conservative Republicans... They are radical brownshirt true believers... I mean, do they go to work and work 6 days a week, play by the rules and pay taxes??? No, a lot of them don't... They are rich... They have their investments... They have their CPA's... They have priveldge and wealth... Yeah, it doesn't mean a rat's ass to them if Bush spills a few billion here and spills a few billion there...

This is way the Bush administration will be remembered: wreckless in everything it did!!!

But underneath all of this is the "starve then beast" Republicanism that Bush has, in his own way, has furthered thru his wreckless spending... Yeah, if you can't starve the beast then feed it so much that it just collapses from it... This is what Bush has tried to do... It remains to be seen if it worked but either way it's gonna take a long, long time to pay for all of Bush's spending and wrecklessness...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:26 AM

executive order 1951 makes Homeland security command cental for all the other goverment agencies.

They are currently building the biggest goverment facility since the Pentagon for new HS offices and armories.

HS can do more than make $ disappear. They can end run CIA NSA courts by presidential order.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:05 AM

Bush loses ground with military families


A majority disapprove of the president's handling of the war in Iraq and are more in line with the views of the general public.
By Faye Fiore, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 7, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.

"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Mr Happy
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

http://www.livevideo.com/video/092AB89E4B8E4560B2A1D6AB6F59A4AB/bush-doesn-t-recall-if-he-ment.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM

Some interesting points from a Washington Post blog...


Dear Stumped,
Conventional wisdom is that Iraq was a debacle, fiasco, really bad, etc., etc. So, what would have happened if we hadn't invaded and deposed Saddam?
Cheers,
John Birkhold
P.S. Why do we feel the need to say, "etc., etc." vs. just "etc."?

Dear John,
Your p.s. is most illuminating. I think we say "et cetera" only once when we are saying something original, but we say "et cetera, et cetera" when we are saying something familiar, maybe even too familiar, to the listener or reader. "Etc., etc.," brings to mind a rolling of the eyes, the tiresome, garbled speech of adults in the "Peanuts" series, the "yadda, yadda" of the famous Seinfeld episode, etc. (Or should that be etc., etc.?)

So your use of the double "et cetera" is revealing, as it suggests that all right-minded people have digested the same cant of what Iraq is supposed to have become -- fiasco, quagmire and so on, to a point where it is no longer necessary to spell it out.

On to your first question. The short answer is, I don't know what would have happened if we had stayed out of Iraq. To examine just one plank of the conventional wisdom, Iran is usually cited as a clear winner in Iraq. But it's worth speculating: Would Tehran have stopped working on its nuclear weapons program, as we now know it has, if Saddam were still in power? Conversely, if it was the fall of Saddam that emboldened Iran to be a bigger regional player, do we owe recent hopeful developments, like the Annapolis conference, to a broadening concern over Iran's growing influence?

All I'm saying is that there are plenty of unintended consequences out there. I suspect it will take history a long time to sort them all out, and the picture will be a lot more mixed than the antiwar conventional wisdom suggests.

Look at the transatlantic alliance, for instance. The arrogance of the Bush administration in pursuing this war was supposed to have forever weakened transatlantic solidarity. Yet we now have leaders in both France and Germany who were elected in part to reverse policy and improve ties with Washington.

In terms of domestic politics, it is impossible to divine what might have happened without the Iraq war, in part because it is impossible to divine what would have instead soaked up this administration's energies. Because of where things now stand, I don't think the Iraq war will be the decisive issue in 2008. And in 2004, perhaps, it was too early for it to have been enough of an issue to dislodge Bush (unlike in 2006, when it dislodged the GOP's congressional majority). This leaves me with the unsatisfying conclusion that Iraq may not be the defining issue in any presidential election. That can't be right. Can it? (I'm happy to elucidate this point -- ask me about it!)

P.S. (Which, as we know, are often revealing.) Critics of the war are quick to mock the "groupthink" in Washington that got us involved in this conflict. But today's antiwar "groupthink" can be equally dangerous. Even former President Bill Clinton, who sounded very much like he supported the war at the time we invaded Iraq, is trying to retroactively embrace the antiwar script, preposterously saying he opposed the war all along.

Such a distorting caricature of the underlying issues could make it all the more difficult for a future president to engage in necessary, justifiable military engagements. Certainly, the liberal impulse to engage in humanitarian interventionism, the notion embraced by Tony Blair and Kofi Annan in the aftermath of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda, must be counted among the most prominent victims of the Iraq war.

Don't get me wrong. An incompetent Bush administration (including Condoleezza Rice, who too often gets a pass in the apportioning of blame) is to blame for mishandling the war. But we shouldn't allow that to cloud the context in which the decision to go to war was made. There is a reason Hillary Clinton voted to allow George Bush to go to war. Staying out was not the no-brainer today's antiwar groupthink would have you believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 04:18 PM

During W's sub prime bail out announcement (oops I mean sub prime safety plan) W gave out an 800 number for information and relief.

Too bad it was the wrong number. the actual number was an 888 number.

There will be enough relief for a few people who know the right people to get new interest rates and the like. Maybe 2% of buyers will find this safety plan helpful. It is the banks who need the safety plan of tax breaks ET CETERA ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:01 AM

"President Bush's lame-duck attempt to repair the Republican Party's threadbare fiscal reputation is an increasingly reckless game. In the latest exercise of irresponsibility for political gain, Mr. Bush reportedly wants to slash counterterrorism funding for front-line police and firefighters.

"Apparently, Bush finds it easier to deny health care for children, or even gamble with the security of New Yorkers for his last year in office than to cut the funding for his misbegotten war or tax cuts for the wealthy."

The administration's own Homeland Security agency requested $3.2 billion for this first responder aid to high-risk cities and states in the 2009 budget — the one that Mr. Bush's successor will inherit. The White House is considering cutting that request by more than half to $1.4 billion by eliminating grants for port and public transit security, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While Mr. Bush wrestles with more responsible members of his own administration, his larger and more immediate game is to portray the narrow Democratic majority in Congress as feckless overspenders.

In October, he vetoed a sensible bill that would have provided health insurance for millions of uninsured children. In the name of faux fiscal discipline, he is threatening to veto budget measures that the nation needs for effective government.

Mr. Bush is clearly hoping that the public will somehow forget that he is the one who spent the last seven years running up huge deficits and debt with his off-the-books war in Iraq and serial tax cuts customized for his affluent political base. Mr. Bush's Republican allies on Capitol Hill are also hoping that the voters will forget how they abetted the president through all those years. Those fiscal turncoats are now scrambling to pose once more as budget hawks to survive in next year's watershed election."

---

Sigh. The plus ca change, the older it gets.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:51 AM

Amos,

You forgot to tell us which liberal editorial that was. Please give us the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:18 AM

Here it is, BB. Sorry.. The awful-pink liberal-fog-promoting commie-faggot-pinko-homo-bastard New York Times, of course! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:53 PM

Thanks.

I have been told the editorials in the WSJ are no good, since they are editorials and not news...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:13 PM

DECEMBER 7, 2007, 12:27 PM
Bush's Alternative Energy Flip-Flop
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The White House has raised several objections to the breakthrough energy bill recently negotiated by House leaders. But there's an interesting and ironic backstory to one of these complaints.

In a dyspeptic letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Allan Hubbard, the director of the White House national economic council, states that Mr. Bush is particularly unhappy with the bill's Renewable Electricity Standard — a provision that would require states to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020. The provision, Mr. Hubbard says, is "overly prescriptive" and would hurt consumers.

What the letter does not say, and what the White House would rather we not remember, is that as governor of Texas, Mr. Bush enthusiastically signed into law a renewable electricity mandate that was part of a broader bill encouraging deregulation and greater competition in the utility industry.

This 1999 mandate was extraordinarily forward-looking for its time (22 states have such mandates now) and the results were immediate. Texas now produces more wind power than any other state, to the great benefit of consumers of electricity and farmers who rent out their land for the giant turbines that create the power. Texas actually accounted for more than half the new wind energy installed nationwide this year.

One of the White House's objections is that the bill's "one size fits all" formula would create compliance problems for states with only modest amounts of renewable energy. It's certainly true that few states are as reliably windy as Texas. But the bill has other ways states can satisfy their obligations, including a creative trading scheme that allows states that cannot meet their quota to buy allowances from states that can.

Mr. Hubbard's letter doesn't mention Mr. Bush's real problem with the plan. It is this: the bill would force the power companies, who tend to like things the way they are, and who are among the President's most ardent supporters, to make bigger and faster investments in cleaner sources of energy than they want to. Mr. Bush is not opposed to technological advances. But he is definitely opposed to mandates, especially those that discomfit his friends in the coal, gas, oil and power industries.

There is a historical pattern here. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Bush pledged to impose mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. But somebody got to him — industry, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, probably all three.

In fairly short order, Mr. Bush renounced not only his campaign pledge but the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change. That angered America's closest allies and humiliated Christine Todd Whitman, the administrator of the Environmental Protection. She joined the administration in the misplaced hope that President Bush would turn out to be as adventurous on issues she cared about as Governor Bush appeared to be."

New York Times editorial board Blog

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:53 AM

"...We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: political posturing, just in time for the 2008 election. But one should not forget the damage that his administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war.

A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the chronically underfunded Social Security Administration that have kept hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans from timely receipt of their Social Security disability benefits.

As laid out by Erik Eckholm in The Times on Monday, the backlog of applicants who are awaiting a decision after appealing an initial rejection has soared to 755,000 from 311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing now exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in 2000.

Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win their cases. But during the long wait, their conditions may worsen and their lives often fall apart. More and more people have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while awaiting an appeals hearing.

In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North Carolina woman who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a day has been waiting three years for a decision. She finally got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final verdict, but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates sleeping at her daughter's crowded house and a friend's place.

The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are simply too few administrative law judges — 1,025 at present — to keep up with the workload. The Social Security Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that no real dent will be made in the backlog until the agency can hire more judges and support staff.

The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the Republicans. For most of this decade, the administration has held the agency's budget requests down and Republican-dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress wants to increase funding to the Social Security Administration, and the White House is resisting.

Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health, education and labor spending bill that would have given the Social Security Administration $275 million more than the president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill as profligate.

Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet Mr. Bush half way on the whole range of domestic spending bills. The White House is not interested in compromise."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 09:31 AM

I am getting pretty damn sick and tired of Fathead W and his crony politics, I don't mind telling you.

Witness today's installment, an effort to PREVENT improved emissions standards in automobiles:

"The Senate should ignore an incredibly mischievous last-minute veto threat from the White House and vote resoundingly in favor of an energy bill that could come before it as early as today. The bill represents a historic opportunity to ease America's dependence on foreign oil and to take steps in the battle against global warming, and its passage would send a message to the worlds' negotiators in Bali that Washington is at last getting serious about climate change.

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

Go to The Board » The centerpiece of the bill is the first meaningful increase in fuel efficiency standards in three decades — from today's fleetwide average of 25 miles per gallon to 35 m.p.g. by 2020. To win necessary Republican votes, the Senate leadership agreed to drop one valuable provision contained in a measure passed earlier by the House: a requirement that all utilities provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.

Even so, the bill, as it now stands, contains not only the new fuel standards, which is a huge step forward, but also generous incentives for energy efficiency, for cleaner alternative fuels and for the new technologies that will be required to reduce the country's output of greenhouse gases. By almost any measure, it is the most important energy bill that Congress has entertained in many years.

It is thus astonishing that President Bush would even think of vetoing it, especially since he called for much the same improvements in automobile mileage as those contained in the bill. In a statement Tuesday, however, the White House demanded that the bill be amended to make the industry-friendly Transportation Department solely responsible for regulating fuel economy as well as carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

This would directly reverse the Supreme Court's historic decision in April declaring that greenhouses gases are air pollutants under the meaning of the Clean Air Act and giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to regulate them. It would also have the effect of stripping California and other states of the power to impose their own automobile emissions standards."

---

And again flying directly in the teeth of law. Wodda maroon.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 07 - 09:34 AM

Seems Mister Bush has deep-seated beliefs in the propriety of rigging the electoral process, without regard to principles. The TImes opines:

"The Senate is ducking its responsibility to keep the Federal Election Commission stocked with qualified appointees to police the already booming election season. If a nasty partisan standoff is not soon resolved, the six-member regulatory panel could be left with just two commissioners remaining and unable to work. This is a ridiculous prospect — and an invitation to even more scheming and corner-cutting — in what is sure to be a multibillion-dollar campaign.

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

Go to The Board » At the heart of the problem is President Bush's misbegotten choice for the commission of Hans von Spakovsky, a fiercely partisan Republican, notorious for his anti-voting-rights bias as a Justice Department appointee. Mr. Spakovsky supported Republican initiatives gerrymandering the Texas Legislature and mandating photo IDs in a Georgia law transparently aimed at disenfranchising minority voters. Career Justice lawyers resigned in protest of his extremism.

President Bush circumvented the Senate confirmation process, using a recess appointment to force Mr. Spakovsky temporarily onto the F.E.C. this year. His appointment and two other recess appointments lapse with the new year. Joined with an additional vacancy, the commission will not have a quorum. Meanwhile, the Democratic and Republican leaders are deadlocked, holding up each other's appointees to a panel that is required to be evenly bipartisan, three to three.

If merit or sense carried the day, the president would scratch Mr. Spakovsky, who is not the right choice for the job. He hasn't, and the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, is standing by the White House's man. If Mr. McConnell and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, can't negotiate a solution, Mr. Reid should put the issue to a floor fight. This would spotlight what a party hack the Republicans want for a commission that is supposed to keep electoral politics clean and fair. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 09:17 AM

On state's rights and the arrogance of the usual:

"Arrogance and Warming"

Published: December 21, 2007 (NY Times)

The Bush administration's decision to deny California permission to regulate and reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks is an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry.

Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, overrode the advice of his legal and technical staffs, misconstrued the law and defied both Congress and the federal courts. It also stuck a thumb in the eyes of 17 other state governors who have grown impatient with the federal government's failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and wanted to move aggressively on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 10:14 AM

The WaPo opines:

...:The Clean Air Act allows the Golden State to craft its own air-quality rules and allows other states to adopt them, as long as they are not arbitrary and capricious and are at least as tough as the federal standards. All that's needed for the regulations to take effect is an EPA waiver. But the EPA has discretion to deny a waiver if it finds that California doesn't face a "need to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." So the administration may defend its decision on the grounds that the threat to California is no greater than to the rest of the country. Still, Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin reported, the EPA's lawyers and policy staff warned that if the waiver were denied, the agency would lose a Schwarzenegger lawsuit. We hope that they're right.

The larger point is the irrationality of blocking an initiative that would help slow climate change. Global warming is a compelling and extraordinary condition that demands both federal and state action. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that if action is not taken within the next decade the effects may be irreversible. The United States has been the largest emitter of greenhouse gases with a strong assist from California, which would be among the top 10 economies of the world were it a separate nation.

In its "U.S. Climate Action Report -- 2006," when the administration was doing its annual airbrushing of its own inaction, the State Department actually listed the California initiative as one of the "key activities conducted by the U.S." Talk about nerve. This is one more example of Mr. Bush's say-one-thing-do-another brand of environmentalism:...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:18 PM

How in hell can we expect China & India or the rest of the world for that matter, to respect the eviorment & comply with world climate control & clean enviorment policies when the US, who's the number 1 polluter & the one nation most capable of cleaning up it's act doesn't give it a thought when it sides with big business every step of the way. Why not past a "waste act" & through out all who are presently occupying space in congress.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:55 PM

BRATTLEBORO - He's got waterproof, size-11EEEE New Balance sneakers, a bright yellow poncho, and a plan. He's got outrage in his heart, a website in his name, and much of his retirement savings sunk into his cause.

John Nirenberg, a 60-year-old PhD., author, and academic, plans to walk from Boston to Washington, D.C., to confront House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in hopes of persuading Congress to take up the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

He's no activist, he says. He's not sure he'll make a difference, but he's going to try.

Today he'll hit the road from Faneuil Hall, walking 15 miles a day until he gets to Capitol Hill, making symbolic stops at the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and in Trenton, N.J., as he makes his way to the US Capitol.

Wearing a "Save the Constitution, Impeach Bush and Cheney," sandwich board-style sign, he hopes to rally support for an issue Pelosi has said is no longer on the table.

"This is about satisfying my conscience. I just don't want to be the guy who says in five years that I regret not having stood up and said something," he said.

Nirenberg, a New York native who was a member of the Civil Air Patrol as a youth and who later served in the US Air Force, spent his career as a social studies teacher, college professor, and organizational consultant.

A former dean at the School for International Training, in Brattleboro, he has written three books.

The impeachment chapter began in October, when he - frustrated by what he sees as constitutional abuses by the Bush administration - decided to "activate my citizenship" and do something about it.

He settled on marching as the way, established a website - www.marchinmyname.org - and began making cards, pencils, and literature in support of his cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 02:27 PM

From the Washington Post:

The Speaker's Grand Illusion
Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Need to Get Real About What They've Accomplished

After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.

In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.

In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."


That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.

There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.

One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.

An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.

But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.

The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.

That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 11:49 AM

It was 25 years ago when a young CIA recruiting agent, a few years younger than I and really just a kid told me, "if you don't join the team you will be on the low road for the rest of your life while I will take the high road and assure you stay on the low road!".

I wonder if he is still alive and prosperous and if alive how much damage he has done to our country for his prosperity. I wonder if travel has broadened his mind beyond mine without as much travel.
I wonder if I could have made any difference with internal dissent to insane policies based on perception is the only reality. When our CIA gives money and weapons to a young OBL and even now gives billions to a Pakistan military dictatorship and over a billion dollars to Iranian officials who are in Iraq clothing you should be able to see how fucked up they are. These are the same guys who just happened to miss the fact that the Soviet Union had passed on. The CIA needed a new cold war and got one while they missed the golden chance to cement relations with Russia. Now Russia has half of oil in the world along with their neighbor Iran and can step all over a USA now devoid of its treasury wasted in a 18 year war in Iraq and recently Afghanistan
I wonder if there are any good shepards on the high road who have any humanity or compassion for the sheeple they believe need tending.

Mr. X if you can hear me anymore, I put it to you that your high road was cocaine for money and for a few dollars left over you bought weapons for Iran. You blew up a dozen Mosques killing 800 people and missed your singular target each time. You helped support a regime that bankrupt this country. I tell you now that hiring a bad guy to catch or kill a bad guy just made bad situations worse.
You were a hired killer for a handful of banking families and not your country or Constitution.

I put it to you that you took the lowest road of all
even if your unknown name is just a star on the wall.
Perhaps you are merely a disillusioned cubicle jockey who was sidelined for being a boy scout and speaking the truth.
Here is looking down at you kid.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Dec 07 - 09:59 AM

"...The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked Ñ how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered AmericaÕs position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied AmericaÕs global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the worldÕs anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the governmentÕs top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions Ñ and both American and international law Ñ to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didnÕt go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat Ñ and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guant‡namo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where Òhigh-value detaineesÓ were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that ÒexpertsÓ could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners Ñ some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports Ñ to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

These are not the only shocking abuses of President BushÕs two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more Ñ so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America."

New York Times editorial, December 31, 2007

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:20 PM

From the Washington Post:

Waiting for Mr. Kim
The Bush administration shows an abundance of patience with a regime it once deemed 'evil.'

WHEN NORTH Korea missed a Dec. 31 deadline for disclosing all of its nuclear weapons programs and disabling its Yongbyon reactor, the Bush administration completed a 360-degree turn from where it began in 2001. Then, President Bush broke off negotiations with the North opened by President Bill Clinton's administration, which had left office waiting for a serious response to its proposals to dismantle Pyongyang's missile program. Now, as 2008 begins, Mr. Bush finds himself where Mr. Clinton was, waiting and hoping that dictator Kim Jong Il will deliver -- and choosing to overlook the signs that he won't.

Mr. Kim's negotiators promised first in February and then in October that a full disclosure would be made of nuclear programs. That could be an important step beyond North Korea's previous deals with the West. It could answer both old and new questions, ranging from how many nuclear bombs the country has stockpiled to what deals it made with Pakistan (from which it imported centrifuge equipment) and Syria (to which it may have shipped material for a Yongbyon-like reactor). Such a disclosure would be a positive, though not definitive, sign that Mr. Kim's regime was seriously contemplating disarmament in exchange for aid and security guarantees from the West.

But there's been scant evidence that Mr. Kim is preparing his country for such a momentous decision, and numerous observers -- including several former Bush administration officials -- have suggested that Pyongyang is trying to extract the maximum economic benefit from the West without seriously compromising its arsenal. That theory got a big boost in December when U.S. officials learned that North Korea was preparing a declaration that would fall well short of full disclosure, even as work to "disable" Yongbyon slowed to a crawl. Word was sent to Pyongyang that an incomplete statement would not yield the favors the North seeks, including its removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Since then, administration officials have been waiting to see what move, if any, North Korea will make.

Once eager to deep-six talks with a regime that it deemed evil, the administration is now a model of patience. Officials say calmly that a couple more months may well pass before North Korea's disclosure is obtained and Yongbyon shut down. During that time supplies of fuel oil that were promised in exchange for North Korea's actions presumably will continue to flow. Officials seem to hope that China and a new, more hawkish South Korean government will apply pressure. There doesn't seem to be a plan beyond continuing to hope that Pyongyang will deliver, enabling a still-larger deal on nuclear disarmament to be struck. Would it have made sense for the Bush administration to invest so much in diplomacy seven years ago? Soon the answer to that much-debated question may become clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

Another from the Post:

Democrats in Denial

By Michael Gerson
Friday, January 4, 2008; Page A21

If 2006 was a year of denial for the Bush administration -- demonstrating that patience in pursuit of a failing military strategy is not a virtue -- 2007 was a period of awakening. Like Abraham Lincoln before him, the president discovered the cathartic pleasure of replacing generals. In Petraeus, Bush found his Grant. He also found that war, like politics, is the art of adjustment.

As the political blitzkrieg of 2008 begins in earnest, it is the Democrats who, on a number of key issues, are living in a state of denial.

In Iraq, coalition casualties are down significantly, along with Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside bombings and suicide attacks. Large sections of Baghdad have been pacified, and the military rolls toward Mosul. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in reeling retreat. And, most impressive, we have seen the first example of a large-scale Sunni Arab uprising against Islamic extremism. By one estimate, 30,000 former insurgents and tribal leaders are now fighting the enemy in Iraq, adding their surge to our own.

This progress is reversible, especially while Moqtada al-Sadr's militias maintain the capability to mount their own mini-Tet Offensive. But Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy has succeeded with disorienting speed. Its combination of vision and competence will fill chapters in military textbooks.

In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal -- the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who declared that the surge had "failed" even before it was fully implemented -- now contends that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals."

Bush was hurt by his late and grudging acknowledgment of military failure. Democrats deserve to be hurt by their late and grudging acknowledgment of military success.

Democratic rhetoric on education is also an assault on reality. Attacking No Child Left Behind is a reliable campaign applause line -- Hillary Clinton promises to "end" the law, because it is "just not working." Actually, the imposition of educational standards and testing has improved math and reading scores and begun narrowing the gap between disadvantaged and affluent students.

There is an angry backlash against NCLB among some Democratic interest groups. Suburban districts resent being labeled as failures just because some minority and disabled children aren't making progress. But that is the whole purpose of the law -- to prevent districts from hiding the poor performance of minorities behind the success of other students. Such districts should feel less resentment and more shame.

Teachers unions object to standardized tests, preferring more subjective, nonacademic measures of school success. And that, from one perspective, is understandable. Failing corporations do not like accurate financial disclosures. Slow runners resent those pesky stopwatches. The unions want underperforming schools and ineffective teachers to be shielded from objective scrutiny. But testing is the only way to determine when disadvantaged students are being betrayed -- and by whom.

Democratic candidates attack the Bush tax cuts as a fiscal disaster -- just as a growing economy has boosted tax revenue to its highest level in history, halving the federal deficit in three years.

In 2008, Democrats are convinced that their time has come. But elections are not won by appealing to the clock. Political vacuums are filled by ideas. And Democrats in denial require some adjustments of their own.

Instead of criticizing an increasingly successful Iraq strategy, it would be helpful to hear some realistic proposals to improve American prospects in Afghanistan, where violence has reached its highest level in four years. NATO's military efforts in that country are uncoordinated, even incoherent -- demonstrating the risks of multilateralism. The resolve of some European nations is wavering. An al-Qaeda ministate is developing across the Pakistan border. How would a Democratic response differ from the current one?

Instead of attacking a successful education reform, it would be helpful to hear some practical ideas for improving teacher quality. In the real world of failing schools, the main problem is not too much accountability; it is too few effective instructors. Why should teacher pay be determined by collective bargaining instead of teacher competence, especially in low-income schools that need to reward and retain good teachers? Why not give districts more flexibility to fire teachers who would serve children better by changing professions?

Taking a distasteful dose of reality is one of the most difficult things in politics. Clearly it was hard for the president on Iraq -- but it was good for the country. And it would be good for America if Democrats opened wide for a dose of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:23 PM

and another:

Outside the Echo Chamber

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 4, 2008; Page A21

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: People in Washington really should get out more.

By "Washington," I mean not just the city but the state of mind, and by "get out," I mean spend time surrounded not just by a different geography but by a different demography as well. If we did, the high-blown debates we have here -- and by "we," I mean politicians, lobbyists, advocates, bureaucrats, scholars, journalists and all the rest trapped in the Washington echo chamber -- might bear more relation to what people who live outside our bubble think of as reality.

Case in point: When former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last week, Washington tied itself in knots trying to figure out which presidential candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides would benefit in the Iowa caucuses. This was the kind of shocking event that could prove pivotal, said the conventional wisdom in Washington -- with pro forma apologies, of course, for implying that Bhutto's death would actually be "good," in terms of political advantage, for one campaign or another.

But when I was in Iowa last weekend, I failed to find Iowans for whom the tragic events in Rawalpindi were a political issue. It's not that Iowans don't recognize why instability in Pakistan is important or why it might affect their lives. It's just that they had put the shocking murder in what they considered its proper context.

Another example: In Washington, it is conventionally wise to think of government gridlock as basically a good thing, even something that most Americans approve of. To have a president from one party and a Congress controlled -- or at least reined in -- by the other, we tell ourselves, prevents too-abrupt shifts in policy. Gridlock is supposed to force bipartisan consensus, which is held as a kind of Holy Grail, the only way to tackle the nation's biggest problems.

But tell that to Iowans -- or residents of most states, for that matter -- who either don't have health insurance or can't get insurance companies to pay their medical bills. Tell it to Arizonans who have pressed their state government to implement its own immigration policy -- shouldering what is clearly a federal responsibility -- because Washington can't get its act together. Tell it to military families, some in favor of the war in Iraq and some against, whose lives have been turned upside down by extended deployments with no end in sight.

There aren't many people in Washington (the state of mind) who spend sleepless nights worrying about sons, daughters or other loved ones serving in Iraq. Even though there are suburbs within 20 miles of the Capitol where illegal immigration is a passionate, hot-button issue, most in Washington think of the problem in academic terms. And just about everyone in state-of-mind Washington has top-notch health insurance; members of Congress enjoy a comprehensive plan that one might be tempted to call "socialized medicine," since a large portion of the costs are borne by taxpayers.

We in Washington are increasingly isolated from the people in whose interest we claim to labor. The economic gap between us and most of the country is widening to a chasm. In most American cities, a $600,000 house in a leafy neighborhood would be considered an extravagance reserved for the wealthy. Here, we'd call it a bargain.

The word "change" had great resonance in the Iowa campaign. In part, the yearning for change arose because George W. Bush has led the nation down so many dead-end paths. But from the conversations I had with Iowans, it seemed clear to me that change is also shorthand for the disconnect between the Washington state of mind and the widespread expectation, hardly unreasonable, that this city ought to actually get something done every once in a while.

Whether it gets done after a bare-knuckle brawl or a chorus of "Kumbaya" really doesn't matter.

In Iowa, it felt weird to be part of an alien invasion of know-it-alls from Washington who descended to examine the locals as if they were specimens in a laboratory. But we should do it more often, even when there isn't a presidential campaign going on -- as long as we stop listening exclusively to one another, and hear other voices as well.

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

Washington Post

See No Good
Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?

Tuesday, January 8, 2008; Page A18

AT SATURDAY'S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it's indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush -- political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president -- a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.

What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures -- coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections -- a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.

Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had predicted that adding troops would have that effect. In fact, on Jan. 8, 2007, he said that in the absence of political progress, "I don't think 15,000 or 20,000 more troops is going to make a difference in Iraq and in Baghdad." He also said he saw "no evidence that additional American troops would change the behavior of Iraqi sectarian politicians and make them start reining in violence by members of their religious groups." Ms. Clinton, for her part, refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require "a suspension of disbelief" to believe that the surge was working.

Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn't "see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today" and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam ("We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there" and "all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?"). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for "a phased redeployment"; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.

Ms. Clinton made one strong point: Even the relatively low number of "23 Americans dying in December is . . . unacceptable" if there is no clear prospect of eventual success. So far, the Bush administration has been slow and feckless in pressing for the national political accords it says are required for a winning outcome. If these are unachievable in the near term, the administration owes the country a revised strategy. But any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:23 PM

refuse to admitt... no such thing, but there is not much to brag about either.

The US Army is curently paying Sunnis to not shoot our soldiers. Its only 10 dollars a day but General Gates says we can afford to do that for 10 years if we have to.
The populace is tired of the violence and are working together with Shittes.

The highest US casualty figure were last summer and have continued to come down.

Is it all surge? Of course not. Gates admits this. (On C span today) Not any more than Its all nature or all nurture.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 09:14 PM

Just in case GWB staff are monitoring this site, here is one that George needs to look into

http://www.brain-rehab.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:11 PM

A refreshing difference from Donald the F**k Rumsfeld, Sec Gates discusses facts with the Marines at Camp Prndleton.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 11:45 AM

The fight over how humans should, and should not, interact with whales has moved from the waters off Antarctica, where environmental campaigners have been harassing Japanese whalers, to the White House.

While traveling in the Middle East on Tuesday, President Bush issued an exemption to the Navy from environmental laws that would otherwise limit its ability to use certain kinds of sonar used in anti-submarine warfare training, the Associated Press said. [

Last August, the Natural Resources Defense Council persuaded a federal judge in Los Angeles to order a stop to Navy training exercises off Southern California using medium-range sonar. The judge said that the Navy's own assessments predicted that dozens of marine mammals, particularly deep-diving whales, could be harmed by the intense sound waves. In January, a fresh injunction was issued by the court requiring the Navy to establish a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the coast and to post lookouts for marine mammals.

The A.P. quoted a White House memorandum as saying, "The Navy training exercises, including the use of sonar, are in the paramount interest of the United States…. This exemption will enable the Navy to train effectively and to certify carrier and expeditionary strike groups for deployment in support of worldwide operational and combat activities, which are essential to national security."

Environmental campaigners and California officials sharply attacked the decision in a joint news release today.

"There is absolutely no justification for this," said California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan. "Both the court and the Coastal Commission have said that the Navy can carry out its mission as well as protect the whales. This is a slap in the face to Californians who care about the oceans." ... (NY Times)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 05:58 PM

ETHICS
Lost And Gone Forever

With less than a year remaining in President Bush's term, the public is finally beginning to crack open the administration's secrets. Last month, a federal judge ruled that a list of presidential visitors kept secret by the White House is actually a public record. On New Year's Eve, Bush "bowed to lawmakers in his own party and signed a bill speeding the release of millions of government documents requested by Americans under the Freedom of Information Act." More recently, a federal court order forced the White House to reveal its extensive destruction of presidential records. Officials acknowledged recycling backup computer tapes of e-mail before Oct. 2003, raising the possibility that these messages "are gone forever." Perhaps not coincidentally, many of these days with missing e-mails correspond to important dates in the Valerie Plame CIA leak scandal and decisions on the Iraq war.

'WE SCREWED UP': The Presidential Records Act requires that the president "take all such steps as may be necessary to assure" that the activities of the White House "are adequately documented." Under the Clinton administration, the White House adopted a custom archiving system known as the Automated Records Management System (ARMS). But shortly after taking office, the Bush administration scrapped ARMS, claiming the system was "flawed." Despite proposing two other records-management systems in 2003 and 2004, neither was ever adopted. The White House "would not comment on why ARMS was eliminated." Not only was the White House recording over "computer backup tapes that provided a last line of defense for preserving e-mails" between 2001 and 2003, but Press Secretary Dana Perino has admitted that between 2003 and 2005, five million e-mails were potentially lost. "We screwed up, and we're trying to fix it," Perino told reporters in April.

SIGNIFICANT E-MAILS MISSING: A newly released White House study from 2005 reveals that "no e-mail was archived on 473 days for various units of the Executive Office of the President" (EOP). Ann Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wasington, has also learned that on average, the e-mail volume for the EOP is 60,000 to 100,000 per day. Yet under the Bush administration, "there are days for which the total volume was 'as low as five daily e-mails.'" More significantly, these missing e-mails have important information about both the CIA leak scandal and the Iraq war. For example, in presidential offices, "not a single e-mail was archived on Dec. 17, 20, or 21 in 2003 -- the week after the capture of Saddam Hussein." Additionally, e-mails "were not archived for Vice President Cheney's office on four days in early October 2003, coinciding with the start of a Justice Department probe into the leak of a CIA officer's identity." Also missing are e-mails from Cheney's office on Sept. 20, 2003, the day on which then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered the President and Vice President's staff to "preserve all materials that might be relevant" to a Justice Department probe on the Plame leak.

WHITE HOUSE DISSEMBLING: Last week, White House spokesman Tony Fratto inexplicably tried to claim that the White House has "absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing." In response, House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has scheduled a Feb. 15 hearing on these missing e-mails. In a letter requesting the testimony of White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Waxman wrote that Fratto's comments "added to the considerable confusion that exists regarding the status of White House efforts to preserve e-mails." The White House has also disavowed the 2005 study showing the missing e-mails, claiming that it "came from outside the White House." The report, however, was produced by Alan R. Swendiman, the politically appointed director of the Office of Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:08 PM

From this Yahoo news site, the following:

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

---

The report itself can be found here and is well worth reviewing.

A
___

On the Net:

Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:14 PM

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney prodded Congress on Wednesday to extend and broaden an expiring surveillance law, saying "fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise" that should not come with an expiration date.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We're reminding Congress that they must act now," Cheney told the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The law, which authorizes the administration to eavesdrop on e-mails and phone calls to and from suspected terrorists, expires on Feb. 1. Congress is bickering over terms of its extension.

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans blocked an effort by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to extend the stopgap Protect America Act without expanding it, raising stakes for an expected showdown in the Senate later this week on a new version of the law.

"This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians," Cheney said. "And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt."

Congress hastily adopted the stopgap act last summer in the face of warnings from the administration about dangerous gaps in the government's ability to gather intelligence in the Internet age.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 04:17 PM

From: the Center for Biological Diversity
Published January 18, 2008 10:33 AM


Bush Administration Abandons Recovery of Jaguar


SILVER CITY, N.M — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced January 17 that it will not prepare a recovery plan for the endangered jaguar and will not attempt to recover the species in the United States or throughout its range in North and South America. The decision was signed by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall on January 7, 2008.



The decision is an attempt to moot an active lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity seeking a recovery plan and designation of protected critical habitat areas for the New World's largest cat. The decision also seeks to circumvent the Endangered Species Act from slowing Bush administration plans to build thousands of miles of wall on the U.S.-Mexico border without environmental review. The wall will short-circuit current efforts by jaguars to recolonize the United States.

Subject: Don't Taze Me, Bro! Repression under Bush
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:04 PM

Repress U

by MICHAEL GOULD-WARTOFSKY

[from the January 28, 2008 issue of The Nation]

Free-speech zones. Taser guns. Hidden cameras. Data mining. A new
security curriculum. Private security contractors. Welcome to the
homeland security campus.

From Harvard to UCLA, the ivory tower is fast becoming the latest
watchtower in Fortress America. The terror warriors, having turned
their attention to "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism
prevention"--as it was recently dubbed in a House of Representatives
bill of the same name--have set out to reconquer that traditional
hotbed of radicalization, the university.

Building a homeland security campus and bringing the university to
heel is a seven-step mission:

(Details of the article can be found at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/gould-wartofsky

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM

Environmental Protection Agency staff warned the agency's chief last year that the state of California has a strong legal case for regulating vehicle emissions, according to documents reviewed and described by Senate staff.

Senate Democrats are expected to use the finding to confront the Bush administration at a hearing today that will focus on the administration's decision last month to deny California permission to regulate automobile carbon-dioxide emissions.

The evidence of conflict between the agency's staff and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson will intensify a debate over the administrator's decision late last year to block the state from going forward with the nation's first vehicle carbon-dioxide-emissions rules. The issue is of critical importance to the auto industry, which doesn't want to face what is sees as a patchwork of carbon-dioxide restrictions. The industry has argued that climate change is a problem that should be handled at the federal level.

Mr. Johnson is scheduled to testify today before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who suggested yesterday that Mr. Johnson should be dismissed.

"He needs to be held accountable," Sen. Boxer said. She said she is seeking to reverse Mr. Johnson's decision, and that "the president could fire him, if he felt as I do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 03:54 PM

Excerpted from an article by Russ Baker in The Nation dating from 2004, but of relevance to some aspects of todays ongoing disputes about the ornery polecat:

"...Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.

If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush's wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush's essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values. It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President's striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation. And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.

In 1972 Bush's unit activities underwent a change that could point to a degradation of his ability to fly a fighter jet. Last week, in response to a lawsuit, the White House released to the Associated Press Bush's flight logs, which show that he abruptly shifted his emphasis in February and March 1972 from his assigned F-102A fighter jet to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight simulator. The logs also show that on two occasions he required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator. This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat F-102A.

Military experts say that his new, apparently downgraded and accompanied training mode, which included Bush's sometimes moving into the co-pilot's seat, can, in theory, be explained a variety of ways. He could, for example, have been training for a new position that might involve carrying student pilots. But the reality is that Bush himself has never mentioned this chapter in his life, nor has he provided a credible explanation. In addition, Bush's highly detailed Officer Effectiveness Reports make no mention of this rather dramatic change.

A White House spokesman explained to AP that the heavy training in this more elementary capacity came at a time when Bush was trying to generate more hours in anticipation of a six-month leave to work on a political campaign. But, in fact, this scenario is implausible. For one thing, Guard regulations did not permit him to log additional hours in that manner as a substitute for missing six months of duty later on. As significantly, there is no sign that Bush even considered going to work on that campaign until shortly before he departed--nor that campaign officials had any inkling at all that Bush might join them in several months' time.

Bush told his commanding officers that he was going to Alabama for an opportunity with a political campaign. (His Texas Air National Guard supervisors--presumably relying on what Bush told them--would write in a report the following year, "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama.") But the timing of Bush's decision to leave and his departure--about the same time that he failed to take a mandatory annual physical exam--indicate that the two may have been related.

Campaign staff members say they knew nothing of Bush's interest in participating until days before he arrived in Montgomery. Indeed, not one of numerous Bush friends from those days even recalls Bush talking about going to Alabama at any point before he took off.

Bush's behavior in Alabama suggests that he viewed Alabama not as an important career opportunity but as a kind of necessary evil.

Although his role in the campaign has been represented as substantial (in some newspaper accounts, he has been described as the assistant campaign manager), numerous campaign staffers say Bush's role was negligible, low level and that he routinely arrived at the campaign offices in the afternoon hours, bragging of drinking feats from the night before.

According to friends of his, he kept his Houston apartment during this period and, based on their recollections, may have been coming back into town repeatedly during the time he was supposedly working full-time on the Alabama campaign. Absences from the campaign have been explained as due to his responsibilities to travel to the further reaches of Alabama, but several staffers told me that organizing those counties was not Bush's de facto responsibility.

Even more significantly, in a July interview, Linda Allison, the widow of Jimmy Allison, the Alabama campaign manager and a close friend of Bush's father, revealed to me for the first time that Bush had come to Alabama not because the job had appeal or because his presence was required but because he needed to get out of Texas. "Well, you have to know Georgie," Allison said. "He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he's killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take him up there with you."

Allison said that the younger Bush's drinking problem was apparent. She also said that her husband, a circumspect man who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her that some use of drugs was involved. "I had the impression that he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps cocaine," she said.

Now-prominent, established Texas figures in the military, arts, business and political worlds, some of them Republicans and Bush supporters, talk about Bush's alleged use of marijuana and cocaine based on what they say they have heard from trusted friends. One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisfair 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling. She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then. "He was getting really aggressive with me," she said. "I told him I'd call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me." (Although cocaine was not a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s, US authorities were struggling more than a decade earlier to stanch the flow from Latin America; in 1967 border seizures amounted to twenty-six pounds.)

Bush himself has publicly admitted to being somewhat wild in his younger years, without offering any details. He has not explicitly denied charges of drug use; generally he has hedged. He has said that he could have passed the same security screening his father underwent upon his inauguration in 1989, which certifies no illegal drug use during the fifteen preceding years. In other words, George W. Bush seemed to be saying that if he had used drugs, that was before 1974 or during the period in which he left his Guard unit.

The family that rented Bush a house in Montgomery, Alabama, during that period told me that Bush did extensive, inexplicable damage to their property, including smashing a chandelier, and that they unsuccessfully billed him twice for the damage--which amounted to approximately $900, a considerable sum in 1972. Two unconnected close friends and acquaintances of a well-known Montgomery socialite, now deceased, told me that the socialite in question told them that he and Bush had been partying that evening at the Montgomery Country Club, combining drinking with use of illicit drugs, and that Bush, complaining about the brightness, had climbed on a table and smashed the chandelier when the duo stopped at his home briefly so Bush could change clothes before they headed out again.

It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.

For years, military buffs and retired officers have speculated about the real reasons that Bush left his unit two years before his flying obligation was up. Bush and his staff have muddied the issue by not providing a clear, comprehensive and consistent explanation of his departure from the unit. And, peculiarly, the President has not made himself available to describe in detail what did take place at that time. Instead, the White House has adopted a policy of offering obscure explanations by officials who clearly do not know the specifics of what went on, and the periodic release of large numbers of confusing or inconclusive documents--particularly at the start of weekends and holiday periods, when attention is elsewhere.

In addition, the Bush camp has offered over the past few years a shifting panoply of explanations that subsequently failed to pass muster. One was that Bush had stopped flying his F-102A jet because it was being phased out (the plane continued to be used for at least another year). Another explanation was that he failed to take his physical exam in 1972 because his family doctor was unavailable. (Guard regulations require that physicals be conducted by doctors on the base, and would have been easily arranged either on a base in Texas or, after he left the state, in Alabama.)

One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization. Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way. One source who did publicly evince doubts about Bush's activities in 1972 was Dean Roome, who flew formations often with Bush and was his roommate for a time. "You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome told USA Today in a little-appreciated interview back in 2002. "I think he digressed after awhile," he said. "In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life." Yet in subsequent years, Roome has revised his comments to a firm insistence that nothing out of the ordinary took place at that time, and after one interview he e-mailed me material raising questions about John Kerry's military career. Roome, who operates a curio shop in a Texas hamlet, told me that Bush aides, including communications adviser Karen Hughes, and even the President himself stay in touch with him.

Several Bush associates from that period say that the Bush camp has argued strenuously about the importance of sources backing the President up on his military service, citing patriotism, personal loyalty and even the claim that he lacks friends in Washington and must count on those from early in his life.

In 1971 Bush took his annual physical exam in May. It's reasonable to conclude that he would also take his 1972 physical in the same month. Yet according to official Guard documents, Bush "cleared the base" on May 15 without doing so. Fellow Guard members uniformly agree that Bush should and could have easily taken the exam with unit doctors at Ellington Air Force Base before leaving town. (It is interesting to note that if the Killian memos released by CBS do hold up, one of them, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for his physical by May 14--one day before he took off.) ..."

Apologies for the long excerpt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 08:05 PM

Lou Dobbs' take on the economic crisis and stimulus talk from Bush and Co can be found here. A good read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 12:13 PM

Last month,ÊEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson said he would deny an EPA waiver to California that would have allowed the state -- and 15 others -- to implement tougher standards on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. Even as the White House lauded the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, signed into law the same day, as a means to "add to the President's ongoing efforts to enhance conservation and efficiency," it refused to support California's efforts to "impose what would have been the country's toughest greenhouse gas standards on cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles."

The state's proposed rule would have required car companies to achieve a 30 percent reduction of emissions by 2016, as distinct from raising fuel efficiency standards in cars, the tactic employed in the federal energy bill. But Johnson hasÊargued "that the newly revised federal standard for vehicle fuel efficiency...was a better approach to reducing auto emissions because it was more uniform." In early January,Êthe 16 statesÊsued the agency over its decision. "Who does the Administrator think he and the EPA work for?" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked. "The EPA Administrator needs to be reminded that he works for the American people." She added,Ê"The Bush EPA can run, but they can't hide." Yesterday, Boxer introduced legislation that would reverse the EPA's decision and allow California and the other states to impose the emissions standard law.

JOHNSON WHITEWASHESÊREPORTS: When Boxer requested to see agency documents that indicated how the EPA made its decision, the agency instead cited executive privilege. EPA Associate Administrator Christopher Bliley wrote to Boxer, "The EPA is concerned about the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting." Just three days later, the Los Angeles Times reported that Johnson had denied the waiver over the advice of EPA staffers. The report quoted an EPA staffer who said that "we all told" Johnson that "California met every criteria" for the waiver request. At a Senate hearing yesterday, Boxer slammed Johnson for his agency's obstruction. "Colleagues, this is the tape," Boxer said, holding up a bowl of white duct tape scraps the EPA had used to redact parts of documents it sent to Boxer's office. "This administration, this is what they did to us. They put this white tape over the documents. ...This isn't national security. This isn't classified information, colleagues. This is information the people deserve to have. And this is not the way we should run the greatest government in the world. It does not befit us."

JOHNSON OVERRULES STAFF: The EPA's reluctance to disclose its decision-making process likely stems from the fact that Johnson overruled the consensus of his staff in denying California's waiver, as the Los Angeles Times had suggested in December. This week, the EPA finally relented and allowed Boxer and her staff to examine -- but not photocopy -- documents relating to the waiver decision, including a staff-prepared slideshow that predicted the EPA was "likely to lose [a] suit" if it denied California's waiver and faced a lawsuit from the states. The documents also showed that EPA staff argued that California had "compelling and extraordinary conditions" -- including conditions making the state "vulnerable to climate change" -- that warranted its tougher emissions standards. Ignoring the clear consensus of his staff, however, Johnson explicitly stated in his denial that California did not possess "compelling and extraordinary conditions" that would justify its stringent emissions-reduction policies.

JOHNSON MISSES THE POINT: Besides denying California's waiver, Johnson also seems to be in denial about the seriousness of climate change. He hedged when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked him whether global warming was "a major crisis" facing the world. "I don't know what you mean by major crisis," Johnson said, to which Sanders countered, "The usual definition of the term 'major crisis' would be fine." Johnson would admit only that it was "a serious issue." Sanders also asked if Johnson agreed that "bold action" was needed, to which Johnson agreed that "action" was required. Johnson's constant hedging frustrated Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), whom could not get a straight answer regarding the agency's regular process for reviewing waiver requests. "It's a serious matter," Whitehouse pressed Johnson. "So I will hope you will give me a real answer to it and not just lots of gobbledygook about administrative law, which I'm pretty familiar with." Yesterday, 13 governors, includingÊArnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), wrote to Johnson expressing their frustration with his decision and voicing objections to his declaration that the new energy bill's fuel economy standards rendered the states' efforts moot. "Fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards are not the same. Although both are laudable, they achieve distinctly different goals," the governors wrote. "The federal government, with this unprecedented action, is ignoring the rights of states, as well as the will of more than one hundred million people across the U.S. We stand by our commitment to bring cleaner cars to our states." ...


Sigh...plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM

From Alternet:

After a January 24 debate in the Senate on amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Senate appears ready to capitulate once again to the Bush administration's agenda of sacrificing liberty for questionable security.

On the day before Congress was slated to take up this issue, Dick Cheney addressed the Heritage Foundation, the most influential right-wing think tank. He was given a thunderous reception, to which he quipped, "I hold an office that has only one constitutional duty - presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes." But the most powerful vice president in this nation's history was about to strong-arm Congress into doing the administrations' bidding.

Invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 twelve times, Cheney said it was "urgent" that Congress update the FISA law immediately and permanently. Notwithstanding the administration's well-known violations of FISA months before 9/11, Cheney claimed they had used "every legitimate tool at our command to protect the American people against another attack." He omitted the illegal tools the administration has admitted using, that is, Bush's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and a massive data mining program. FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, for the executive to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization. The TSP has been used to target not just the terrorists, but also critics of administration policies, particularly the war in Iraq.

Although Cheney repeatedly linked amending FISA with protecting America, there is no evidence Bush's secret spying program has made us any safer. Indeed, in 2006, the Washington Post reported that nearly all of the thousands of Americans' calls that had been intercepted revealed nothing pertinent to terrorism. About the same time, the New York Times quoted a former senior federal prosecutor, who described tips from intelligence officials involved in the surveillance. "The information was so thin and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up," he said.

In his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Cheney aimed to bully Congress into making the so-called "Protect America Act of 2007" permanent. On the eve of Congress's Labor Day recess last year, the Bush administration had rammed that act through a Congress still fearful of appearing soft on terror. It was a 6-month fix to the 1978 FISA, which didn't anticipate that foreign intelligence communications would one day run through Internet providers in the United States. But the temporary law, which expires February 1, went further than simply fixing that glitch in FISA; it granted immunity to telecommunications companies that turned over our telephone and Internet communications to the government. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:58 AM

NY Times commentary:

"The Senate (reportedly still under Democratic control) seems determined to help President Bush violate AmericansÕ civil liberties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting White House-backed legislation that would expand the administrationÕs ability to spy on Americans without court supervision and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Mr. BushÕs illegal wiretapping program.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA Ñ which Mr. Bush decided to ignore after 9/11 Ñ requires a warrant to intercept telephone calls and e-mail messages between people in the United States and people abroad.

It needed updating to keep pace with technology, and the technical fixes were included in a bill that Congress passed last summer. The problem was that Mr. Bush managed to add measures that sharply undercut the courtÕs role in monitoring eavesdropping. Fortunately, lawmakers gave them an expiration date of Feb. 1.

The House has passed a reasonable new bill Ñ fixing FISA without further endangering civil liberties. But Mr. Bush wants to weaken FISA as much as he can. And the Senate leadership has been only too happy to oblige.

With the help of Republican senators and the misguided chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, the White House got a bill that, once again, reduces court supervision of wiretapping. It also adds immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the illegal spying.

Mr. Bush says without amnesty, the government wonÕt get cooperation in the future. We donÕt buy it. The real aim is to make sure the full story of the illegal wiretapping never comes out in court."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:20 PM

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND - FOOTBALL VERSION


--- [e-mail] wrote:

> For all educators in and out of the education system:
>
> 1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST
>   win the championship. If a team does not win the
> championship, they will be on probation until they are
>   the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.
>   If after two years they have not won the championship
>   their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL
> they do win the championship.
>
> 2. All kids will be expected to have the same football
>   skills at the same time, even if they do not have the
>   same conditions or opportunities to practice on their
> own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest
>   in football, a desire to perform athletically, or
>   genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or
>   their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A
> PROFICIENT LEVEL!
>
> 3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their
>   own, without instruction. This is because the coaches
>   will be using all their instructional time with the
>   athletes who aren't interested in football, have
>   limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like
>   football.
>
> 4. Games will be played year round, but statistics
>   will only be kept in the 5th, 8th, and 11th game. This
> will create a New Age of Sports where every school is
>   expected to have the same level of talent and all
>   teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child
>   gets ahead, then no child gets left behind. If parents
> do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote
>   for vouchers and support private schools that can
>   screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children
>   from having to go to school with bad football players.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:56 AM

From the NY Times:

The FISA Follies, Redux

Published: January 26, 2008

The Senate (reportedly still under Democratic control) seems determined to help President Bush violate Americans' civil liberties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting White House-backed legislation that would expand the administration's ability to spy on Americans without court supervision and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Mr. Bush's illegal wiretapping program.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — which Mr. Bush decided to ignore after 9/11 — requires a warrant to intercept telephone calls and e-mail messages between people in the United States and people abroad.

It needed updating to keep pace with technology, and the technical fixes were included in a bill that Congress passed last summer. The problem was that Mr. Bush managed to add measures that sharply undercut the court's role in monitoring eavesdropping. Fortunately, lawmakers gave them an expiration date of Feb. 1.

The House has passed a reasonable new bill — fixing FISA without further endangering civil liberties. But Mr. Bush wants to weaken FISA as much as he can. And the Senate leadership has been only too happy to oblige.

With the help of Republican senators and the misguided chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, the White House got a bill that, once again, reduces court supervision of wiretapping. It also adds immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the illegal spying.

Mr. Bush says without amnesty, the government won't get cooperation in the future. We don't buy it. The real aim is to make sure the full story of the illegal wiretapping never comes out in court.
...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM

The people are about to throw in the towel. How much more of a beating can we take?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:58 PM

Democrats don't want to appear soft on anti terrorist actions. If there is even one large terrorist act they know that the Republicans will say it was because the Democrats wouldn't let us: suspend the Constitution, throw darker people in camps, tap all phones 24-7 etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:33 AM

The nation is splintered over the war in Iraq, cleaved by ruthless partisan politics, bubbling with economic fear and mired in debate over virtually all of the issues Mr. Bush faced in 2002. And the best Mr. Bush could offer was a call to individual empowerment — a noble idea, but in Mr. Bush's hands just another excuse to abdicate government responsibility.

Monday night's address made us think what a different speech it might have been if Mr. Bush had capitalized on the unity that followed the 9/11 attacks to draw the nation together, rather than to arrogate ever more power and launch his misadventure in Iraq. How different it might have been if Mr. Bush meant what he said about compassionate conservatism or even followed the fiscal discipline of old-fashioned conservatism. How different if he had made a real effort to reach for the bipartisanship he promised in 2002 and so many times since.

Then he could have used last night's speech to celebrate a balanced budget, one in which taxes produce enough money to pay for the nation's genuine needs, including health care for poor children and a rebuilt New Orleans. Instead, Mr. Bush called — again — for his tax cuts to be permanent and threatened to veto bills that contained excessive pork-barrel spending, an idea absent from his agenda when Republicans held Congress...

(Excerpted from the NY TImes on the State of the Union Address of Jan 2008).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 08:56 PM

I can't resist it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 08:57 PM

1,000!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:35 PM

I would expect better things of you Richard !!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists Say Bush Stifles Science and Lets Global Leadership Slip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broad criticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(New York Times editorial)

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

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late and Lame on Warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(From here).

A

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

Old news, but interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White House had no immediate comment Sunday.

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

Chicago Sun-Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lame-Duck Budget


Published: February 5, 2008
(NY Times editorial)


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

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

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

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

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

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



A

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

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



Presidential Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NY Times 02-09-2008)

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

Unworthy Nominees

From THe NEw York TImes

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

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

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

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

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

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

From a Roanoke, Va., paper:

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

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

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

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

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

..."


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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



A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(ABC News)

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

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


I bet GWB really believes this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Letter from a veteran Patent Attorney)


A

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://freegovinfo.info/node/1627

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

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

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

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

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

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

From John Grisham, pot-boiler writer par excellence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full editorial can be read here...


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keuth Olberman. Full article here on MSNBC.

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

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

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

(NYT Editorial)

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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


A

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

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wired.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(NYT)

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

On border policy:

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

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

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

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

On climate change:

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

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

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

---

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



A

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

---

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


A

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

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

Bush to a U.S. General, yesterday.

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

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

;>)


A

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

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

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

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

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

---

No comment could do this justice.


A

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

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

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

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

---

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(AP--March 10 2008)

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

... (WaPo 3-10-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:51 PM

LA Times:

WASHINGTON -- After an acrimonious investigation that spanned four years, the Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to release a detailed critique of the Bush administration's claims in the buildup to war with Iraq, congressional officials said.

The long-delayed document catalogs dozens of prewar assertions by President Bush and other administration officials that proved to be wildly inaccurate about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of banned weapons and pursuit of nuclear arms.

But officials say the report reaches a mixed verdict on the key question of whether the White House misused intelligence to make the case for war.

The document criticizes White House officials for making assertions that failed to reflect disagreements or uncertainties in the underlying intelligence on Iraq, officials said. But the report acknowledges that many claims were consistent with intelligence assessments in circulation at the time.

Because of the nuanced nature of the conclusions, one congressional official familiar with the document said: "The left is not going to be happy. The right is not going to be happy. Nobody is going to be happy."

The report helps culminate a series of investigations that the committee has carried out in connection with the war in Iraq. The "statements report" was stalled repeatedly, in part because of the complexity of the task but also because of partisan disagreements among senators.

The findings are likely to be a source of political discomfort for the White House by reviving the controversy over the Bush administration's case for war. That issue has largely faded from view on Capitol Hill at a time when the White House is sparring with Congress over other intelligence-related issues: CIA interrogation tactics and the scope of the government's wiretapping authority.

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

Brattleboro votes to indict Bush

March 5, 2008
By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff



BRATTLEBORO Ñ Residents in this iconoclastic town cast a symbolic protest vote Tuesday, directing town officials to draw up indictment papers against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for violating their oath of office.

The tally was 2,012 in favor to 1,795 against. It was the second southern Vermont town to adopt the anti-Bush resolution on Vermont's Town Meeting Day, as Marlboro voted earlier in the day 43-25 in favor, with three abstentions.

Organizer Kurt Daims of Brattleboro said he was disappointed at the relatively close margin of victory, which came during exceptionally heavy voter turnout during Vermont's presidential primary.

"It was a very difficult thing for the people of Brattleboro to do. I think it's brave for Brattleboro to do it. Brattleboro did just fine," Daims said.

"But I'm disappointed. I was really hoping and expecting a wider margin," he said.

Voters who were questioned after they voted said they recognized it as a protest vote, and a way of registering their frustration with the Bush administration and its controversial policies, most notably the invasion of Iraq.

But Daims and other organizers said they hoped the Brattleboro vote would set an example for other towns and communities across the country to say no to the Bush presidency.

Barry Aleshnik said the group had been contacted by towns across the country, and that a "Brattleboro template" was being drawn up to be distributed to interested communities.

"We got a letter from south Jersey, saying that 'Brattleboro will be setting an example, and that it could set off a ripple effect across this angry nation,'" Aleshnik read.

"We can be proud of Brattleboro for being a model of what needs to be done and what needs to be stated," Aleshnik said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM

Editorial
Radio Fear America

Published: March 11, 2008
Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia read the funnies over the radio to cheer up New Yorkers during a newspaper strike. President Franklin Roosevelt gave "fireside chats" to bolster Americans during the depression. President Bush used his radio address on Saturday to try to scare Americans into believing they have to sacrifice their rights and their values to combat terrorism. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:16 PM

The Bush Tradgedy

Check out this short video on Bush's favorite painting.

http://www.slatev.com/?from=rss

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM

Amos, Blackwater gets the most attention but Titan Inc. is the torure wing of private army contractors.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM

Last I head of them, their biggest inventory of Iraq contracting personnel were in translations, not interrogation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

They're translating the watered-down muffled sounds coming out of a water-boarded victims mouth.

Glug, glug, glug = Gulag, gulag, gulag

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:25 AM

WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by critics as torture.

A largely party-line vote of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to override the president.

Bush maintains that the United States does not torture, but has refused to discuss interrogation techniques, saying that doing so could tip off terrorists.

The CIA has acknowledged using a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding on three terrorism suspects, including accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but says it stopped using that method in 2003.

Waterboarding has been condemned by many U.S. lawmakers, human rights groups and foreign countries as a form of torture.

In voting to sustain Bush's veto, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, attacked Democrats for failing to approve a stalled Senate-passed bill that would expand the government's ability to track foreign targets.

"Rather than holding a vote to give terrorists our (interrogation) playbook, Congress should be voting to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to spy on them," Hoekstra said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said Bush's veto had degraded the country's moral standing, undermined its international credibility and could expose U.S. military and intelligence personnel to the treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM

"Just one year into his tenure as CENTCOM commander, Fallon resigned today, and you can read into it nothing more than a resignation in protest.

Sure, he'll try to put a good face on it, as a loyal Admiral, and the Pentagon will insist that he was stepping aside to help the team. But that's not the case. The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq has taken precedence over the war on terror, and the administration has put General Petraeus out there to make the case for our military policy, not his boss, Admiral Fallon.

Who can forget the video of Petraeus saying he didn't know if the war in Iraq made America more or less safe? It was the one moment that crystallized the fact that Petraeus' responsibility began and ended at Iraq's borders. Yet, he was put out there as the face of our military policy -- a job which should have been Fallon's.

The only reason -- ONLY reason -- that Fallon wasn't put out there was because he didn't believe Iraq was making America safer, and knew that Iraq was a drain on the war in Afghanistan. He wasn't going to put his neck out there and repeatedly shill for the administration. At the same time, like many brass, he was going to give his best shot, behind the scenes, to change the policy.

Now, it's become clear that the policy won't change. So, today, Admiral Fallon essentially said, "Forget this. I'm out of here."

Another voice of reason bites the dust." (Huffington Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:55 AM

Amos,

How DARE you print this pro-Bush propaganda!


"The long-delayed document catalogs dozens of prewar assertions by President Bush and other administration officials that proved to be wildly inaccurate about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of banned weapons and pursuit of nuclear arms.

But officials say the report reaches a mixed verdict on the key question of whether the White House misused intelligence to make the case for war.

The document criticizes White House officials for making assertions that failed to reflect disagreements or uncertainties in the underlying intelligence on Iraq, officials said. But the report acknowledges that many claims were consistent with intelligence assessments in circulation at the time"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:31 AM

Hey, even a chimp looks good once in agreat while, when just the right angle is taken.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On War with Iran and Other Bush Possibles
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM

Dan Froomkin, writing a lengthy opinion piece in the Washington Post provides sober food for thought on the possibility that the resignation of Admiral Wm Fallon is one of multiple indications that the Bushies want to resurrect the idea of warring on Iran. It is an interesting and thoughtful piece that touches as well on numerous other aspects of the Administrations current manuvers, including the veto of the anti-torture act. Too long to extract here, but strongly recommended reading. Five pages.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

As chairman, Conyers is taking the lead on a groundbreaking civil lawsuit in which the committee is asking a federal judge to force White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to comply with subpoenas the committee served as part of its investigation of the Bush administrationÕs firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

ÒThe [administration] was thumbing their nose at the legal process,Ó Conyers said in an interview with Politico. ÒAs commander in chief, [Bush] thinks he is above the law.Ó



Conyers says he ÒdidnÕt have any choiceÓ but to file the suit after Attorney General Michael Mukasey made it clear that the Justice Department would not prosecute the HouseÕs contempt charges against Bolten and Miers.

Predictably, the suit has not gone over well with Republicans, who argue that the two aides are protected by executive privilege. One aide to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called the lawsuit nothing more than Òpandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists.Ó

ConyersÕ determination to proceed is just the latest sign that he is not afraid to stir the pot.

From his chairmanÕs perch, Conyers has launched an ambitious oversight agenda, holding hearings on the U.S. attorney firings, voting irregularities in several states and several other hot-button topics. He has been warmer than most House Democrats to the idea of exploring impeachment proceedings against Bush. Legislatively, he has introduced bills to ban racial profiling by law enforcement officers and to provide for universal health care.

On the contentious issue of an update to electronic surveillance laws Ñ another key committee flash point Ñ Conyers has opposed granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided the government in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Conyers said he would be willing to reconsider his opposition if the Bush administration would make available full details of the program, something it has so far refused to do.

ÒThere is no case in American jurisprudence in which it had been held that retroactive immunity would apply if you donÕt know what it was you were granting immunity for,Ó Conyers said.


... (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:03 PM

The war in Afghanistan is going precisely as planned:

The biggest drug lord in the country is the brother of the US appointed President of Afghanistan.

The opium production is up 86% over the last 6 years.

Most of the heroin in the US now comes from Afghanistan, not India or South East Asia.

The biggest drug lord family in the US continues to make great strides with the assistance of US troops protecting the interests of the Bush family and associates.

Bless the memory of J. Webb who gave his life in exposing the Bush family drug cartel.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

Washington Post:

A Failing Campaign
By swearing off military action, a U.S. commander weakens the diplomatic offensive against Iran.
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A16

ADM. WILLIAM J. Fallon, the U.S. Middle East commander who resigned on Tuesday, was portrayed in a recent Esquire magazine article as the main obstacle to a potential decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iran. Though the article seems to have precipitated Adm. Fallon's resignation, the assertion was ludicrous on more than one count.

First, there is very little impetus among senior Bush administration officials for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next 10 months. More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives.

In fact, notwithstanding the passage last week of a third U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution, the diplomatic offensive against Iran is flagging. Not only has the threat of U.S. force been undermined, but a December National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had stopped work on the weaponization branch of its nuclear work gave numerous governments an excuse to oppose the sort of tough sanctions that might work.

The latest resolution contains mostly symbolic steps; efforts by France and Britain to push the European Union into adopting its own measures so far have gone nowhere. Though there are signs of some discontent inside Iran with the hard-line government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, today's parliamentary election will be a match between conservatives because of the exclusion of hundreds of opposition candidates.

This doesn't mean the Bush administration should abandon diplomacy or prepare for war. As we have said, we oppose an attack on the Iranian nuclear program by this administration. Not all the steps that might be taken against Iran have been tried: For example, the administration is now considering new sanctions against the Iranian central bank, which could enhance what has been a modestly successful effort to squeeze Tehran's access to the international financial system. The administration should continue to press for action by the European Union, which could adopt measures that would seriously threaten the Iranian economy if the governments of E.U. countries were to choose to stop protecting their own business executives. Democratic presidential candidates are proposing broad bilateral negotiations with the Islamist regime, although an established bilateral channel in Iraq has produced no results.

Certainly, a new U.S. military chief in the Middle East should be prepared to take military action against Iran and should avoid ostentatious posturing to the contrary. That readiness, even if never acted on, is essential to checking the surging ambitions of the current Iranian regime.



******************************************************************


Amos: in case you don't read the entire article, here is a point YOU need to be aware of"

"More to the point, it's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:41 PM

Being a "credible threat" is certainly an important, if very small, part of a diplomatic armamentum, Bruce. No disagreement there. I submit for reflection, however, that there are other kinds of transactions that have more deeply binding, longer-lasting, and less destructive results in gaining human compliance. One, for example, is being a credible ally. Another is being a credible example of success. Another is being a credible game-maker, the creator of the game to be played. Another is being a credible mystery. None of these require dropping bombs on civilians. Maybe we need to stretch our view of things a bit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:22 PM

A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation today, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening the impasse on a fundamental national security issue.

Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.

The legislation, approved 213-197, would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.

But it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal protections to the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and now face about 40 lawsuits alleging they had breached customers' privacy rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 08:02 AM

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A03

The FBI has increasingly used administrative orders to obtain the personal
records of U.S. citizens rather than foreigners implicated in terrorism or
counterintelligence investigations, and at least once it relied on such
orders to obtain records that a special intelligence-gathering court had
deemed protected by the First Amendment, according to two government
audits released yesterday.

The episode was outlined in a Justice Department report that concluded the
FBI had abused its intelligence-gathering privileges by issuing
inadequately documented "national security letters" from 2003 to 2006,
after which changes were put in place that the report called sound.

A report a year ago by the Justice Department's inspector general
disclosed that abuses involving national security letters had occurred
from 2003 through 2005 and helped provoke the changes. But the report
makes it clear that the abuses persisted in 2006 and disclosed that 60
percent of the nearly 50,000 security letters issued that year by the FBI
targeted Americans.

snip

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:40 AM

Fred Kaplan in WaPo writes "If further proof were needed that President Bush resides in a dream world, he settled the issue on Thursday definitively.
Speaking by videoconference with U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan about the challenges posed by war, corruption, and the poppy trade, the president unleashed this comment:

I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you É in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.

Go ahead, dear reader, pour yourself a stiff one before trudging on.
Someone with such a jaunty vision of warÑconcocted from who knows what brew of Rudyard Kipling, John Wayne, and sheer fantasyÑhas no business leading young men and women into real-life battle, no business serving as the armed forces' commander in chief.
It only compounds the insult to reflect that Bush, when he was younger and not employed anywhere, passed up his chance for a romantic fling with danger in the jungles of Southeast Asia.
Many U.S. soldiers, Marines, and aid workers in Afghanistan (and Iraq) are proud of the work they're doing. They volunteered for duty. They accept the hardships and tolerate the sacrifices to a degree that's truly awesome to behold. But I suspect very few of these men and women see themselves as indulging in enviable adventures from The Green Berets or Gunga Din."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 08:50 AM

The Times offers an intelligent analysis of Bush's economic delusions and false notions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM

A blistering editorial analysis of Bush's two-faced falseness on intelligence bill discussions in the NYT today ("The Intelligence Coverup" summarizes his aspergic banditry with this querulous precis:

"We were glad the House ignored his bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit, there is no rush to pass a law.

The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law Ñ like the House bill Ñ would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 09:13 AM

Mister Bush's recent series of unseemly merriments in public places, including singing a song, tap dancing, and other ebullient anomalies, brings a remark from Ms Dowd:

"Maybe the president is just putting on a good face to keep up American morale, the way Herbert Hoover did after the crash of Õ29, when he continued to dress in a tuxedo for dinner.

Or maybe the old Andover cheerleader really believes his own cheers, and that prosperity will turn up any time now, just like the W.M.D. in Iraq.

Or perhaps itÕs a Freudian trip. Now that heÕs mucked up the world and the country, he can finally stop rebelling against his dad and relax in the certainty that the Bush name will forever be associated with crash-and-burn presidencies.

Whatever the explanation, itÕs plumb loco."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:50 AM

Some harder numbers:

"Mr. Bush went on to paint a false picture of the economy. He dismissed virtually every proposal Congress is working on to alleviate the mortgage crisis, sticking to his administration's inadequate ideas. And despite the rush of serious problems — frozen credit markets, millions of impending mortgage defaults, solvency issues at banks, a plunging dollar — he said that a major source of uncertainty today is whether his tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, would be extended.

This was too far afield of reality to be dismissed as simple cheerleading. It points to the pressing need for a coherent plan to steer through what some economists are now predicting could be a severe downturn. Mr. Bush's denial of the economic truth underscores the need for Congress to push forward with solutions to the mortgage crisis — especially bankruptcy reform to help defaulting homeowners. Lawmakers also must prepare to execute, in case it is needed, a government rescue of people whose homes are now worth less than they borrowed to buy them.

Mr. Bush said he was optimistic because the economy's "foundation is solid" as measured by employment, wages, productivity, exports and the federal deficit. He was wrong on every count. On some, he has been wrong for quite a while.

Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush — which it is safe to assume is now over — produced job growth of 4.2 percent. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945.

Mr. Bush also talked approvingly of the recent unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. A low rate is good news when it indicates a robust job market. The unemployment rate ticked down last month because hundreds of thousands of people dropped out of the work force altogether. Worse, long-term unemployment, of six months or more, hit 17.5 percent. We'd expect that in the depths of a recession. It is unprecedented at the onset of one.

Mr. Bush was wrong to say wages are rising. On Friday morning, the day he spoke, the government reported that wages failed to outpace inflation in February, for the fifth straight month. Productivity growth has also weakened markedly in the past two years, a harbinger of a lower overall standard of living for Americans.

Exports have surged of late, but largely on the back of a falling dollar. The weaker dollar makes American exports cheaper, but it also pushes up oil prices. Potentially far more serious, a weakening dollar also reduces the Federal Reserve's flexibility to steady the economy.

Finally, Mr. Bush's focus on the size of the federal budget deficit ignores that annual government borrowing comes on top of existing debt. Publicly held federal debt will be up by a stunning 76 percent by the end of his presidency. Paying back the money means less to spend on everything else for a very long time."


It raises the question, in my mind, how delusory can we get and still survive?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:53 AM

"Boy George crashed the family station wagon into the globe and now the global economy. Yet the more terrified Americans get, the more bizarrely carefree he seems. The former oilman reacted with cocky ignorance a couple of weeks ago when a reporter informed him that gas was barreling toward $4 a gallon.

In on-the-record sessions with reporters — and more candid off-the-record ones — he has seemed goofily happy in recent weeks, prickly no more but strangely liberated and ebullient."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

The Casualties of War

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

Great interview on npr today

Malachi duped the White House into a rosy Iraq war scenario and rates as the greatest con man in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:30 AM

Richard Cohen, a liberal hawk with regrets writing in Salon magazine, gives an in depth apologia for the flaws in his reasoning in supporting the Bush administration's war. A good read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:30 AM

Excerpt from NYT editorializing on the Bear Stearns-JP Morgan-Fed bailout deal.


". Bear Stearns isn't enormous. It doesn't take deposits from the public. Yet the Fed believed that letting it implode could unleash a domino effect among other banks, and the Fed provided a $30 billion guarantee for JPMorgan to snap it up.

Compared to the cold shoulder given to struggling homeowners, the cash and attention lavished by the government on the nation's financial titans provides telling insight into the priorities of the Bush administration. It's not simply a matter of fairness, though. The Fed is probably right to be doing all it can think of to avoid worse damage than the economy is already suffering. But if the objective is to encourage prudent banking and keep Wall Street's wizards from periodically driving financial markets over the cliff, it is imperative to devise a remuneration system for bankers that puts more of their skin in the game."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM

"It has been five years since the United States invaded Iraq and the world watched in horror as what seemed like a swift victory by modern soldiers and 21st-century weapons became a nightmare of spiraling violence, sectarian warfare, insurgency, roadside bombings and ghastly executions. Iraq's economy was destroyed, and America's reputation was shredded in the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Central Intelligence Agency's secret prisons.


These were hard and very costly lessons for a country that had emerged from the cold war as the world's sole remaining superpower. Shockingly, President Bush seems to have learned none of them.



In a speech on Wednesday, the start of the war's sixth year, Mr. Bush was stuck in the Neverland of his "Mission Accomplished" speech. In his mind's eye, the invasion was a "remarkable display of military effectiveness" that will be studied for generations. The war has placed the nation on the brink of a great "strategic victory" in Iraq and against terrorists the world over.

Even now, Mr. Bush talks of Iraqi troops who "took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq" — when everyone knows that the American pro-consul, L. Paul Bremer III, overrode Mr. Bush's national security team and, with the president's blessing, made the catastrophically bad decision to disband the Iraqi Army and police force.

Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that Iraq was on the verge of "full-blown sectarian warfare" when he boldly ordered an escalation of forces around Baghdad last year. In fact, sectarian warfare was raging for months while Mr. Bush refused to listen to the generals, who wanted a new military approach, or to the vast majority of Americans, who just wanted him to end the war.

All evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bush is still trying to make it seem as if Al Qaeda in Iraq was connected to the Al Qaeda that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. He tried to justify an unjustifiable war by ticking off benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein, but he somehow managed to forget the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Dick Cheney was equally deep in denial on Monday when he declared at a news conference in Baghdad that it has all been "well worth the effort."..."


Ptui.

(Above is from a NYT Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:14 PM

"...President Bush likes to talk about not being swayed by public opinion, especially the views of Democrats. At a news conference last December, he said the most important criterion for picking a president is Òwhether or not somebodyÕs got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions.Ó

Unhappily for the country, we have learned that Mr. Bush has no idea when standing on principle becomes blind stubbornness and then destructive obsession. So it goes with his choice to run the Justice DepartmentÕs Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury.

In a lower job in that office, Mr. Bradbury signed off on two secret legal memos authorizing torture in American detention camps. The first approved waterboarding, among other things. When Congress outlawed waterboarding, the other memo assured Mr. Bush that he could ignore the law.

Mr. Bradbury is widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as such a toxic choice that he will never be confirmed. The Senate has already refused to do so twice. Still, Mr. Bush clings to this lost cause, snarling the confirmation process for hundreds of nominees and crippling parts of the federal regulatory apparatus. ..."

ANother blight in the ruins of the Oval Office...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

KRistof on the dumbing down of the nation's culture:

"Alas, when a politician has the double disadvantage of obvious intelligence and an elite education and then on top of that tries to educate the public on a complex issue Ñ as Al Gore did about climate change Ñ then that candidate is derided as arrogant and out of touch.

The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill OÕReilly. ItÕs enough to make one doubt Darwin.

ThereÕs no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level. And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movementÕs epitome Ñ and its fruit."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:34 AM

The Dilbert Strategy

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2008

Anyone who has worked in a large organization — or, for that matter, reads the comic strip "Dilbert" — is familiar with the "org chart" strategy. To hide their lack of any actual ideas about what to do, managers sometimes make a big show of rearranging the boxes and lines that say who reports to whom.

You now understand the principle behind the Bush administration's new proposal for financial reform, which will be formally announced today: it's all about creating the appearance of responding to the current crisis, without actually doing anything substantive

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:39 PM

Vice President Cheney was asked about the burden of the Iraq War on our military. His answer? George Bush bears the greatest burden of the war.

4,000 American troops who gave their lives? The Vice President summed it up: "They volunteered."

When I read the Vice President's comments, I was reminded of what Marine Corps 3-star General Gregory Newbold, the former Operations Director at the Pentagon, said about the war in Iraq:

"The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

(From a Dem fundrasiing letter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:38 AM

Times slams Pentagon's waste and cost overruns.

"President Bush and a far-too-compliant Congress have already wasted more than $600 billion on the disastrous Iraq war. Since Mr. Bush took office, the Pentagon's weapons acquisition budget has doubled from $790 billion in 2000 to $1.6 trillion last year.

Now, in stark terms, we see that an unseemly percentage of that money has gone to wasteful cost overruns and delays. Even when weapons systems are finally delivered, investigators say, far too many fail to deliver the capabilities promised. One example: the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile recorded four failures in four flight tests in 2007.

Figures compiled by the Government Accountability Office showed that 95 major weapons systems — including ballistic missile defense, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship — have exceeded their original budgets by a mind-numbing total of $295 billion in the past seven years. In 2000, new weapons were running 6 percent over initial cost estimates; by 2007, that figure had skyrocketed to 26 percent.

Not only did Mr. Bush and his former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, allow contractors to run amok in Iraq, they let them run amok in the halls of the Pentagon. The G.A.O. cites the Pentagon's heavy reliance on contractors as one reason for the gross mismanagement of acquisition programs. The Pentagon also let contractors submit unrealistically low cost estimates, rushed development of new systems — causing costly mistakes that had to be fixed — and made too many changes after projects were under way, according to the G.A.O. and other experts"...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

President Bush likes to talk about not being swayed by public opinion, especially the views of Democrats. At a news conference last December, he said the most important criterion for picking a president is "whether or not somebody's got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions."

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

Go to The Board » Unhappily for the country, we have learned that Mr. Bush has no idea when standing on principle becomes blind stubbornness and then destructive obsession. So it goes with his choice to run the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury.

In a lower job in that office, Mr. Bradbury signed off on two secret legal memos authorizing torture in American detention camps. The first approved waterboarding, among other things. When Congress outlawed waterboarding, the other memo assured Mr. Bush that he could ignore the law.

Mr. Bradbury is widely viewed on both sides of the aisle as such a toxic choice that he will never be confirmed. The Senate has already refused to do so twice. Still, Mr. Bush clings to this lost cause, snarling the confirmation process for hundreds of nominees and crippling parts of the federal regulatory apparatus. ...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:16 PM

"I MEAN WHAT I SAY !"
GWB


As told by the people in the room,
When a report that Saddam might be in a Baghdad suburb and capable of being bombed by Stealth aircraft...
George said he would not attack for 48 hours and by God I gave my word.

30 minutes later Dick Cheney had suceeded in over riding GWB's objection and it was Dick who actually ordered the bombing 30 hours premature to George's promise.

GWB was mute and only nodded in silent agreement to Cheney and the planes were cleared to bomb what turned out to be a popular family restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

You can often tell if someone understands how wrong their actions are by the lengths to which they go to rationalize them. It took 81 pages of twisted legal reasoning to justify President BushÕs decision to ignore federal law and international treaties and authorize the abuse and torture of prisoners.

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board È
Related
Õ03 U.S. Memo Approved Harsh Interrogations (April 2, 2008)
Text of the Memo (pdf): Part One | Part Two
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (235) È
Eighty-one spine-crawling pages in a memo that might have been unearthed from the dusty archives of some authoritarian regime and has no place in the annals of the United States. It is must reading for anyone who still doubts whether the abuse of prisoners were rogue acts rather than calculated policy.

The March 14, 2003, memo was written by John C. Yoo, then a lawyer for the Justice Department. He earlier helped draft a memo that redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts against Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

The purpose of the March 14 memo was equally insidious: to make sure that the policy makers who authorized those acts, or the subordinates who carried out the orders, were not convicted of any crime. The list of laws that Mr. YooÕs memo sought to circumvent is long: federal laws against assault, maiming, interstate stalking, war crimes and torture; international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Yoo, who, inexplicably, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley, never directly argues that it is legal to chain prisoners to the ceiling for days, sexually abuse them or subject them to waterboarding Ñ all things done by American jailers.

His primary argument, in which he reaches back to 19th-century legal opinions justifying the execution of Indians who rejected the reservation, is that the laws didnÕt apply to Mr. Bush because he is commander in chief. He cited an earlier opinion from Bush administration lawyers that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Conventions Ñ a decision that put every captured American soldier at grave risk.

Then, should someone reject his legal reasoning and decide to file charges, Mr. Yoo offered a detailed blueprint for escaping accountability.

American and international laws against torture prohibit making a prisoner fear Òimminent death.Ó For most people, waterboarding Ñ making a prisoner feel as if he is about to drown Ñ would fit. But Mr. Yoo argues that the statutes apply only if the interrogators actually intended to kill the prisoner. Since waterboarding simulates drowning, there is no Òthreat of imminent death.Ó

After the memoÕs general contents were first reported, the Pentagon said in early 2004 that it was Òno longer operative.Ó Reading the full text, released this week, makes it startlingly clear how deeply the Bush administration corrupted the law and the role of lawyers to give cover to existing and plainly illegal policies. (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:25 PM

"The tales of regulatory negligence by the Bush administration never seem to end. An investigation into the death of six coal miners and three would-be rescuers last summer in Utah faults the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration for failing to properly oversee the high-risk mining technique that led to the collapse of the Crandall Canyon Mine.


The finding, by the Labor DepartmentÕs inspector general, presents a stark warning of possible future disasters now that the coal industry is booming. Companies are increasingly turning to the riskier production methods used at Crandall Canyon Ñ techniques that demand more aggressive vigilance to ensure minersÕ safety.

The mine agency lacked a rigorous oversight plan required by law to monitor roof safety at Crandall Canyon as workers there conducted Òretreat miningÓ Ñ winnowing coal pillars bracing the mine ceiling Ñ to extract as much coal as possible. Mining-induced seismic jolts eventually obliterated these supports.

The Bush administrationÕs patronage-driven penchant for appointing industry executives to regulate their own industry is well known. So are the costs. In the Crandall Canyon investigation, the inspector general pointedly questioned whether the mine agency was Òfree from undue influence by the mine operator.Ó" ...

---

Given that the FAA under the Biush Administration has also been ignoring flight safety violations and airworthiness problems in SWA aircraft, it is beginning to look lie George Bush has been responsible for more American deaths than Al Queda...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:17 PM

Letter to the NY Times:

"It's high time that the authors of the Bush administration's legal recipe book for torture be brought out of the kitchen and into the courtroom. Yet despite volumes of highly credible evidence of human rights crimes, or even war crimes, a negligent Congress continues to fail miserably in its responsibility to mandate proper investigations into these cruel policies.

The United States' moral and political standing in the world have completely eroded, and legitimate prosecutions of crimes against humanity against the United States have been compromised. Congress must finally face its own complicity in torture with concrete measures — not shortsighted hearings — by ordering a full, independent investigation into how torture became United States modus operandi and holding those responsible accountable. "
Curt Goering

Deputy Executive Director

Amnesty International USA

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

"Gen. Odom told the committee that the last time he had testified about Iraq was in January of 2007. He had been asked about the "surge". He said, "Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims."

Gen. Odom said, "Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant in several other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic."

Odom went on to say, "No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities."

As for the Bush claim that Sunni Muslims in western Iraq and Fallujah were now siding with the US (the government never mentions that they are being handsomely paid to do so), Odom said,

"Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime."

Odom said America was buying Sunni backing in just one region for $250,000 a day, and he warned, "we don't own these people, we rent them."

Then Odom let fly a real bomb. "As an aside," he told the committee, in a statement that you won't read in your daily paper or hear on the TV news, "it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran."

Saying the Bush administration's argument that it could build a stable democratic government by working with local strongmen in Iraq, he challenged the senators to "Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. "

The general's conclusion: "We face a deteriorating political situation with an over-extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy."

Odom instead called for immediate withdrawal, "rapidly but in good order." He said, "Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq."

He said if Bush and Cheney would simply stop threatening "regime change" by force as a policy, and in specific if it stopped threatening Iran, it would lead Iran to reduce its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to change its policy toward Iraq, too. The US "needs to make Iran feel more secure," he said.

Odom took the occasion to debunk arguments against early and rapid withdrawal. To those who say the US needs to continue to train Iraqi forces, he said, "Training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills...."

More here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 09:48 PM

Nader denounces 'two-party dictatorship'
Colin Kavanaugh
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
Forget Clinton, Obama and McCain.

Ralph Nader says he's the only candidate who has the experience, change and straight-talk to be the next president of the United States.

On Saturday at the National Constitution Center, Nader, an independent presidential candidate, spoke against corporate greed and the current "two-party dictatorship" running the government, referring to the Republican and Democratic parties.

At a rally of more than 200 supporters, Nader said that neither party was addressing the most important issues facing Americans.

During the press conference and the rally for supporters afterward, Nader spoke for two hours on the logistics of his current campaign, single-payer health insurance, the economy, foreign policy and the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Referring to Bush as a "fugitive from justice," Nader mocked the Democrat-controlled Congress for not moving forward with impeachment hearings against "the most impeachable president in American history."

On education, Nader blamed the Department of Education for "standardizing minds" with its emphasis on standardized testing and said tuition at public universities should be more affordable, or even free.

"Students should be able to get adequate student loans from the government," Nader said. "They should be able to afford college without risk to their futures."

Nader proposed paying for such a program by removing troops from Iraq, and ending the "military-industrial complex."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:52 AM

The Bush administration has a well-known aversion to regulating big business. As it turns out, it is also reluctant to prosecute corporations that break the law. Federal prosecutors have been regularly offering settlements to companies for wrongdoing that, in previous administrations, would likely have led to criminal charges. It is another disturbing example of how this administration has taken the justice out of the Justice Department.

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

Go to The Board » Eric Lichtblau reported in The Times on Wednesday that during the last three years, the department has put off prosecuting more than 50 corporations on charges ranging from bribery to fraud. Instead, it has been entering into so-called deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements, in which companies are allowed to pay fines and hire monitors to watch over them.

Defenders say these deals save the government time and the expense of going to trial and avoid doing unnecessary harm to corporations and their employees. The cost to the public and the rule of law is too high.

If corporations believe that they can negotiate their way out of a prosecution, the deterrent effect of the criminal law will inevitably be weakened....
(New York TImes)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:59 AM

Any remaining hope for a modern, efficient and precise census in 2010 has cratered, brought low by managerial incompetence and the administration's relentless antipathy for effective government.

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

Go to The Board » The latest problem is the Census Bureau's failure— after nearly four years and almost $600 million — to develop a reliable hand-held computer system for counting millions of Americans who are not counted by mail. Census takers will now have to use far less accurate paper and pencil. At a hearing last week Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told lawmakers that the agency would need up to an additional $232 million this year to ramp up systems to accommodate the paper count, including new forms, instructions and training materials and redesigned management and logistical support.

Congress had already been briefed on the hand-held mess. What came as a shock was Mr. Gutierrez's message that the White House insists on cutting other Commerce Department programs to come up with new money for the census. Most of the targeted cuts are from programs the White House tried to kill or reduce in 2008, but were rescued by Congress: such as spending for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, marine sanctuaries, pollution control, Chesapeake Bay restoration and economic development grants for Appalachia.

It is petty for the White House to use the census as a way to challenge the outcome of a lost budget battle. It is unconscionable to hold the census hostage to such demands when administration officials are the ones responsible for the Census Bureau's dysfunction.

In the next few weeks, President Bush will request an emergency appropriation for Iraq. Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, must fight to attach the census money to that bill; the amount comes to less than one day's spending for the war.

(Ibid)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

Why is paper and pencil less accurate? It's a human doing it either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:31 PM

Good point, Jack. The reason is that paper forms have to be entered into the system by keyboardists -- a second human point of alteration of data.

On a handheld,t he data is transmitted electronically to the computing system, which makes the error rate less, because computer transfers do automatic error-checking of variosu kinds for every packet and file they exchange. Humans delude themselves more easily than electronic systems. Except when sunspots flare.


A

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

"...But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged ÒprogressÓ is Òfragile and reversible.Ó (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the generalÕs hindquarters next time that, true to MurphyÕs Law, things turn sour again.

Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.

Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?

Not an apt comparison, I admit.

Custer only sent 258 soldiers to their deaths."

Dick Cavett
APril 11 08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:17 PM

"Mr. BushÕs capacity for denial is limitless. Perhaps he believes that the next president will continue this misadventure without any end in mind, let alone in sight. Even then he owes it to his successor to use his remaining nine months in office to try to address IraqÕs myriad problems. That will not excuse Mr. BushÕs serial failures. But it may increase the chances for the inevitable withdrawal to be as orderly as possible.

Mr. Bush has all the time he needs, but IraqÕs suffering civilians do not, and neither do its masses of refugees, the bloodied and strained United States armed forces, or the American public."


NYT Editorial
4-12-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 06:53 PM

"People are sick of this Bush-bashing stuff."
-- Right-wing activist Mary Matalin, 4/13/08


"President Bush's job approval rating, at 28%, is the worst of his administration. It's just 4 points above Richard Nixon's lowest rating and 6 points above the all-time lowest approval rating in Gallup history, 22% for Harry Truman back in 1952."
-- USA Today, 4/11/08

Also of recent interest:

A scandal of misinformation in high-school texts by right-wing distortions.

And: "ADMINISTRATION -- IRAQI PARLIAMENT WILL VOTE ON LONG-TERM AGREEMENT, BUT CONGRESS CANNOT: Last year, President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship," which could help clear the way for the erection of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told Reuters yesterday that the Iraqi parliament will vote on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): "There isn't any hidden agenda here. This agreement will be transparent, it has to be presented to the representatives of the Iraqi people, the parliament, to ratify it," Zebari said. ButÊlast week, Amb. Ryan Crocker told the Senate that the SOFA was written within the United States as an "executive agreement," not requiring Senate approval, as traditional treaties do. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the framework, suggesting that the White House "can't submit it to Congress," even though presidents in the past, including Ronald Reagan, have asked for congressional approval of SOFAs. Zebari said that parliamentary debate over the agreement would be "for Iraq's good," adding, "We need that continued engagement."


IRAQ -- CHENEY FALSELY CLAIMS AL QAEDA WILL 'ACQUIRE CONTROL' OF IRAQ'S OIL RESOURCES IF U.S. WITHDRAWS:Ê Last Thursday, Vice President Cheney appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show and fear-mongered about the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq. "[I]f al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of a significant oil resource," he told Hannity. This claim appears to be emerging as an administration talking point about the dangers of withdrawal. On March 19, President Bush also warned that out of "chaos in Iraq" could emerge an "emboldened al Qaeda with access to IraqÕs oil resources." In reality, however, it's highly unlikely that al Qaeda would take control of Iraq's oil if the United States redeployed. First, the vast majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites, who want little to do with a fringe Sunni group like al Qaeda. Second, 70 percent of the country's oil is in southern Iraq -- e.g. Basra -- where there are strong Shi'ite strongholds.ÊDespite Cheney and Bush's claims, U.S. withdrawal would not mean that al Qaeda would suddenly be able to defeat at least three different powerful Shi'ite militias (Mahdi Army, Badr Organization, and Fadhila's gangs) to seize control over Iraq's oil."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:33 AM

Gonzo unemployed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:41 PM

On Friday, GeorgeÊBush told ABC NewsÊhe personally approved of the approval of torture - including waterboarding - by Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

"Yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

In the wake of this shocking and appalling confession, we've come to a historic moment where every American - and every Member of Congress - must take a stand.

Either you're for torture or you're against it. And if you're against it, you must support the only Constitutional remedy for a President and Vice President who commit war crimes: impeachment.

Tell Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney for Torture
http://www.democrats.com/impeach-for-torture

Dr. Martin Luther King famously said of the Vietnam War, "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

When our President and Vice President personally approve torture, that time is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 10:06 PM

What would YOU do with three trillion dollars?


Grim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM

WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - About 300,000 U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, but about half receive no care, an independent study said on Thursday.

The study by the RAND Corp. also estimated that another 320,000 troops have sustained a possible traumatic brain injury during deployment. But researchers could not say how many of those cases were serious or required treatment.

Billed as the first large-scale nongovernmental survey of its kind, the study found that stress disorder and depression afflict 18.5 percent of the more than 1.5 million U.S. forces who have deployed to the two war zones.

The numbers are roughly in line with previous studies. A February assessment by the U.S. Army that showed 17.9 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from acute stress, depression or anxiety in 2007, down from 19.1 percent in 2006.

But the 500-page RAND study, based in part on interviews with more than 1,900 soldiers, sailors and Marines, also said that only half of troops suffering debilities receive care. And in half of those cases, the care is only minimally adequate.

"There is a major health crisis facing those men and women who have served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Terri Tanielian, a RAND researcher who helped head the study.

"Unless they receive appropriate and effective care for these mental health conditions, there will be long-term consequences for them and for the nation."

---

I made the point repeatedly in earlier threads relating to the Bush War that this huge cost to our national human resource was never predicted byany of the men who should have known better, and they left this tragic aftermath to be cared for by the careless winds of chance. This is cruelty unbecoming a dictator.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:30 AM

MEanwhile, up Sonoma way, there's humor in the vineyard yet:

"Congressional candidate asks for papal exorcism of Bush, Cheney
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/17/2008 01:15:20 AM PDT




Just hours after Pope Benedict XVI arrived at the White House on Wednesday, North Coast congressional hopeful Mitch Clogg pleaded for his help.

"Your Holiness," Clogg wrote on his blog, "please exorcise the president."

Clogg, who also called for a papal exorcism on Vice President Dick Cheney, is challenging Congressman Mike Thompson for his seat representing the North Coast in the Capitol.

On Wednesday, Clogg elaborated on his papal plea from his Mendocino office, talked about why at 69 he's throwing his cap into the congressional ring and why he feels Thompson is unfit to represent his district.

Identified on the June primary ballot as a public interest journalist, Clogg said he's had too many jobs to name: White collar jobs, blue collar jobs and government jobs, but he's always enjoyed researching and writing. The recent note on his blog, he said, wasn't meant too seriously and was aimed in part to highlight a piece of his district integrally involved in the papal White House visit.

"That was a wise crack, but the fact of the matter is that it is a wine produced in this district that is getting poured in honor of the pope," Clogg said, adding that the wine is Sonoma's Sebastiani Vineyards and Winery's 2005 Dutton Ranch Chardonnay.

While he labeled the post as a wise crack, Clogg didn't entirely dismiss it.

"These men are evil," he said of Bush and Cheney. "It's not just a
bad president and vice president, we've never had anything like this where the country is being run by a criminal syndicate. It seems like these guys ought to be tarred and feathered, literally, on their way to prison."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

"In the name of fighting terrorism — and with a clear goal of avoiding accountability — the Bush administration has imposed a level of secrecy on its operations that has no place in a democracy.

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

Go to The Board » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (54) »
One of its most disturbing tactics has been seeking early dismissal of lawsuits alleging serious government misconduct, claiming they would reveal national security secrets. The Senate is now considering a good bill that would rein in this misuse of the state secrets privilege and give victims fair access to the courts and the public a fuller understanding of their government's actions.

In recent years, a number of important lawsuits have raised credible allegations of government abuses including torture, kidnapping, rendition and domestic eavesdropping. All too often, judges have blocked these suits without examining how and why going forward would compromise the nation's security.

Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the administration undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks and balances. It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the State Secrets Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder for this or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid exposure of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes important safeguards. But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would require them to first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is invoked — rather than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed. ...

" NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:31 AM

I remember as little as eight years back, a certain sense of respect I held for the need to keep things secret in Gummint work; especially intel, and perhaps more important, the means of acquiring intel, especially in hostile dealings.

Remember the boy who cried "Wolf!!"? That feelilng is long gone, as a result of a string of egregious abuses, to the point where I am not sure there is any rationale of weight for keeping critical information from the public. If there is, though, and maybe certain key processes, sources, agents, and data might qualify, is there any legitimate reason to keep the same information from a qualified and proven judge? If we can't trust a cArefully chosen representative of the judiciary, why should we be able to trust a military officer?
God knows, we can't trust the current President, Vice-President, SecState, the past SecDef. the SecInt, or the Motherland Fatherland Homeland Security buffoons.

From today's NY Times:

"...Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the administration undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks and balances. It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the State Secrets Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder for this or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid exposure of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes important safeguards. But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would require them to first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is invoked — rather than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed.

To allow cases to go forward, judges would also be given authority to order the government to produce unclassified or redacted versions of the evidence.

Not surprisingly, the administration is trying to defeat this essential reform. In a recent letter to the Senate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised the prospect of a veto and insisted that the president — and not the courts — must have the final say over when and whether the privilege applies. Incredibly, and with no legal basis, he also expressed doubt that Congress has the power to mandate closer review of state secrets claims. "

Oh, maybe we should add the present AG and past AG to those listed.

Ya gotta wonder what the hell is the matter with these people.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 12:46 PM

Oh, and speaking of trusating military representativves:

"Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008, at 5:33 AM ET

The New York Times leads with a 7,500-word expose of the Pentagon "message machine," a concerted effort by the Department of Defense to spread the Bush administration's Iraq talking points by briefing supposedly independent retired commanders for network and cable television appearances.

The NYT successfully sued the Department of Defense to gain access to thousands of emails and internal documents relating to its posse of military T.V. commentators. The 8,000 pages of information "reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated." These "military experts" often communicated with the Pentagon to receive the latest agenda before going on camera, and some used the inside information to assist private companies in obtaining military contracts. More unfortunately, "members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access." Several of the purported military experts express regret over their actions, while the Pentagon defends the operation as a genuine effort to inform the American people. The networks, with the sole exception of CNN, refused to comment."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:44 PM

Pelosi Plans $178 Billion Blank Check for Iraq

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."

That's not from the peace movement - it's from the NationalÊDefense University, written by a senior Pentagon official who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

Yet despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people, Speaker Pelosi plans to rush a vote through Congress for anotherÊ$178 billion blank check.

We must stop this madness. Tell Congress: No More Funds for Iraq
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/124?ad=d1

Activists around the country are organizing Iraq Town Halls so we can speak directly

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:52 AM

"White House aides had billed President BushÕs Rose Garden speech last week as a major turning point at which the president would unveil an ambitious set of proposals to address the problem of global warming Ñ a late-breaking act of atonement, as it were, for seven years of doing nothing.

Sadly, Mr. BushÕs ideas amounted to the same old stuff, gussied up to look new. Instead of trying to make up for years of denial and neglect, his speech seemed cynically designed to prevent others from showing the leadership he refuses to provide Ñ to derail Congress from imposing a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and the states from regulating emissions on their own." NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 10:23 AM

From The New Yorker:

"A young friend recently served fifteen months as a combat infantryman at an isolated patrol base in the nasty farmlands south of Baghdad. One day, he was enjoying a hot meal in the chow hall at a nearby forwarding operating base, when Condoleezza Rice appeared on the TV screen saying that the violence in Iraq hadn't reached the point at which random bodies were turning up in the streets. The noise of dozens of hungry soldiers eating came to a stop. Some of them exchanged glances, but no one said a word. Since my friend, while out on patrol, regularly came across the corpses of tortured and murdered Iraqi civilians, he wondered if the Secretary of State was dissembling or deluded. It was, he let me know, a bad moment for him and his buddies.

I thought of this story when I read the transcript of an interview last Friday with President Bush by Martha Raddatz, of ABC. Bush, under the kind of questioning he rarely gets, admitted that in 2006, with violence soaring, he worried that the mission in Iraq might be headed for failure. But, in order to keep up morale among the troops, he kept insisting at the time that we were "winning." Phillip Carter (whose excellent blog Intel Dump has just been picked up by the Washington Post) was serving as an Army adviser to the Iraqi courts during those grim months; I spent a few days at his compound in downtown Baquba in early 2006. He writes that he isn't cheered to learn of the President's solicitousness for his state of mind:

All through this period, I remember the President, his senior aides and senior military commanders toeing the party line that things were going swimmingly. The dissonance between the rhetoric from Washington and our experience in Iraq was stark. We knew the ground truth. Being deceived by our senior political leaders certainly didn't change that, nor did it help morale at all. If anything, it hurt morale by undermining confidence in the chain of command. Put bluntly, if you can't trust your generals and political leaders to tell you and your families the truth, how can you trust them at all?

I would argue that the morale-boosting the President now credits himself with did even more harm than that. It wasn't as though the White House was feverishly correcting in private the problems that it refused to acknowledge publicly for fear of crushing the spirit of Captain Phillip Carter. Instead, while Iraq descended into a death spiral, Bush continued for months, even years, to pursue the bankrupt strategy of handing over responsibility from an undermanned American military to an Iraqi army that was incapable of holding ground. I've been told by a former White House official that the President had misgivings but remained confident in the strategy's author, Donald Rumsfeld. When I interviewed Rice in early 2006 and asked her whether the strategy might be headed for failure, she dismissed the possibility: "Even though there is violence, there is a process that is moving, I think rather inexorably, actually, toward an outcome that will one day bring a stable Iraq."

This wasn't morale-boosting. It was what the Administration calls strategic communications, otherwise known as political propaganda. And, in the end, it became self-delusion. You can't keep lying to the troops and the public without eventually believing your own words. This, in turn, makes it impossible to analyze and correct mistakes. It ensures failure, and failure kills morale...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:55 PM

An excellent discussion of Pentagon Psy-Ops in America by Chuck Spinney. He examines the long term PR and black PR operations used by the Pentagon to meddle with the Fourth Estate and the US citizen's world-view to gain popular support for war -- a most insidious and evil program, but well established practice.

"Add 9-11 to the the hi-tech art of spin control, together with unscrupulous political leaders like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and a self-organizing neo-Hitlerian brew of fear reinforced by hi-tech propaganda was probably inevitable. That this short sighted mixture of policies shaping the domestic dimensions of our grand strategy is now clearly a central theme in the so-called long war on terror is now beyond doubt. It virtually guarantees an eventual breakdown in cohesion at home... the beginnings of which are already becoming evident.

A grand strategy that pumps up internal cohesion through lies and deception is always a loser over the long term, because as Lincoln reportedly said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." On the other hand, in a culture dumbed down by the sound byte mentality of the mainstream media, it may take a long time and a huge waste of blood and treasure to reach Lincoln's end state, particularly when the propaganda machine hosing the American people is run by a voluntary, not to mention enthusiastic, cooperation by the majority of the fourth estate establishment, with only a few exceptions, like the McClatchey newspapers...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM

"...Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That's how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

"It's a disaster," says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. "Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take 'Congressional risk.' They say if you don't get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects."

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point "where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics" that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — "but that's exactly what is happening." If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won't be made.

...

New York TImes editorial

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:36 PM

A compelling summary of the Bush administration's Mesopotamian failures and current lack of action.



A

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

The Progress Report analyzes the failing state and the problematic war that are the popular image of Iraq.

Beginning with the invasion and the Mission Accomplished gaffe, the Bush administration has badly bungled one after another aspects of the nation's strategies vis-a-vis Iraq. Where Iraq is capable of going and under what conditions is a thorny problem.

I would hate to be the Democratic president to inherit this quagmire. One heck of a job, Georgie.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:36 AM

Listen to almost any politician, President Bush included, and youÕll hear that the fight against global warming cannot be won without cleaner technologies that will ease dependence on fossil fuels. Yet these same politicians are on the verge of allowing modest but vital tax credits to expire that are crucial to the future of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.

These credits are necessary to attract new investment in renewable sources until they become competitive with cheaper, dirtier fuels like coal. When the credits disappear, investments shrivel. The production tax credit for wind energy has been allowed to expire three times. In each case, new investment dropped by more than 70 percent. The credits for wind and solar expire at the end of this year, so action now is important.

Though there is plenty of blame to go around, Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans bear a heavy burden. The House approved, as part of last yearÕs energy bill, a multiyear extension of the credits, while insisting Ñ under its pay-as-you-go rules Ñ that they be offset by rescinding an equivalent amount in tax credits for the oil companies. The oil companies (though rolling in profits) screamed, Mr. Bush lofted veto threats, and the Senate, by a one-vote margin, refused to go along. (NYT Editorial, 5-5-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:12 PM

I think the argument you select out is irresponsible.

It is purely speculation, and is based on a putative danger which is unsupported by facts, forwarding a reaction which in turn is based on somewhat hysterical media angles.

Furthermore, Bush himself has said he had no current intentions to attack Iran.

So I think this is a pig in a poke.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 08 - 07:22 PM

I think I can end this one,
The most popular view of the Bush administration will be their backsides as they leave town in Jan '09!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 08 - 08:25 PM

"Over a week ago, the New York Times published a major investigative article, detailing a secret Pentagon program the Times said was designed to recruit and cultivate the "military analysts" you see on the major news networks in an attempt to create coverage favorable to the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq.

The Times described an extensive program, with dozens of television analysts involved, some of whom had extensive business ties to the Defense DepartmentÊ-- in fact they called it "an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horseÊ-- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."
Since that story ran, there's been a virtual news blackout, and we haven't gotten any closer to finding out the real story.

You can change that. I sent a letter to the Government Accounting Organization requesting an investigation, and I'd like you to show your support by virtually "co-signing" the letter with me. Only with an overwhelming display of grassroots energy can we put this story in the spotlight and press for answers.

Click here to co-sign the letter with me:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pentagonpundits

The Pentagon quickly issued a statement that they've ended the program, but I still believe that we need to have a complete accounting of exactly what was happening, who was involved, and what it accomplished. I don't think that's too much to askÊ-- do you?


If you believe,Êas I do, that we as citizens have a right to know the real story, please co-sign the letter demanding answers:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pentagonpundits

We know the life-or-death consequences of policy decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and we know that these policies should be debated and defended without secret programs designed to tailor the news for the Administration's goals. This is too important to brush aside.




We must demand answers."

John Kerry, U.S. Congress

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 08 - 09:16 PM

Why does that not come as a surprise to me?
After paying media people to support the No Child Left Behind Act?
I wonder how much tax payer money gets funneled secretly to the Fox network.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 02:32 PM

"Eight months before the end of his second term, President Bush is forgotten but not gone. Power has shifted to Congress, attention has moved to the campaign trail, and the White House seems at times to be just going through the motions. For many reporters who remain on the White House beat, it has become a time to phone it in -- literally.

Four minutes after the scheduled start time for yesterday's White House briefing, only 14 of the 49 seats were occupied -- and the 14 included flamboyant radio host Lester Kinsolving, who sat in the Bloomberg News seat; Raghubir Goyal of an obscure Indian American publication, who occupied the New York Times chair; and a foreign journalist in the back row, perusing the White House's Cinco de Mayo dinner menu. Though attendance eventually swelled to 28, many of the nation's leading news outlets left their chairs empty, among them National Public Radio, the Washington Times, the New York Daily News, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Boston Globe, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Tribune and the Politico. "

WaPo, 5-6-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 08 - 05:33 PM

Joy of enlightenment, Bush administration style, from the Progress Report:

"With the help of the Defense Department, the Los Angeles-based company C3 is "developing the Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience, a massive American-style amusement park that will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum" and "is being designed by the firm that developed Disneyland." More than that though, the Pentagon is also backing a $5 billion plan to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. embassy that will include luxury hotels, a shopping center, and condos in an effort to "transform" the Green Zone into a "centerpiece for Baghdad's future." This isn't the first time the Pentagon has turned to Disney for solutions. One year after theÊscandal erupted over the long-term treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Army introduced the "Service, Disney Style" programÊthat is now required for all military and other government employees at the hospital in an effort to "revamp attitudes"Êand instill a sense that "poor service equals frustration."

With violence escalating in Iraq, the Pentagon is again looking to the Disney model for a way out.

'ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO DISNEYLAND?': The Disneyland-style amusement park in the heart of Iraq will cost nearly $500 million.ÊLlewellyn Werner, chairman of C3, said of the idea, "[T]he people need this kind of positive influence. It's going to have a huge psychological impact."

But make no mistake, Werner also sees dollar signs. "I'm a businessman. I'm not here because I think you're nice people," Werner said, adding, "I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't making money." Trying to sell the idea to Baghdad's skeptical deputy mayor, Werner explained the significance of waterpark lagoons: they're "very important to the sex appeal, the sizzle. Anybody ever been to Disneyland?" Werner's sentiment is shared by John March, executive vice president of the firm contracted to design the park. March recently downplayed any safety concerns associated with creating a massive entertainment complex in the heart of Baghdad. "Well, you live here in Southern California and there's drive-bys and everything else. So there's danger everywhere," he proclaimed. But Werner has an idea on how to bridge the sectarian divide in Baghdad: skateboarding. He said Iraqis will see the park as "an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni." Speaking in deliberately slow English, Werner told the Iraqis, "One of the fastest growing sports in the world is skateÉboarding." Indeed, the skateboarding park, part of the first phase, is set to open this summer. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:01 AM

A fortuitous combination of technical incompetence, political dildoing, and the usual cloud of confusion enables the Bush administration to lose critical emails. The detailed story can be found here at ArsTechnica. Excerpt:

"The case of the missing e-mail
A federal magistrate judge on Thursday chastised the Bush administration for failing to fully answer questions related to a long-running dispute over missing White House emails. The White House is facing lawsuits from two public interest groups, Citizens for Responsibilty and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive at George Washington University, demanding that the White House restore the missing e-mails and put in place systems to prevent further e-mail losses. Administration officials were ordered to provide detailed information about the burdens involved in taking immediate actions to preserve copies of hard drive, tapes, and other media that may contain copies of the missing e-mails. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:43 AM

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb's proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It's awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don't deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb's principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

Who wouldn't support an effort to pay for college for G.I.'s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran's education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite. ...
(NY Times columnist, 5-6-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 12:05 PM

A good essay on the Imperial presidency as it evolved in the years between Truman and Bush, and why it is illegal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:42 AM

Here's a touching story about some intelligence, compassion and goodwill being applied to the post-Katrina mess and how effective it is.

Why a small-time organizer from Puget Sound can succeed where the entire HSA and the President have only failed is a bit of mystery to me. But I don't think it reflects well on the administration's standards or priorities. I know they have a lot of killing to do as well, but still...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 08 - 09:31 AM

Most egregious, Mr. Bush has resisted efforts to allow bankrupt homeowners to have their mortgages modified under court protection, parroting the mortgage industry's overwrought objections to what is arguably the best way to avoid preventable foreclosures. Letting homeowners have the loans modified in court would keep them in their homes, helping to stabilize the housing market while inflicting the considerable pain of bankruptcy on both lender and borrower.

When Mr. Bush hasn't been busy saying no to worthy efforts, he has been endorsing Orwellian-named programs that have failed to address the problem effectively. Hope Now, the mortgage industry alliance that pledged a big effort five months ago to modify subprime loans, has barely made a dent. Project Lifeline, announced last February, has yet to release any results. The Times reported last month that another program much touted by Mr. Bush, FHA Secure, has helped fewer than 2,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

Meanwhile, defaults, the first link in the foreclosure chain, are running at an annual pace of 2.2 million so far this year.

But the Bush administration's free-market biases have apparently convinced officials that bold action would impede a necessary economic correction. That is misguided. The housing bust is at the root of the economy's problems, and foreclosures are its most serious manifestation. House prices have collapsed to a point where they are creating a negative spiral: price drops provoke foreclosures, which in turn provoke even lower prices, and so on. The danger now is not too much government intervention but too little.

The House is to be commended for defying Mr. Bush's veto threat, especially the 39 Republicans who joined all the House Democrats. When the Senate considers a similar measure, Republicans there are likely to face pressure, too. At least the Senate bill will probably not be considered until after Memorial Day. While home for the holiday, senators are sure to hear from constituents about the need for mortgage relief. That might inspire lawmakers to do what Mr. Bush is unwilling to do.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:02 PM

More criminal coverup and crony highjinks:

(from Progress Report

"The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency meant to protect federal employees from "prohibited personnel practices." Since President Bush's nominee Scott Bloch took over in 2004, however, this refuge has become a nightmare for government workers. LGBT employees have to fight an anti-gay bias, workers who disagree with Bloch's policies face retaliation, and politically-sensitive whistleblower cases are dismissed. The Office of Personnel Management's Inspector General (OPM IG) has been investigating these allegations against Bloch. On May 6, FBI agents raided Bloch's home and office, focusing on whether he obstructed the federal investigation against him by erasing computer files in 2006. NPR reports that a grand jury in Washington issued 17 subpoenas overall, including for several other OSC staffers. The first employees are scheduled to testify about the allegations to a grand jury on Tuesday. Last week, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) called on Bloch to step down, stating that "it's hard to believe he can continue to operate effectively."

POLITICAL PROBES: In February 2005, critics accused OSC of "improperly dismissing hundreds of whistleblower cases that had been pending when Bloch took over," in order to simply decrease the backlog. At other times, Bloch seems to have gone after cases for political gain. In April 2005, government watchdogs complained that he allowed his office to "sit on" a complaint that Condoleezza Rice, then-National Security Adviser, had "used government funds to travel in support of President Bush's re-election bid." By contrast, Bloch had ordered an immediate investigation into whether Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) had "improperly campaigned in a government workplace," even though the complaints had been filed around the same time. Last September, career OSC investigators began looking into whether partisan politics were a factor in the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman. But on Oct. 11, Bloch "ordered the case file be closed immediately, saying that he had not authorized it." Bloch also stopped career investigators from opening a broad probe into whether Justice Department officials "considered political affiliation in their hiring and promotion decisions."

THE 'HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA': When Bloch took over OSC, he quickly appointed a deputy who had publicly spoken out against the "homosexual agenda." Bloch also "hired young lawyers from Ave Maria Law School, the conservative Catholic school founded by Domino's Pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan." More significantly, Bloch angered employees when, in 2004, he said that it may not be illegal for the government to discriminate against workers based on their sexual orientation. Without notifying other OSC staffers, he also removed all information on the subject from the agency's website and internal documents. The Washington Blade notes, "Information classifying sexual orientation discrimination as a 'prohibited personnel practice' had been included in various OSC documents and brochures since 1995." An embarrassed White House eventually subtly rebuked Bloch by issuing a "statement reaffirming a long-standing federal prohibition against sexual-orientation discrimination, and noting that the president 'expects federal agencies to enforce this policy.'"

'GEEKS' TO THE RESCUE: Bloch has swiftly punished employees who have criticized him on his choice of cases and discriminatory policies, an example of the Bush administration's disdain for disagreement. "The Bush administration has absolutely not endorsed the concept of whistleblowing -- they see it as disloyalty," said one OSC employee. In January 2005, Bloch suddenly issued an order forcing 12 career OSC employees to accept reassignment within 10 days or face dismissal. Lawyers for the employees said that the reassigned were "those perceived to be loyal to his [Bloch's] predecessor, and those seen to have a 'homosexual agenda.'" In addition to this retaliation, the OPM IG is looking into whether Bloch violated federal laws that "guarantee federal employees the right to communicate with Congress." In early 2007, Bloch's deputy "sent staffers a memo asking them to inform OSC higher-ups when investigators contact them. Further, the memo read, employees should meet with investigators in the office, in a special conference room." Some employees raised intimidation questions, "saying the recommendations made them afraid to be interviewed in the probe." In 2006, Bloch also "erased all the files on his office personal computer," potentially as part of a cover-up. To do so, he bypassed the Office of Special Counsel's technicians and phoned Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 09:28 AM

Insight into Furless Liter's true mindset:

""Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

--George W. Bush, during a White House videoconference about the first battle for Fallujah

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:20 AM

May 15, 2008, 00:12



"A senior legal adviser to the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign is working behind the scenes to help enact a Missouri state constitutional amendment that critics say would suppress the vote in the key battleground state this November by requiring voters to show proof of citizenship.

Mark "Thor" Hearne, Bush-Cheney's national counsel in 2004 and now a partner in the St. Louis, Missouri, firm of Lathrop & Gage, has been collaborating with Missouri's Republican state Rep. Stanley Cox, the sponsor of the constitutional amendment, Cox's office confirmed this week.

For years, Hearne has been a leading Republican figure demanding stricter voter identification laws and popularizing claims about widespread voter fraud, although many election experts dismiss such alarms as hyperbole.

During the 2004 campaign, Hearne reportedly worked with White House political adviser Karl Rove on "voter fraud" issues and spearheaded GOP efforts to challenge voter registration drives by pro-Democratic groups.

According to a posting at his law firm's Web site, "Hearne traveled to every battleground state and oversaw more than 65 different lawsuits that concerned the conduct of the election."

Hearne also has shown up as a background figure in the Bush administration's scandal that erupted over the firing of nine federal prosecutors, some of whom came under White House criticism for not seeking pre-election voter fraud indictments in 2006.

More recently, Hearne has been instrumental in pushing state lawmakers to pass strict voter identification laws in Missouri, New Mexico, Indiana and other states. The Indiana voter ID law recently was upheld by a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:13 PM

A large number of Environmental Protection Agency scientists report intimidation by higher ups in their agency. Many also charge that their superiors have asked them to alter either research findings or their interpretation of data. At least a few claim their managers have at times prohibited them from publishing findings in peer-reviewed journals or temporarily sat on data so that research findings would not be released in a timely fashion.



Such reports suggest a systematic attack on scientific integrity in an agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, Francesca T. Grifo testified yesterday. A senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, she shared survey results at a hearing convened by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The situations she described summarize questionnaire responses – and in some instances, essays or in-depth interview – obtained from 1,586 EPA scientists last summer.



UCS is a public-interest advocacy group best known for promoting causes like sustainable energy and social policies that would limit the release of greenhouse-gas emissions. But lately, this group has also been investigating the extent to which the Bush White House has attempted to muzzle scientists whose findings don't support administration policies.



A few high-profile cases came to light in the past few years. Probably the most notable: NASA's attempt to keep climate scientist James Hansen at its Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City from mouthing off about society's need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Once Hansen spilled the beans about his refusal to submit to his agency's attempt to review any lectures, papers, federal-website postings, or interviews with reporters to New York Time reporter Andrew C. Revkin, Hansen became a cause célèbre

(See whole article at Science News.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:34 PM

From The Progress Report:

Last month, in a major exposŽ, the New York TimesÊreported that the Pentagon had created aÊdomestic propaganda program that made use of more than 75 "military analysts" toÊdisseminate favorable coverage of the Bush administration's war efforts. The program included, for example, private briefings with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials, commercial airfare, and the distribution of favorable "talking points" to analysts prior to media appearances. Virtually all of the major networks were involved in the program, includingÊABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. The retired military officials serving as media analysts often had contracting ties with the government but pushed the Pentagon line on air without revealing the conflict of interest.Ê Earlier this month, the Pentagon released a major document collection in response to the Times's article, shining even more light on the magnitude of theÊoperation.ÊIn a recent letter, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) called on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a "full investigation of this program and report its findings." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) also wrote to the GAO, observing: "Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law."

PRO-BUSH SPIN OPERATION: An examination of the Pentagon's internal conversationsÊconfirms that the Pentagon createdÊ"a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage," as the Times put it. A July 6, 2006 e-mail from Pentagon official Jeffrey GordonÊcirculated "thoughtful" words by right-wing talkers Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin on Guantanamo Bay. In the Malkin column, she decried the "unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left" on Guantanamo. O'Reilly said there were only "minor cases of abuse" at the prison. A "talking points" document from the summer of 2003 pushed the infamous words "dead-enders" and "bitter-enders" to referÊto Iraqis whoÊattacked American troops. A later memo reiterated that "the dead-enders are not driving us out of anywhere." Other e-mails reveal a deliberate attempt by the Pentagon to cover up its heavy hand. In a Feb.16, 2006Êexchange, Pentagon media staffers discussed coordinating with the Heritage Foundation for a speaker on Guantanamo. An anonymous staffer suggested retired Army Sergeant Major Steve Short because "he seems to be on message and very articulate." "Important to remember that heritage can invite anyone to present and that we don't really have an opinion on anyone," responded Allison Barber of the Pentagon. "[G]asp. are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not ;)," the anonymous staffer responded.

WHITE HOUSE INVOLVEMENT?: Last month, reporter Eric Brewer asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about whether the White House was involved in theÊmilitary analyst program. Perino responded, "I just said, no." But the Pentagon's document collection raises questions about the White House's role. A March 16, 2006 e-mail from Pentagon official Dallas Lawrence referencedÊ"a closed call opened only to our retired military analysts...to get them on message heading into the weekend on Iraqi troop strength, advances, etc." A follow-up from an anonymous e-mailer said he or she was "hoping to have Hadley brief these guys next week," referring to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Responding to this e-mail, Lawrence added, "Id love to see if we ocould [could] get them in with potus [President Bush] as well. (I think that was submitted to karl and company...last week)." A May 23, 2006 from Lawrence also references "karl." As Salon's Glenn Greenwald noted, the "karl" references strongly suggest that at least former Bush political adviser Karl Rove was involved.

MEDIA STILL QUIET: The media has been curiously silent on the Times's exposŽ, despiteÊclear involvement in the program. "Did we drink the government kool-aid? -- of course," said CNN military analyst Don Sheppard in a June 23, 2006 e-mail about his government-sponsored trip to Guantanamo. In the week after the story broke, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that out of roughly 1,300 news stories, "only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop,"Êboth airing on PBS. "I can only conclude that the networks are staying away...because they are embarrassed about what some of their military analysts did or don't want to give the controversy more prominence," said Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. As Media Matters reported, theÊmilitary analysts cited in the Times article have been quotedÊmore than 4,500 times by a range of news outlets since Jan. 1, 2002. On April 24, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wrote letters to the heads of the major networks on the "specifics about each outlet's policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:16 AM

time for someone other than Amos...


"Congress won't even act on a common-sense proposal from the Bush administration that food aid be reformed. If the United States bought some of the food that it donates from other countries, it could get aid to the needy faster and more cheaply. But that would upset American farmers and shipping interests, as a new Council on Foreign Relations paper emphasizes. The president's proposal has few takers on the Hill. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051801917.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:12 AM

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."—GW Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Eugenics and the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:56 PM

An excerpt from a much longer article reviewing the history of the American Eugenics movement , one of the really shameful episodes of American pig-headedness.

"Stephen Grey, Amnesty International's Award-Winning Journalist for Excellence in Human Rights Reporting, in his book 'Ghost Planet', meticulously documents the illegal and horrendous system of torture and other human rights abuses that George Bush has perpetrated upon the world as part of his so-called "War on Terror". Here are excerpts of the U.S. torture program from the introduction to Grey's book:

While the president spoke of spreading liberty across the world, CIA insiders spoke of a return to the old days of working hand in glove with some of the most repressive secret police in the world.

Much later, when more pieces of the puzzle were in place, I thought of the work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the dissident writer. When he described the Soviet Union's network of prison camps as a Gulag Archipelago.

After years of persecution, Solzhenitsyn described a jail system that he knew from firsthand experience had swallowed millions of citizens into its entrails. At least a tenth never emerged alive.

The modern world of prisons run by the United States and its allies in the war on terror is far less extensive. Its inmates number thousands not millions. And yet there are eerie parallels between what the Soviet Union created and what we, in the West, are now constructing. How much more than surreal, more apart from normal existence, was the network of prisons run after 9/11 by the United States and its allies? How much easier too was the denial and the double-think when those who disappeared into the modern gulag were, being mainly swarthy skinned Arabs with a different culture, so different from most of us in the West? How much more reassuring were the words from our politicians that all was well?

How many prisoners do we have? Estimates of how many prisoners have disappeared into the Bush administration's Gulag system cannot be precise because of the secrecy. Estimates have varied from 8,500 to 35,000. An AP story estimated around 14,000:"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:36 AM

I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said in a bizarre interview with Politico last week. "And I think playing golf during a war sends the wrong signal."
He then went on, in the same interview, to do his imitation of Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies. No wrong signal there.
In every way, this president has tried to hide the war. The press chafes because photos of flag-draped coffins are forbidden. But that's nothing compared to how this administration is trying to turn the public's eyes away from the pain of the people who feel it most directly, the soldiers and their families.
Suicide rates among returning veterans are soaring. And the administration's response? Cover up the data. An e-mail titled "Shh!" surfaced earlier this month from Dr. Ira Katz, a top official at the V.A. The note indicated that far more veterans were trying to kill themselves than the administration had let on. It speaks for itself.
"Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see," Katz wrote, in a note not meant for the general public. "Is this something we should address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles upon it?"
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat of Washington, who has made veterans affairs her specialty, was furious. "They lied about these numbers," Murray told me. "It breaks my heart. Soldiers tell us that they were taught how to go to war, but not how to come home. You hear about divorces, binge-drinking, post-traumatic stress, suicide. And the reaction from the president is part of a pattern from the very beginning to show that this war is not costly or consequential."
Murray is the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran. During her college years, while other students were protesting, she volunteered at a veterans hospital. The odds are, she said, at least one of those five soldiers we applauded on my return plane will suffer severe mental trauma from the war. A recent Rand Corporation study said as much, noting that that 300,000 veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are plagued by major depression or stress disorder.
"Look what we do when there's a natural disaster — we show the pictures of the victims and open our hearts," said Murray. "President Bush should do the same thing with the war."
But that would require bringing out in the open something that has been hidden since the start of this long war — the truth.
(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:55 AM

...It is clear from the inspector general's report that this was organized behavior by both civilian and military interrogators following the specific orders of top officials. The report shows what happens when an American president, his secretary of defense, his Justice Department and other top officials corrupt American law to rationalize and authorize the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners:

— Four F.B.I. agents saw an interrogator cuff two detainees and force water down their throats.

— Prisoners at Guantánamo were shackled hand-to-foot for prolonged periods and subjected to extreme heat and cold.

— At least one detainee at Guantánamo was kept in an isolation cell for at least two months, a practice the military considers to be torture when applied to American soldiers.

The study said F.B.I. agents reported this illegal behavior to Washington. They were told not to take part, but the bureau appears to have done nothing to end the abuse. It certainly never told Congress or the American people. The inspector general said the agents' concerns were conveyed to the National Security Council, but he found no evidence that it acted on them.

Mr. Bush claims harsh interrogations produced invaluable intelligence, but the F.B.I. agents said the abuse was ineffective. They also predicted, accurately, that it would be impossible to prosecute abused prisoners.

For years, Mr. Bush has refused to tell the truth about his administration's inhuman policy on prisoners, and the Republican-controlled Congress eagerly acquiesced to his stonewalling. Now, the Democrats in charge of Congress must press for full disclosure.

Representative John Conyers, who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said he would focus on the F.B.I. report at upcoming hearings. Witnesses are to include John C. Yoo, who wrote the infamous torture memos, and the committee has subpoenaed David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Mr. Conyers also wants to question F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom should be subpoenaed if they do not come voluntarily.

That is just the first step toward uncovering the extent of President Bush's disregard for the law and the Geneva Conventions. It will be a painful process to learn how so many people were abused and how America's most basic values were betrayed. But it is the only way to get this country back to being a defender, not a violator, of human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:56 AM

Karl Rove, the former trusted adviser to President George Bush, will be compelled to testify on Capitol Hill in a high-profile investigation of alleged political meddling by the White House in decisions made by the US Justice Department.

John Conyers, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, yesterday took the unusual step of issuing a subpoena compelling Mr Rove to testify in a case that threatens to disgrace the Bush government. He had tried in vain for a year to persuade Mr Rove to come forward voluntarily.

The committee is looking into what role the White House may have played in the sacking of nine US attorneys during 2006 Ð an affair which eventually led to the resignation of Mr Bush's last attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez. Also under scrutiny are the circumstances of the prosecution and subsequent imprisonment of the former governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman.

"This will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated," Mr Siegelman told an Alabama newspaper last week, referring to his case and the dismissal of the prosecutors. He has repeatedly insisted that the White House, and Mr Rove in particular, was behind his legal woes.

Mr Conyers said he had no choice but to order Mr Rove to appear on Capitol Hill and testify under oath on 10 July. The scandal could prove embarrassing for media organisations who have recently hired Mr Rove as a political commentator, including Fox News and Newsweek.

"It is unfortunate that Mr Rove has failed to co-operate with our requests," Mr Conyers said. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:56 AM

"..When he lashes out, as he did in Israel, Mr. Bush makes it harder for reasonable people to pursue diplomacy. And it is hypocritical. His administration has negotiated successfully with Libya (formerly on the terrorism list) and North Korea (still on the terrorism list) and has had limited, largely unsuccessful, contacts with Iran over its support for insurgents in Iraq. Israel is indirectly negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza with Hamas with the help of Egypt.

Mr. Bush's approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined. To wit: an Arab-brokered political settlement on Lebanon reached Wednesday strengthened Hezbollah by giving it a veto over cabinet decisions.

Like Mr. Obama (and many others), we strongly encourage diplomacy, including contacts with adversaries. If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:01 AM

How George Bush's Administration Caused the Housing and Credit Crisis

Excerpt from a NYT Editorial on the decline of State's Rights.

"In February, the day after his infamous encounter at Washington's Mayflower Hotel, Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York, published a remarkable opinion piece in The Washington Post.

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

Go to The Board » He wrote that several years earlier, state attorneys general noticed a spike in predatory lending that the federal government was doing nothing about. When the states tried to rein in abusive mortgage lenders, the Bush administration finally did something. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued rules nullifying state predatory lending laws over the objection of all 50 state banking superintendents. (Emphasis added)

The clampdown, which paved the way for the subprime mortgage crisis, was done by "pre-emption," a little-understood doctrine that allows the federal government to wipe away state laws. The Constitution's supremacy clause says federal law can trump state law. But the federal rule should be a floor, not a ceiling. It should set a minimum level of rights, not stop states from doing more to protect their citizens.

For years, the federal government used pre-emption in this way. Civil rights acts swept away discrimination at the state level, and workplace safety laws upgraded conditions in factories and mines. Conservatives opposed many of these federal laws on the principle that they were trampling on "states' rights."

Since the conservative ascendancy in Washington, many of these same people have stopped praising states' rights and have begun burying them — not to protect citizens' rights, but to take them away. The Bush administration and its Congressional allies have helped their friends in industry by enacting weak environmental, health and consumer regulations — and arguing that they wipe out more robust state protections. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:40 PM

Here is a link to a very interesting study of the impact on corporate taxes of Bush administration actions since 2001. It is a PDF file. An interesting study in what changes have occurred and what corporations are paying more or less in taxes.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:34 AM

In case you were wondering whether the detrustion of Habea Corpus was a liberal fantasy:

"To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/24/national/main4125235.shtml

This a very touchy area--an American citizen, not native, with apparently dead-to-rights evidence connecting him to bin Laden and terrorist plans. At the same time, he has had all rights normally considered natural to American citizens suspended, by being declared an enemy combatant. He is held in the US without those rights.

A very tough call. By starting down the slippery slope of compromising in the face of extreme necessity, Congress has now sent us directly down the path toward a military dictatorship.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 02:17 AM

This is a short but interesting excerpt from a long, detailed and very interesting analysis in the New Yorker called The Fall of Conservatism:

"...The phrase that signalled Bush's approach was "compassionate conservatism," but it never amounted to a policy program. Within hours of the Supreme Court decision that ended the disputed Florida recount, Dick Cheney met with a group of moderate Republican senators, including Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island. According to Chafee's new book, "Against the Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President" (Thomas Dunne), the Vice-President-elect gave the new order of battle: "We would seek confrontation on every front... . The new Administration would divide Americans into red and blue, and divide nations into those who stand with us or against us." Cheney's combative instincts and belief in an unfettered and secretive executive proved far more influential at the White House than Bush's campaign promise to be "a uniter, not a divider." Cheney behaved as if, notwithstanding the loss of the popular vote, conservative Republican domination could continue by sheer force of will. On domestic policy, the Administration made tax cuts and privatization its highest priority; and its conduct of the war on terror broke with sixty years of relatively bipartisan and multilateralist foreign policy.

    The Administration's political operatives were moving in the same direction. The Republican strategist Matthew Dowd studied the 2000 results and concluded that the proportion of swing voters in America had declined from twenty-two to seven per cent over the previous two decades, which meant that mobilizing the Party's base would be more important in 2004 than attracting independents. The strategist Karl Rove's polarizing political tactics (which brought a new level of demographic sophistication to the old formula) buried any hope of a centrist Presidency before Bush's first term was half finished.

    Ed Rollins said, "Rove knew his voters, he stuck to the message with consistency, he drove that base hard - and there's nothing left of it. Today, if you're not rich or Southern or born again, the chances of your being a Republican are not great." As long as Bush and his party kept winning elections, however slim the margins, Rove's declared ambition to create a "permanent majority" seemed like the vision of a tactical genius. But it was built on two illusions: that the conservative era would stretch on indefinitely, and that politics matters more than governing. The first illusion defied history; the second was blown up in Iraq and drowned in New Orleans. David Brooks argues that these disasters discredited both neo- and compassionate conservatism in the eyes of many Republicans. "You've got to learn from the failures," Brooks told me. "But Republicans have rejected the entire attempt. For example, after Katrina, House Republicans wanted nothing to do with New Orleans. They were, like, 'We don't care about those people.' ""

---

The rest of the article is one anyone trying to understand the swing from Nixon and Reagan to Bush should read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:50 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.


Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan blasts President Bush and advisers in a new book.

In excerpts from a 341-page book to be released Monday, Scott McClellan writes on Iraq that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

"[I]n this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security," McClellan wrote.

McClellan also sharply criticizes the administration on its handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency," he wrote. "Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term."

Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House would not comment Tuesday because they haven't seen the book.

Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to Bush, said advisers to the president should speak up when they have policy concerns.

"Scott never did that on any of these issues as best I can remember or as best as I know from any of my White House colleagues," said Townsend, now a CNN contributor. "For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."

---

Well, disloyal, sure, and self-serving in the sense that wanting to distance yourself from a catastrophe and not go down with the ship, and salvage what you can of your reputation, is self-serving.

Under the circumstances one could hardly expect Scott to serve the Administration.

Ya don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:54 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Nearly 40,000 military personnel have been given diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder since 2003, Pentagon records show.

Officials say they believe that many other cases exist and have been encouraging service members to obtain help, even if they go to private therapists and do not report it to the military. The 40,000 cases are those tracked by the military.

Officials have also estimated that half the military personnel with mental problems do not receive treatment because they are embarrassed or fear that it might hurt their careers.

A report on diagnosed cases released on Tuesday by the Army surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, showed that the hardest-hit services last year were the Marines and Army, the two forces bearing the brunt of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army reported more than 10,000 new cases last year, up from more than 6,800 the previous year. More than 28,000 soldiers have been diagnosed with the disorder over the last five years.

The Marines had more than 2,100 cases in 2007, compared with 1,366 in 2006. They had more than 5,000 cases diagnosed since 2003.

---

I guess W never knew that mental illness was a normal byproduct of surviving war close up. How could he? They didn't put it in any of the John Waymne movies he grew up on.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:08 AM

Senator Barack Obama, inching closer to the Democratic nomination, seized on the occasion while speaking about the mortgage crisis in Nevada.

ÒJohn McCain is having a different kind of meeting,Ó Mr. Obama said after meeting a family in Las Vegas on the verge of losing its house to foreclosure. ÒHeÕs holding a fund-raiser with George Bush behind closed doors in Arizona. No cameras, no reporters. And we all know why.

ÒSenator McCain doesnÕt want to be seen, hat in hand, with the president whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years.Ó

The politicking seemed far removed from the sunny day at the White House in March when Mr. McCain, still flush from his triumph over a crowded primary field, and Mr. Bush appeared like two old friends. Despite a bitterness attached to the 2000 primaries, Mr. McCain promised Òto have as much possible campaigning events together.Ó

More than once, though, he alluded to Mr. BushÕs ÒheavyÓ or ÒbusyÓ schedule, which in hindsight perhaps had more significance than it might have seemed.

Mr. Bush made an early fund-raising stop in New Mexico on Tuesday, but his Òheavy scheduleÓ otherwise included a visit to Silverado Cable, a company in Mesa, Ariz., that makes electrical wiring for aircraft.

He did not mention Mr. McCain, nor did Mr. McCain mention him in Denver.

For Mr. Bush, with seemingly irreversible public disapproval in the polls, the start of his campaign to help elect a Republican successor could hardly have seemed more humbling, though the White House maintained its typical enthusiasm and optimism.

ÒHeÕs not bothered in the slightest,Ó the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said. ÒHe fully understands how campaigns for presidents work, and heÕs comfortable in his own skin.Ó

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who wrote ÒImpostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,Ó said core supporters possessed a hardened realism about Mr. McCainÕs prospects, understanding the challenges but not yielding to them.

ÒEven diehard Bush supporters know heÕs an albatross around the neck of the nominee,Ó Mr. Bartlett said in an interview.

At the same time, he noted the presidentÕs fund-raising prowess. Despite the efforts by the McCain camp to keep at armÕs length a president with an approval rating stalled at 28 percent, it is worth remembering that that 28 percent can be fiercely loyal and often wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:34 AM

ANother snippet from Scott McLellan, who decided to speak his own mind for a change:

"The president's real motivation for the war, he says, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was necessary because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he writes of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concludes, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."

Bush's national security advisers failed to "help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening," McClellan recalls.

"I know the president pretty well,'' McClellan writes in a personal note. "I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war -- more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead -- he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today.''"

---

While this may speak well for Mister Bush's sensitivities, the question arises where he has been keeping his head over the years. He was alive and well during the Vietnam years. How could he forget the costs of war? The same costs from WW II and even WW I and the American Civil War are widely documented. History was all the crystal ball he could have needed if he had had enough brain cells in operation to learn from it. Others saw the horrible consequences of his decision with nothing more than the balls God gave them, crystal or other wise.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 11:26 AM

"Ironically, much of Bush's campaign rhetoric (in 1999-200) had been aimed at distancing himself from the excesses of Clinton's permanent campaign style of governing. The implicit meaning of Bush's words was that he would bring an end to the perpetual politicking and deep partisan divisions it created. Although Washington could not get enough of the permanent campaign, voters were seemingly eager to move beyond it.

Bush emphasized this sentiment during the campaign. He would "change the tone in Washington." He would be "a uniter, not a divider." He would "restore honor and dignity to the White House." He would govern based on what was right, not what the polls said. He would, in short, replace the cynicism of the 1990s with a new era of civility, decency, and hope. There would be no more permanent campaign, or at least its excesses would be wiped away for good.

But the reality proved to be something quite different. Instead, the Bush team imitated some of the worst qualities of the Clinton White House and even took them to new depths.

Bush did not emulate Clinton on the policy front. Just the opposite – the mantra of the new administration was "anything but Clinton" when it came to policies. The Bush administration prided itself in focusing on big ideas, not playing small ball with worthy but essentially trivial policy ideas for a White House, like introducing school uniforms or going after deadbeat dads.

But a significant aspect of the Clinton presidency that George W. Bush and his advisers did embrace was the unprecedented pervasiveness of the permanent campaign and all its tactics. In hindsight, it is clear that the Bush White House was actually structured to emulate and extend this method of governing, albeit in its own way."

Scott McLellan, from his new book, "What Happened".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 May 08 - 02:17 PM

The only popular view of the Bush Administration:- From behind, as they trudge off into obscurity, preferably VERY soon.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:22 PM

How about into a courtroom in an orange jumpsuit?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:14 PM

"Here are 10 other things we know for sure following the release of McClellanÕs harsh new tell-all, ÒWhat Happened: Inside the Bush White House And Washington's Culture of Deception.Ó

¥ Bush is toxic. The consistently unpopular president says history will judge him kindly, which may be the case. But McClellanÕs book diminishes any prospect that Americans will view Bush favorably before Jan. 20, 2009. The more relevant, immediate impact of BushÕs low poll numbers and lack of credibility will be felt by John McCain and other Republicans on the ballot this fall.

¥ So is Rove. Former Bush adviser Karl Rove has drawn rave reviews as a post-Bush commentator on FOX News. But according to McClellan, Rove was one of the major sources of turmoil in BushÕs second term. McClellan writes, for example, that the White House spent most of the first week after Hurricane Katrina Òin a state of denial.Ó Specifically, he blames Rove for suggesting that Bush pose for cameras while monitoring the wreckage of New Orleans from the comforts of Air Force One. McClellan wrote that he and White House counselor Dan Bartlett opposed the idea, but he was later told that ÒKarl was convinced we needed to do it, and the president agreed.Ó

This White House placed little importance on press relations and day-to-day messaging. In response to McClellanÕs book, Rove said, ÒIt goes to show how out of the loop he was.Ó The comment says more about Rove than it does about McClellan; why would a White House intentionally leave its press secretary Òout of the loopÓ? And why would Rove amplify this point, even after the fact?

¥ Timing hurts McCain most. McClellanÕs book is being released at perhaps the worst possible moment for McCain, as he holds a series of low-profile fundraisers with Bush this week. More importantly, the book comes out as McCain emerges from the shadows next week in a full-fledged general-election campaign after largely squandering a two-month window of Democratic infighting when he had an unobstructed bullhorn. This book helps Obama attack Bush, McCain and the Iraq war. ItÕs also harder for McCain now to make the case that the GOP is the party of ÒchangeÓ. ÒWe got caught up in playing the Washington game the way itÕs being played today,Ó McClellan said on NBC.

¥ The case for Iraq is an even harder sell. While already a steep climb, McCainÕs efforts to win this campaignÕs debate over Iraq just got harder. McClellan writes that Bush was not Òopen and forthright on Iraq,Ó and that he sold the war through a Òpolitical propaganda campaign.Ó Democrats will point out that McCain supported and defended that Òcampaign.Ó

¥ Bushies arenÕt forever. Perhaps the most shocking part about McClellanÕs book is that itÕs hard to find a Bushie who owes more to this president than he does. HeÕs the first one to leave the camp (Matthew Dowd was never really part of the Austin clique). Will he be the last?

¥ The White House is no longer the center of the universe. In a statement she fired off Wednesday morning, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino described McClellanÕs book as a ÒsadÓ effort by a ÒdisgruntledÓ former employee whoÕs now Ònot the Scott we knew.Ó But PerinoÕs statement was met with... silence. Or something close to it. More reports rolled in during the day of reaction from people running for president or their surrogates than anyone connected to the current president. Even though the book is a direct attack on this White House, the press is now past the point of focusing any level of coverage on its current occupants.

¥ Media feels vindicated. While McClellan writes that the media was too lenient on the Bush administration, his book this week prompted a round of ÒI-told-you-soÕsÓ from White House reporters, who frequently charged that the press secretary was being less than direct with them in part because he was receiving mixed messages from within the White House...."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:57 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that he would be willing to comply with a possible congressional subpoena to discuss the administration's handling of prewar intelligence, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer he'd be "glad to share my views" if asked to testify.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed McClellan Friday.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, said Friday that McClellan, who left the White House in 2006, would be able to provide valuable insight into a number of issues under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.

The committee is looking into the use of prewar intelligence, whether politics was behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity, Wexler, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said.

In the book, McClellan says President Bush told him he had authorized the leaking of Plame Wilson's identity to the press. Watch Wexler call for McClellan to testify È

Facing a firestorm over his book, McClellan also confirmed reports Friday that he apologized to Richard Clarke for questioning his honesty after the former counterterrorism official published his own book critical of the White House. Read excerpts from the book È

His new book is a bombshell ... one the White House would rather you not see. Anderson goes knee-to-knee with former press secretary Scott McClellan about his time with the Bush administration.

"I had not read his book; I was just reading talking points," McClellan admitted Friday. "It was a very tough process to come to these conclusions. It was vital to write these things in order to get them out." Watch the full McClellen interview È

"I think that anyone who is objective who reads the book will see that it was a very tough process to come to these conclusions. It wasn't easy to write these things."

Former colleagues and top Republicans have been blasting McClellan since his book was announced this week. "...(CNN)

---

Looks like John Dean's spirit is moving on troubled waters over at Bushville.

I'd like to hear Bush make a "Checkers" speech.


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

Washington Post:

Pawns in the Jungles of Colombia
__

Monday, June 2, 2008; Page A13

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Real Scott Please Stand Up?

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

Dear Scott,

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Remember?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post:

Parroting the Democrats

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An excerpt from NPR:

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Washington Post:

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2008; Page A14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admiral: Bush doesn't want war with IranStory

Former Central Command chief William Fallon denies president sought third war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillips: Do you feel you were pushed out?

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

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

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

Phillips: Would have you negotiated with Iran?

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

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

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

Phillips: Do you think that cost you your job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


..........

So, who is it listening to our military leaders?

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A
A

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

Amos,

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And note under what administration the problem started...




Gates ousts Air Force leaders in historic shake-up

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early reaction from Capitol Hill was favorable to drastic action.

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

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

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

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

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

Wynne and Moseley issued their own written statements.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LONDON


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The new president will also have the opportunity for a lot of "quick wins" with Europe. Both McCain and Obama would probably close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, ban torture and accept the need for concerted international action against global warming. Under this cover, many Europeans will slide back into the pro-American fold. And if Obama is the next president, he'll flip all the soft anti-Americans in Europe.

Bush might have had a particularly rough time on the European front -- he was dubbed the "Toxic Texan" from day one -- but he is far from the first U.S. president to be on the receiving end of this kind of abuse. Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton all had a taste of it. Despite this, it is easy to imagine the 44th president having a prolonged European honeymoon.

And even after the initial burst of goodwill has passed, the next president will have an easier relationship with Europe than Bush ever did. In years to come, it will be convenient to blame all the turbulence in the trans-Atlantic relationship these past few years on the departed leaders of the time -- Bush, Chirac and former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who reneged on a promise to Bush not to make his opposition to the Iraq war a big political issue back home. In truth, they all deserve some of the blame.

But there were structural reasons why things reached such a low ebb. Throughout the Cold War, the United States had protected Europe from the Soviet threat. But the threat that America rightly wanted to respond to after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was one that many Europeans thought didn't affect them. Or, to be more accurate, they feared that the real threat was not al-Qaeda terrorism but the U.S. response to it. To Americans, the Islamist threat came from outside; to many Europeans, it was already inside their borders, in the unintegrated immigrant ghettos that dot so many European cities, and the danger came from anything that might further alienate already disenchanted Muslims.

Now, though, Europe is beginning to realize that the inspiration for the Islamists inside its borders comes from outside, from those who preach jihadism and death to America. At the same time, the United States has developed a more rounded approach to the problem, mixing hard and soft power more effectively. This has left Europe and the United States closer together in their threat perceptions. In addition, Europe is now more alarmed at the rise of Russia and China than it had previously been. Russia's bullying of its neighbors in its "near abroad," combined with the economic challenge from Chinese exports and the political discomfort over Chinese human rights abuses (which have received renewed attention because of the Beijing Olympics), have made a multipolar world a far less appealing prospect than it seemed in 2003. Europe is now more inclined, to adapt the old English rhyme, to stay close to Uncle Sam for fear of something worse.

Bush's visit to Europe is part of that ritual of a presidency's final year: the valedictory world tour. But he is coming to a continent that has already, mentally, moved on. There will be no tearful European goodbyes on this tour. But at least there won't be a need for tear gas, either.

[e-mail]


James Forsyth covers politics for the British magazine the Spectator.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 12:33 PM

Citing History, Bush Suggests His Policies Will One Day Be Vindicated

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A03

Meet George W. Bush, time traveler.

He's in Poland in 1939 as Nazi tanks advance on Warsaw, then flying with his Navy-pilot father to battle imperial Japan. He's alongside Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, William McKinley on his deathbed and Franklin D. Roosevelt on D-Day. He lingers with Harry S. Truman, another U.S. president deeply unpopular in his time.

President Bush leaps forward as well, envisioning a distant future in which Iraq is a tranquil democracy, Palestinians live peaceably alongside Israelis and terrorism is a tactic of the past.

"Imagine if a president had stood before the first graduating class of this academy five decades ago and told the Cadet Wing that by the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union would be no more, communism would stand discredited and the vast majority of the world's nations would be democracies," Bush urged graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs nearly two weeks ago.

As the door begins to close on his tenure, Bush is increasingly drawing on selected events of the past to argue that history will vindicate him on Iraq, terrorism, trade and other controversial issues.


Historical analogies have become a staple of Bush speeches and interviews this year, whether he is addressing regional leaders in Egypt or talking to workers at an office park in suburban St. Louis. Bush will continue this historical focus in a visit to Europe this week, where he will commemorate the Berlin Airlift in Germany and deliver a speech in Paris marking the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.

White House aides say Bush, who majored in history at Yale, likes to emphasize historical comparisons because they are easy for the public to understand and illustrate in dramatic fashion how differently future generations may come to view him.

Unfortunately for the president, many historians have already reached a conclusion. In an informal survey of scholars this spring, just two out of 109 historians said Bush would be judged a success; a majority deemed him the "worst president ever."

"It's all he has left," said Millsaps College history professor Robert S. McElvaine, who conducted the survey for the History News Network of George Mason University. "When your approval ratings are down around 20 to 28 percent and the candidate of your own party is trying to hide from being seen with you, history is your only hope."

Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, who wrote a widely cited Rolling Stone essay about Bush in 2006 titled "The Worst President in History?," said last week that the president's historical arguments can be effective because they are difficult to disprove. "By just saying, 'In the long run this is going to look great,' it makes it very hard to respond to," he said.

White House officials dispute any link between Bush's recent emphasis on history and his disapproval rating, which is now the highest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s. Current and former aides note that Bush is a longtime history buff who, in the middle of his presidency, met regularly with historians and other intellectuals to discuss predecessors including Washington and Nixon.

"His interest in history predated his low approval ratings," said Peter H. Wehner, the former White House aide who arranged those meetings. "It's not like he's grabbing for history; it's been a constant theme."


Earlier in his presidency, Bush shrugged off questions about his long-term legacy. When Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward asked him in December 2003 how history would judge the Iraq war, Bush responded: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

Yet the recent pattern is clear. In May alone, Bush employed broad historical references in about a dozen speeches and interviews, looking back to the middle of the 20th century and forward to the middle of the 21st. He has focused on similar topics during private GOP fundraisers, according to White House aides. "People can understand it, and people can then understand when the president talks about 60 years from now what we could be enjoying," said press secretary Dana Perino.

A week before his address at the Air Force Academy, Bush told paratroopers at Fort Bragg, N.C., that "when the history books are written . . . they will show that freedom prevailed." And during his May trip to the Middle East, Bush told Arab leaders: "Just imagine what this region could look like in 60 years."

Presidential counselor Ed Gillespie said that many of Bush's recent remarks have been tied to specific events, such as the 60th anniversary of Israel, and that there is no "retrospective effort" afoot at the White House. "It's only natural that you would tap into the common history and experiences of our country to derive lessons," he said.


Vice President Cheney has also argued that history will vindicate Bush. Speaking at a Washington luncheon last week, Cheney recalled that former president Gerald R. Ford was "attacked from every conceivable angle" for pardoning Richard M. Nixon, but he said that "the consensus now is that Gerald Ford did the right thing."

Former Bush political adviser Karl Rove wrote in National Review last year that the president will be viewed as "a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century." Rove ticked off successes such as the remaking of humanitarian aid efforts in Africa and the transformation of the political complexion of the federal judiciary.

One of Bush's lengthiest recent discussions about his legacy occurred in an unlikely venue on May 2, when he took questions from employees at a technology firm near St. Louis. Bush said that he "never wanted to be a war president" and that "sometimes you get dealt a hand you didn't expect." He added: "The question is, how do you play it? And here's how I'm playing it."

He talked about the World War II service of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, and how the elder Bush fought against a nation, Japan, that is now a key U.S. ally. Referring to the 1940s, President Bush said: "If you'd have thought an American president would stand up and say, 'My close buddy in dealing with the threats to our countries would be the prime minister of Japan,' they'd say, 'Man, you're nuts, hopelessly idealistic.' . . . I have found that to be one of the ironic twists of history."

Yet even as he sought to highlight similarities between past and current conflicts, Bush also stressed the differences. "This is a different kind of war, and it's hard for some Americans to get their hands around it," he said. ". . . World War II, there was Germany and Japan and Italy. The Cold War, a big standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. There's no nation involved in this war."

Many historians accuse Bush of cherry-picking history to bolster his arguments, in what the late author David Halberstam last year called a "history rummage sale."

One controversial example emerged during a speech at the Israeli parliament on May 15, when Bush compared talking with "terrorists and radicals," including Iran, to the appeasement of Nazis before World War II.

The reference was widely seen as an attack on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- who has said that if elected president, he would talk with Iran's leaders -- although the White House said that was not Bush's intent. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, seized on Bush's words to attack Obama.

The argument was muddied by subsequent events, however, including news that Israel has been talking indirectly since 2007 with Syria, which the United States has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The comparison was also undermined by the Bush administration's negotiations with states such as North Korea.

Some historians are particularly critical of Bush's frequent references to Truman, who had an even lower approval rating than Bush amid opposition to the Korean War. They say Truman's place in history is elevated by his roles in leading the victory in World War II, creating institutions such as the United Nations and implementing the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe.

"The only connection between Harry Truman and George Bush is that they left office with low opinion numbers," said historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University. "That's a very thin reed."

There are dissenters who argue that liberal scholars have let their politics influence their views and that it is too early to render a verdict on Bush. "We're still arguing about Grant, for goodness' sake," said Vincent J. Cannato, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "If all historians are thinking one thing, you have to think something's wrong."

Most agree, however, that Iraq will be central to any future assessments. In his critical book about his time as Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan recounts a conversation in 2003 when "the story line was first emerging among the media that the outcome in Iraq would determine his legacy more than anything else."


"I asked Bush about this," McClellan writes. "He quickly and confidently replied, No. The war on terror will determine my legacy and how Iraq fits into that will determine my legacy.' "

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

It is possible that years from now, when the Iraqis learnt o manage themselves and figure out how to build their own democracy consistent withtheir own needs, not those of the US, that they will be grateful to W for breaking in and tearing out the previous structure willy nilly, killing thousands of their relatives (or ancestors, depending on how far intot he future we are looking)and turning the reconsteruction of the country over to US military contractors.

But I don't think that perspective will be possible for another ten years.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:05 PM

Europe breathes a sigh of relief as Bush bids farewell

Ian Traynor Brussels
June 10, 2008

FROM a castle in Slovenia to one in Windsor, from the Elysee Palace to the Vatican, George Bush races through Europe this week to bid farewell to US allies whose loyalty has been tested during his past eight years in the White House.

With Europe fascinated by the unstoppable rise of Barack Obama, President Bush will get short shrift from pro-American European leaders keen to put the strains and disputes behind them and look forward to next year's new US administration, whether Senator Obama beats John McCain or not.

Mr Bush will be hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — all solidly pro-US, unlike the hostile Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac, who bedevilled Mr Bush's first term.

While the leaders will be generous and polite towards a US president who has plumbed unprecedented depths of unpopularity in Europe and America, there is no doubt the overall sense will be one of "good riddance".

Europe's social democrats presaged Mr Bush's arrival with a declaration stating they were looking forward "to life after Bush". They called for a rejuvenation of the trans-Atlantic relationship and said an Obama victory in November would be the best guarantee of that.

Mr Bush arrives on his valedictory tour today in Slovenia, almost seven years to the day since he set foot in Europe as US president to meet the then new Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. US-Russian relations have deteriorated ever since. The problem of Russia and associated issues such as energy security, potential conflict in Georgia and nuclear proliferation will feature strongly in the talks this week.

The first big business for Mr Bush is a summit today in Slovenia with European Union leaders in which the two sides will debate security measures America is introducing for all travellers to the US from Europe, seen as a threat to civil liberties by many in Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:51 AM

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

Waxman: "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The President's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:29 AM

"While Dick Cheney has been talking tough about Iran's alleged nuclear activities, the vice president has been quietly pursuing nuclear ambitions of his own.

For more than two years, Cheney and a relatively unknown administration official, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell, have been regularly visiting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure agency officials rewrite regulatory policies and bypass public hearings in order to streamline the licensing process for energy companies that have filed applications to build new nuclear power reactors, as well as applications for new nuclear facilities that are expected to be filed by other companies in the months ahead, longtime NRC officials said."

(TPR)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

'The Memory of Bush Will Darken America's Image for Years to Come'


German newspaper commentators have launched a scathing attack on US President George W. Bush's record, saying he embodies "the arrogance of power" and has shattered the world's faith in America.

US President George W. Bush removes an earpiece during Wednesday's news conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg north of Berlin.

The diplomatic fence-mending between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President George W. Bush over the past two years seems to have done nothing to pacify German editorial writers who have seized on the US president's farewell trip to Europe to launch a tirade of criticism of his eight years in power.

The Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, CIA renditions and Bush's record on climate change have tainted not only Bush's image but also that of America for years to come, write Germany's leading newspapers.

The comments coincided with talks between Bush and Merkel at the German government's guest house in Meseberg, 70 kilometers north of Berlin on Wednesday, on the second leg of Bush's week-long tour of Europe which will take him on to Rome, Paris, London and Belfast.

(From Der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:12 PM

The future of President Bush's controversial military trial system for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay has been dealt a potentially terminal blow by the US Supreme Court.

In its third rebuke of the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the court ruled that the 270 foreign terror suspects have the right under the US Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts on the American mainland.

The 5-4 ruling did not order the military tribunal process to be halted but it could trigger a chaotic rush to civilian courts that in practical terms will leave the question of what to do with men such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the September 11 mastermind, in the hands of the next president.

Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, has pledged to close down the site and opposes the military tribunals. John McCain, his Republican opponent, also wants Guantanamo Bay closed. Unlike Mr Obama, however, the Arizona senator supported a law rushed through Congress in 2006 by Mr Bush to resurrect the tribunal system after the Supreme Court last ruled it unconstitutional.

That law, the Military Commissions Act, was passed when Republicans controlled the House and Senate and was the legislation declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court today, because it denies the detainees the right of habeus corpus - an ability to ask a court if one is being held illegally.

The facility currently has 270 detainees - many of whom have been held without charge for over 6 years.

Democrats are now in the supremacy in both chambers and Mr Bush will be hard pressed to get Congress to circumvent the Supreme Court again.

Five alleged plotters of the September 11 attacks, including Mohammed, appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a pre-trial hearing, with prosecutors hoping to start a trial on September 15.

Nearly seven years after Mr Bush set up the tribunals, where he argued the detainees had no rights, not one trial has taken place. A military judge at Guantanamo postponed the trial of Osama bin Laden's one-time driver - which had been due to start last week - pending yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:06 PM

Der Spiegel examines how speculators dramatically drive up the cost of living. Any connection between this and the Bush Administration is left as an exercise for the student.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:04 PM

Maureen Dowd rides again:

"In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word ÒeliteÓ is not a pejorative here; itÕs a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le CarrŽ novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Newsstands carry a whole magazine devoted to ÒLa rŽvolution OBAMA.Ó The papers are avidly following ObamaÕs post-Hillary quest to Òcherche les femmes,Ó and on Friday, Le Figaro led with the headline that he had widened his lead over his Òrival rŽpublicain.Ó

There was nothing on Le FigaroÕs front page about that other American guy who was over here, munching on langoustes at the ƒlysŽe Palace with Sarko and the seductress Carla (animated and dazzling with a midnight blue dress and a hopelessly long, thin cigarette).

ÒYou kind of wrote my political obituary tonight,Ó W. teased the French president after SarkoÕs toast Friday night, adding that he still has six months left and a lot of work to do.

In Old Europe, theyÕve moved on, assuming that the American president has done all the damage that he can do. The blazing hostility toward W. has faded to indifference and a sort of fatigued perplexity about how les imbeciles de regime cowboy got into office, and how America could have put the world through all this craziness...."

(6-15-08 NY Times column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:06 PM

She goes on in like vein:

"On the illicit rush to war, W. ne regrette rien. He reiterated a rhetorical sop to those who yearn for a scintilla of remorse, telling The Times of London that his gunslinging talk made him seem like a Òguy really anxious for war,Ó and that phrases like Òdead or aliveÓ and Òbring them onÓ Òindicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace.Ó

The Bushes have a hard time with the connective tissue between words and actions. In this case, the words, while dime-store Western, were not the problem. The actions were the problem. W. was really anxious for war. He felt that if he could change Middle East history, he could jump out of his fatherÕs shadow forever.

A Democratic lawmaker who saw the president in the Oval Office recently and urged him to bring the troops home from Iraq quickly recounted that W. got a stony look and replied that 41 had abandoned the Iraqis and thousands got slaughtered. ÒI will never do that to them,Ó 43 said.

Sounds like Oedipal dŽjˆ vu all over again."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:41 PM

Chongo Chimp said today that all primates in the world have been insulted by the many popular pictorial comparisons of George Bush to various chimpanzees that have been seen of recent years in political cartoons and on the Internet.

"That man in no way resembles a Chimpanzee OR a monkey!" thundered Chongo as he addressed an enormous gathering of apes and monkeys at an arena in Denver, Colorado. "He looks more like the Missing Link to me! (This drew much laughter and hooting from the enthusiastic crowd.) "To say that he does resemble Chimps or Monkeys is rank specism, and it's an insult to all self-respecting primates. Furthermore, he is not America's "first chimp in the White House", as some foolish people have been irresponsible enough to label him."

"But I bet you can tell me who IS going to be the first Chimp in the White House..." yelled Chongo. The response was defeaning as 35,000 or more apes and monkeys went into a frenzy, chanting "CHONGO! CHONGO! CHONGO! CHONGO!" over and over again. The chanting went on for a full minute and a half and raised a ruckus that could easily be heard 15 or 20 blocks away.

It looks like the brief scandals of Gorilla Gate and Blonde Circus Dame Gate that had Chongo's campaign hurting badly a few weeks back have now been securely put to rest as apes and monkeys nationwide have put aside their differences and have united in a solid front to make Chongo Chimp president of the United States.

How will this affect Obama's and McCain's chances in November? It's hard to say, but my guess is that they are both far more concerned about it than they are prepared to admit.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 01:31 AM

To Little Hawk:      Remember me? I'm from the Hillary thread, who was posting, when you and Guest from Sanity, were posting. Well, we made contact, (he was the composer, if you remember), and he played for us live, online with his web cam, we had our computer hooked through our entertainment center, and through, great speakers. As we listened, tears flowed down our eyes, then he took us all sorts of places in the music. Never heard anything like it before!! He's a friggin' genius!!! About the most beautiful sounds and music, I've (we've) ever heard!! He actually said he was still working on it..UNBELIEVABLE!!! Just Thought I'd tell you. If this ever hit the airwaves....(as it is instantly likable), Lord knows where it will take him, (probably be an influence in music) We could see, 'emotional images(if you will) and it told a complete story, USING NO WORDS! No wonder he was in a music forum, and no wonder now, why he thinks the way he does!!!. I went back and re-read his posts, and some of the stuff he said about creativity, and attitudes, make complete sense. He lives on a higher place..can see why all this political stuff is not his cup of tea!.. ok..Just thought I's let you know!!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

"A previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002 questioned the "credibility" and "truthfulness" of an Al Qaeda detainee who became a key source for the Bush administration's claims about links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
The statements of the detainee--a captured terrorist operative named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi--were the principal basis for President Bush's contention in a major pre-Iraq War speech that Saddam's regime had "trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases." The speech was delivered in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, just as Congress was taking up the White House-backed resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq.

But two months before Bush's dramatic assertion, the CIA had raised serious doubts about whether al-Libi might be inventing some of what he was telling his interrogators, according to a 171-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence released last week.

"Questions persist about [al-Libi's] forthrightness and truthfulness," the CIA wrote in the still-classified Aug. 7, 2002, report, which was circulated throughout the U.S. intelligence community. "In some instances, however, he seems to have fabricated information."

The agency found that al-Libi--in an "attempt to exaggerate his importance"--had told interrogators that he was a member of Al Qaeda's "Shura Council," or governing body. But that claim was not corroborated by other intelligence reporting, the CIA analysis concluded in its report, which was titled: "Terrorism: Credibility of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and the Information He has Provided While in Custody."

The CIA analysis on al-LIbi was described by intelligence officials as a document known as a SPWR--"Senior, Publish When Ready" report. Although it has more limited distribution than some other CIA reports, SPWRs are routinely provided to senior policymakers throughout the U.S. government, including officials of the National Security Council at the White House.

The CIA's al-Libi report is one of several new--but so far largely overlooked--disclosures to be found deep in the fine print of the Senate's long-awaited "Phase 2" report on pre-war intelligence. The Senate investigation sought to compare the public statements of top administration officials during the run-up to the Iraq War with the underlying intelligence-community reporting within the government that provided the basis for them. After much partisan squabbling within the panel over the issue, the final report (approved by all seven of the panel's seven Democrats and two of its Republicans) reached a largely unremarkable conclusion: that while most of the Bush administration's claims were "substantiated" by some internal intelligence-community reports, the public statements of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others were selective and failed to convey the considerable doubts, dissents and uncertainties within the community about much of the public case for war. ..."(Newsweek)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:13 AM

Karl Meyer writes in the Times' Op Ed essay Another Bad Day for Baghdad that the Bush administration is repeating a blunder that the British committed in 1930.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 12:31 AM

A timeline to Bush government torture

Newly public evidence sheds greater light on Bush officials' efforts to develop brutal interrogation techniques for the war on terror.

By Mark Benjamin

"For years now, the Bush White House has claimed that the United States does not conduct torture. Prisoner abuse at places like Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it has asserted, was an aberration -- the work of a few "bad apples" on the night shift. When the CIA used "enhanced" interrogation techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning), the abuse, according to Bush officials, did not add up to torture....But as more and more documents from inside the Bush government come to light, it is increasingly clear that the administration sought from early on to implement interrogation techniques whose basis was torture. Soon after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon and the CIA began an orchestrated effort to tap expertise from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape school, for use in the interrogation of terrorist suspects. The U.S. military's SERE training is designed to inoculate elite soldiers, sailors and airmen to torture, in the event of their capture, by an enemy that would violate the Geneva Conventions. Those service members are subjected to forced nudity, stress positions, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and, yes, in some cases, waterboarding...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:48 AM

"As W. told The Observer: "It's convenient to say, you know, 'warmonger,' 'religious zealot,' 'poodle' — I mean, these are just words that people love to toss around foolishly."

Poppy Bush was often compared to Bertie Wooster, and W. seems to have found his own stiff-backed Jeeves. Mr. Brown agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan, put more sanctions on Iran and decide on Iraq troop withdrawals based on conditions on the ground.

Quentin Letts pointed out in The Daily Mail that when W. touched Gordon, the prime minister would "recoil like a novice nun at first and later smile in terror," and when W. said he had no problem with Brownie on Iraq, "You could almost see Mr. Brown thinking: 'Oh, Gawd! There go another few thousand votes.' "

Asked by The Observer reporter about W.M.D. in Iraq, W. replied: "Still looking for them," sparking a strange moment of levity. Mr. Bush continued: "We didn't realize, nor did anybody else, that Saddam Hussein felt like he needed to play like he had weapons of mass destruction. It may have been, however, that in his mind all this was just a bluff."

Yeah, who could have ever guessed that a wily, deceitful and debilitated Arab dictator might huff and puff, not wanting rivals in the neighborhood to know the weapons cupboard was bare? Maybe some of those psychologists specializing in boastful, malignant narcissists and Middle East cultural experts working in our $40 billion-a-year intelligence units should have been able to figure it out?"


(MAureen Dowd, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 10:20 AM

"The Bush Administration didn't get it so wrong because of Curveball, however much of a liar he may have been, but because it didn't seem to matter to the warmongers from Bush on down whether they got it right or wrong at all. There were ample warnings questioning Curveball's credibility, as well as the credibility of other such sources, but the warmongers believed what they wanted to believe, so rooted were they in their own fanaticism, and didn't let anything like the truth get in the way. "

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wild-pitch/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:27 AM

"Take the Middle East seriously, because that's the center of - that's the place where people get so despondent and despair that they're willing to come and take lives of U.S. citizens."

-- George W. Bush, asked on Al Arabiya TV what advice he would give the next president

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:36 AM

"...that's the place where people get so despondent and despair that they're willing to come and take lives of U.S. citizens." W

You know, I think the man may not be from Planet Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 09:51 AM

Not even in this lifetime!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 05:47 PM

Scott McLellan discusses life on the inside of the Administration, with Jon Stewart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 02:18 AM

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: June 22, 2008

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was Òaddicted to oil,Ó and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: ÒGet more addicted to oil.Ó

Actually, itÕs more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives canÕt totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

ItÕs as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: ÒCÕmon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, weÕll all go straight. IÕll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.Ó

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal:

ÒI know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past,Ó Mr. Bush said. ÒNow that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.Ó

This from a president who for six years resisted any pressure on Detroit to seriously improve mileage standards on its gas guzzlers; this from a president whoÕs done nothing to encourage conservation; this from a president who has so neutered the Environmental Protection Agency that the head of the E.P.A. today seems to be in a witness-protection program. I bet there arenÕt 12 readers of this newspaper who could tell you his name or identify him in a police lineup.

But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasnÕt lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact AmericaÕs energy profile right now Ñ unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow Ñ and create good tech jobs to boot.

That bill is H.R. 6049 Ñ ÒThe Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,Ó which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. ÒAlready clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,Ó said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines Ñ because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans Ñ sorry to say, with the help of John McCain Ñ have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 06:00 AM

I think that this has got it about right:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 08:28 AM

Don't bother, T. Those here will not bother to read anything that does not apriori support what they wish to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM

Bearded Bruce, do you realize how insulting that kind of statement is? Surely you must grant that we - including you - are concerned about our country and its leadership and that we all process information according to our understanding and in our own ways, filtered through our own experiences. There is room for disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 10:58 AM

" do you realize how insulting that kind of statement is? "

Almost as insulting as the daily comments about anyone who does not adhere to the liberal line.



"Surely you must grant that we - including you - are concerned about our country and its leadership and that we all process information according to our understanding and in our own ways, filtered through our own experiences. "

WHEN that is granted to me, I will certainly agree that others are concerned.



"There is room for disagreement."

Not according to the liberal majority here.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 11:01 AM

feel free to disagree- As a conservative, I allow ( actually, encourage) others to make up their own minds (based on the facts) instead of following the Party Line.


And feel free to take post 1200.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 11:54 AM

Invading a country for political purpses and running large deficits are not at all conservative, bb... Maybe you think they are but they are not!!! You and the other Bush supporters need to come up with a realistic label... True conservatives nave little use for Bush or his radical policies... And you can take that to the bank...

And please don't think of this as an attack... It isn't... It's not even an opinion... It is an observation... William Buckley was a conservative, bb... You and T are not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 03:16 PM

T's reference is almost pure party line. For example it "covers" the invasion of Iraq by asserting that the CIA like all intell agencies believed in WMD> THere is plenty of evidence that this was not the truth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 06:08 PM

Yes, Amos...

The story is in now and yet the true believers just go on true believing??? Truth be damned...

Go figure???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:39 AM

David Brooks defends Bush's decisions on the surge, although he overlooks the coincident stand down of al Sadr's forces....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:04 AM

US General says W Bush committed WAR CRIMES

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:56 AM

General Taguba writes (an excerpt):

"Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.
The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted—both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend. ...

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The former detainees in this report, each of whom is fighting a lonely and difficult battle to rebuild his life, require reparations for what they endured, comprehensive psycho-social and medical assistance, and even an official apology from our government."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used "political or ideological" factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.

The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department's inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year's scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.

"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department's honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, "constituted misconduct and also violated the department's policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations."

The shift began in 2002, when advisers to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft restructured the honors program in response to what some officials saw as a liberal tilt in recruiting young lawyers from elite law schools like Harvard and Yale. While the recruitment was once controlled largely by career officials in each section who would review applications, political officials in the department began to assume more control, rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations "at a significantly higher rate" than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said.

The shift appeared to accelerate in 2006, under then-Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with two aides on the screening committee — Michael Elston and Esther Slater McDonald — singled out for particular criticism. The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department's civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

Applications that contained what were seen as "leftist commentary" or "buzz words" like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general's office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who heads the House Judiciary Committee, saw the report as affirmation that the Justice Department had crossed the line in "putting politics where it doesn't belong."

"When it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys," Mr. Conyers said, "our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics. It appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test. ''

(New York Times 6-24-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:27 PM

What liberal line, anyway, Bruce? That WMD was a gross error in judgement? That invading Iraq was not justified by the rationale presented? That Bush has wreaked havoc with American ideals of justice under law by making the Justice department a fiasco of political bias?

Which of these "liberal lines" do you think is not supported by the ground truth?

Are you waiting for history to turn around and judge him as a great, misunderestimated leader?

I honestly do not believe it is possible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 09:29 PM

History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush
By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008

As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.

He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.

I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.

If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.


...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:08 PM

IF we compare the two men, I think the differences are staggering enough to support the idea that the comparison is almost ridiculous.In any case, I suspect the writer is way off the mark.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:42 PM

WASHINGTON Ñ Justice Department officials illegally used Òpolitical or ideologicalÓ factors in elite recruiting programs in recent years, tapping law school graduates with Federalist Society membership or other conservative credentials over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding rŽsumŽs, an internal report found Tuesday.


The report, prepared by the Justice DepartmentÕs own inspector general and its ethics office, portrays a clumsy effort by senior Justice Department screeners to weed out candidates for career positions whom they considered Òleftists,Ó using Internet search engines to look for incriminating information or evidence of possible liberal bias.

...

The report, prepared jointly by the office of the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, is the first in a series of internal reviews growing out of last yearÕs controversy over the dismissals of nine United States attorneys. The report is the first from an official investigation to support accusations that the Bush Justice Department has been overly politicized.

ÒWhen it comes to the hiring of nonpartisan career attorneys, our system of justice should not be corrupted by partisan politics,Ó said Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. ÒIt appears the politicization at Justice was so pervasive that even interns had to pass a partisan litmus test.Ó

The inspector general is investigating other issues related to accusations of politicization in the Justice Department, including the central question of why the United States attorneys were dismissed in late 2006. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:52 PM

From "The Progress Report":

"Bush's Executive Priviilege


As the Bush era winds down, the President is assertingÊexecutive privilegeÊto impede congressional oversight of his administration. With a contempt of Congress vote looming by Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, President Bush asserted executive privilege last Friday morning, blocking the committee's subpoenas for documents relating to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to reject California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to override scientific recommendations on ozone standards. Waxman found Bush's action on Friday "extraordinary," especially since EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson "has repeatedly insisted he reached his decisions on California's petition and the new ozone standard on his own." In a separate case, lawyers for Congress tried yesterday to convince a federal judge to take the "unprecedented step" and compel the administration to obey subpoenas related to the U.S. Attorneys scandal -- the first lawsuit ever "filed by either chamber of Congress seeking to force the executive branch to comply with a subpoena." Bush had cited executive privilege to prevent former White House counsel Harriet Miers from testifying and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten from turning over documents. As with President Nixon's attempts to block the Watergate investigation and President Reagan's efforts to hide the EPA dioxin scandal,ÊBush appears to be using his assertion of executive privilegeÊas a toolÊto cover up his administration's illegal actions.

'ABOVE THE LAW': Bush's assertion of executive privilege on Friday put a halt to the contempt vote that Waxman's committee had scheduled for Johnson and White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulatory administrator Susan Dudley. Despite the White House's complaint that such a vote represented a "sudden, significant escalation," Waxman was investigating the EPA's decisions for months. His committee's investigations have revealed that Johnson's decision to reject California's waiver petition was made only after discussions with the White House. Similarly, the Washington Post reported thatÊBush personally intervened in a between Dudley's office and the EPA, prompting the EPAÊto reject scientific recommendations for smog standards.ÊWhat is being withheld is Bush's legal justification for his actions -- important because the Clean Air Act strictly defines permissible considerations for air quality standards and waivers. The documents withheld from Congress include 1,956 OMB documents regarding Bush's ozone decision,Ê25 EPA documents on the California waiver, and 71 more that are being turned over with the "identities of the meeting participants" redacted. On May 20, Johnson and Dudley appeared before the committee without the subpoenaed documents and refused to answer questions about Bush's involvement.ÊAt the hearing, Waxman sharply criticized Bush's role, saying, "The president does not have absolute power, and he is not above the law."Ê

WHAT'S NEXT: Following Bush's executive privilege claim, Waxman declared that he would "talk with my colleagues on both sides about this new development and consider all our options before deciding how we should proceed." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said the "committee should approve a contempt resolution immediately," and "reiterated his call to impeach the president" to hold the administration accountable. The courts are reluctant to get involved, as Judge John D. Bates said in Monday's hearing on congressional subpoeanas: "Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt theÊbalance." The House counsel asked the court to "order Miers to testify and allow her to invoke executive privilege only on a question-by-question basis" and for Bolten "to provide a log of White House documents and to explain why each was being withheld." Lawyers for the administration argued top advisers deserve "absolute immunity" and Congress should use political tools instead of the courts, such as "withholding funds for the Justice Department or stalling presidential appointments." When asked in March if Congress would continue the U.S. attorneys investigation if it continues into the next administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said,Ê"Absolutely. ... [W]e might as well just shred the Constitution and forget about taking the oath of office if weÕre just going to do it for a Republican President and not a Democratic President." ..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 12:43 AM

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection AgencyÕs conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.Õs answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., Òshowed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,Ó one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. ÒThatÕs not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act canÕt work.Ó...(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:07 AM

Fun With War Crimes -- series 1 through 3 now released!! Collect the whole set!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:16 AM

Washington Post

Government of the People

It's time to end the battle over confirmations.
Thursday, June 26, 2008; Page A18

THE CONFIRMATION of five members to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday was the end of a six-month skirmish between the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). But the years-long battle over appointments to jobs within the federal government continues as scores of men and women eager to serve have languished in confirmation limbo for months, if not years. This is no way to run a government.

The tussle centers on 112 names sent to Mr. Reid by the White House last week. There are 46 nominees who would serve at the pleasure of the president and whose terms would expire when Mr. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20. The other 66 are so-called termed nominations. Some are for noncontroversial entities such as the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation's board of trustees and the National Council on Disability. But there are also pairings of Democrats and Republicans for various boards and authorities, including the nominees for the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Also part of the batch of termed nominations are three for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and one for the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). It is here where the absurdity of the situation has the potential for real-life consequences. Donald Marron's wait to be confirmed to the CEA will hit the one-year mark on Saturday. The three pending Federal Reserve confirmations have been under consideration since May 2007; of the seven board seats, only four are filled by confirmed individuals, and one of them is leaving this summer. The Federal Reserve has not been left to operate with fewer than five governors in its more than 70 years. When the nation is facing a housing crisis and the economy is struggling, there shouldn't be this much uncertainty -- neither for the bodies tasked with guiding the president and policy nor for the nominees.


Altogether, 394 nominees have waited a combined 52,122 days for confirmation. In all the bickering, it's easy to forget that there are real people behind the numbers. They've answered invasive questions about their families and their finances. They've put their lives on hold and have declined opportunities to take jobs and earn more money in the private sector to be in public service. They deserve to be told once and for all whether their service is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 09:19 AM

San Francisco to vote on naming sewer after George Bush

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
Friday, 27 June 2008


San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
The plant that could be renamed the George W Bush Sewage Plant

enlarge Print Email Search
Search
    Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A
Some presidents get carved into Mt Rushmore; others have airports, motorways, and even entire cities named in their honour. But when George Bush leaves office, his most visible memorial may be a mouldering patch of human effluent.


In November, alongside casting their ballot for the next president, the people of San Francisco will also vote on a measure to rename one of the city's largest sewage works the George W Bush Sewage Plant, to provide a "fitting monument" to the outgoing commander-in-chief's achievements.

Activists from the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a mischievously-named group behind the move, will ask supporters to participate in a "synchronised flush".

It may sound like a student prank, but the proposal is almost certain to be passed. Democrats usually secure between 70 and 80 per cent of the vote in San Francisco – and in 2006 passed a proposition to impeach Mr Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney by a majority of almost two to one.

"In 50 years from now, we want people to see George Bush's name on that plant, and ask each other what went wrong," said Brian McConnell, the Memorial Commission's organiser. "We want them to be reminded of the Iraq war, and his other dramatic mistakes, and this is the perfect way to do it."

The ballot takes advantage of local government rules, which state that any proposal supported by a petition carrying the signatures of more than 7,168 voters must go to the polls. At present, the supporters of the sewage plant proposal claim to have 8,500 signatures, and counting. If the measure passes, city authorities will be forced to erect a prominent sign bearing the legend "George W Bush Sewage Plant" at the site of the bayside facility. ..."

The Independent

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 08:53 PM

Bob Herbert (NYT) writes a telling and revealing column about the Administrations tolerance for inhuman abuse and torture of prisoners, as justified by Bush lawyers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: fumblefingers
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

It'll be interesting to see what all you Bush haters do with yourselves after he leaves office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 09:54 PM

FF,

We have plenty to do thanks, in the way of constructive conversation. It will certainly take precedence when there is no longer a pea-brained militarist fascist theocrat presiding over the Executive branch and messing up every other branch with his blatant mismanagement.

Hope this answers your question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 02:59 PM

The Pentagon has drafted a secret plan that would send U.S. special forces into the wild tribal regions of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, but the White House has balked at giving the mission a green light, The New York Times reported today.

New leaked reports have exposed U.S. covert operations in the Middle East.The Bush administration, which has seven months left in its term, gave the go-ahead for the military to draw up the plan to take the war on terror across the Afghan border and into the mountains of Pakistan where bin Laden is believed to be hiding, according to the newspaper.

Intelligence reports have concluded that bin Laden has re-established a network of new training camps, and the number of recruits in those camps has risen to as many as 2,000 in recent months from 200 earlier this year.

Although the special forces attack plan was devised six months ago, infighting among U.S. intelligence agencies and among White House offices have blocked it from being implemented, the Times reported.


(Explanation here.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jun 08 - 03:31 PM

Hey, fumblefingers...

I'm going to commit ritual suicide in my backyard with a Samurai sword, Japanese style. ;-) Gotta give Bush's departure all the gravity it merits, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 09:44 AM

The Huffiington post:

"The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh reports on how the Bush Administration has stepped up covert operations against Iran:

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in the President's war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees--the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed."

Seymour Hersh's actual article, "Preparing the Battlefield" can be found here at the New Yorker.

Excerpt:
"..The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were "pushing back very hard" against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that "at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders"—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—"have weighed in on that issue."

The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the "real objective" of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians' behavior, and that "attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice."

..."Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. "Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians," he told me. "Let's get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone's an individual. The idea that they're only one way or another is nonsense."

When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, "Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid."

The Democratic leadership's agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. "The oversight process has not kept pace—it's been coöpted" by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. "The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we're authorizing."

Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House's. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)

The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration's interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC's task-force missions, the pursuit of "high-value targets," was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.

"This is a big deal," the person familiar with the Finding said. "The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was 'preparing the battle space,' and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror." He added, "The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray"—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—"but now it's a shade of mush."

---

It seems to me a serious danger exists that Bush's squint (which is what he uses as a foreign policy analysis device) is going to lead us into a catastrophic misunerestimations and break heads, bodies, families and hearts up and down the planet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

From a patent lawyer:

"Wow, assuming the law passes, the USPTO has set an all time record for fees:

"The House of Representatives on June 23, 2008, passed legislation (H.R. 6344) to give the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office discretion to accept unintentionally late filings for a drug patent term extension upon the payment of a $65 million fee. The legislation would amend Title 35 with a new Section 156(i) to authorize acceptance of the late filing."

I wonder if the Director of the USPTO can resist using his "discretion" to accept $65 million? "

(The USPTO is under the direction of a less-than-competent Bush appointee. )


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:08 PM

Bush rejects pentagon plan to get bin Laden according to ABC news.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:28 PM

Donuel--see my post of the 30th. I think this is the story you are referring to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 10:15 PM

Damaging details of infighting within the Bush administration and intelligence agencies are emerging, just months before George Bush leaves the White House.

A scathing assessment of US failures in its war with al-Qa'ida was published by The New York Times yesterday, containing the charge that the infighting has hobbled efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and his senior lieutenants.

The report coincides with revelations in The New Yorker about deep unease among congressional leaders over a secret directive issued by the Bush administration which significantly boosts the activities of Special Operations Forces inside Iran. The magazine also detected further disarray by highlighting concern within the US military about White House support for possible military strikes on Iran, which would aim to set back Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Mr Bush will now leave office with al-Qa'ida having successfully relocated its base of operations from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas. According to the report in The New York Times, there may be more than 2000 foreign recruits to al-Qa'ida. The newspaper describes how last year the Pentagon's Special Operations Forces were authorised to launch missions in the mountains of Pakistan. But they are still awaiting the green light to launch attacks on al-Qa'ida camps in the North West territories. There was "mounting frustration" at the delay, a senior defence source told the newspaper. There have been numerous American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, but militants have continued to flock to al-Qa'ida encampments it is reported.

The US failure to tackle the al-Qa'ida leadership comes at a time when Mr Bush is increasingly focused on projecting the US military into Iran. Operations in Iran have been expanded with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command joining forces, according to current US officials. The New Yorker reported that undercover US operations inside Iran are undergoing a major expansion aimed at destabilising the religious leadership.

Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, is to travel to Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a seven-nation tour later this year to address what is seen as a weakness on foreign policy compared to his veteran Republican opponent, Senator John McCain. Mr Obama has said he wants to send up to 10,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, where violence has increased as the Taliban and al-Qa'ida regroup. Mr Obama has accused Mr Bush of neglecting the fight in Afghanistan to pursue an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Most damaging of all for President Bush's legacy may be a 700-page official history by the US Army. It points the finger of blame at US-based commanders who believed "in the euphoria of early 2003" that the goals in Iraq had been accomplished and failed to send enough troops to handle the occupation. The study specifically blames President Bush's declaration on board an aircraft carrier off San Diego on 1 May 2003, that major combat operations were over for reinforcing that view. The audacious conclusions of the official army history, On Point II, were defended in a foreword by General William Wallace, commanding general of US Army Training and Doctrine Command, who wrote: "One of the great and least understood qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination."

The report blames civilian and military planning for the failures of post-Saddam Iraq. After Saddam was toppled, US commanders sat back and expected a peaceful transition much as they had experienced in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The report also said the administration of George Bush assumed incorrectly that the Saddam regime would collapse after the 1991 Gulf War. The army history points out that the coalition commander, General Tommy Franks, told his subordinates to prepare to move most of their forces out of Iraq by September 2003.

"In line with the ... general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for US ground forces in Iraq," the report said.

It would take until July 16 2003 for his successor, General John Abizaid, to acknowledge that US forces were facing a classic guerrilla insurgency.

Some of the most scathing criticisms of the US military have come from within its own ranks.

Lt- Col Paul Yingling touched off the debate last year, complaining in public: "After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilisation, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public." (The Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:50 AM

Yes

Amos
You must have seen the Seymour Hirsh story on the Bush covert attacks in Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:55 AM

I estimate this story will grow wings with blow back exceeding the Rumsfeld prison torture photos.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:11 AM

Bush's "considerable legacy": An article on the op-ed page of The Boston Globe by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is bouncing around blogland. Bacevich says that "in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy." He continues:

Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

· Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

· Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;
· Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

· Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

· Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

· Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

· Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";

· Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.


By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement."(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:50 AM

I saw the hirsh story--it can be read here in the New Yorker.

THis psychotic son of a bitch is determined to ruin the world as fast as he can, isn't he?

Sheesh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:56 AM

An audio file of Seymour Hirsh discussing the Bush Escalation strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:03 AM

"On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, George W. Bush delivered the defining speech of his Presidency. In the face of "clear evidence of peril" from a regime harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, he declared, "we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Five days earlier, a forty-one-year-old Illinois state legislator had given a momentous speech of his own, although few recognized it as such at the time. "I don't oppose all wars," Barack Obama told a few hundred Chicago protesters, adding:


I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM

MArk Morford opines (SFGate):

"...See, we've been enjoying a small reprieve. These past six months or so, it's been sort of delightful to finally turn our attention toward the imminent Democratic sea change and away from the ravages of the Bush disease, to finally look toward the new, as we get to focus on all those things we might be able to do once we get out of this damn hospital and get the weak-kneed Democratic Party out of second gear.

But oh, not so fast.

Let us be reminded, the Bush virus will be with us for years, generations. Aside from the shambles of Iraq and the Middle East, aside from handguns and the decided mixed blessing of the Supreme Court's recent spate of decisions, there are maneuvers and decisions we don't even know about, nefarious arrangements, a corruption so deep that normally staid historians are behaving more like alarmed climate-change scientists: We know it's going to be bad, but we just don't know how bad.

There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.

Where do you dare to look? Women's rights? Science? Foreign policy? Currency devaluation? Big Oil? Halliburton's billions in war profit? Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the Dick Cheney agenda of torture and pre-emptive aggression? What about unchecked corporate cronyism, the shunning of the United Nations and of international law, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, wiretapping and surveillance and "evildoers" galore?

And finally, what of all those families, the thousands of dead U.S. soldiers, the tens of thousands of brain-damaged, disabled, permanently wounded? Bush's legacy isn't just one of staggering social ineptitude combined with shocking success at serving his corporate masters. It's foremost a legacy soaked to the bone in blood.

Truly, I firmly believe the record will reveal that no president in modern history has done more to unravel the American identity, to dumb down the populace and cater to the basest instincts of man than the one about to mispronounce his way into the history books. Even Nixon didn't leave office with Bush's incredible range of ignominy.

Ironically, this is why many in the GOP are chuckling in secret, rubbing their hands together, plotting their revenge. They know the colossal pile of issues and problems Barack Obama will inherit is so overwhelming, so unsolvable, it doesn't matter how smart and aggressive he might be. It doesn't matter that he'll have a Democratic Congress. He's just plain doomed. Combine this with America's infamous short attention span, and within a few years, just watch as the GOP emerges from the murky depths, the champion of a "new" solution.

I know, it can seem bleak. Insurmountable, even. But here's the lesson of any major injury, of surviving a serious illness and getting on with your life. Often, it's not merely about letting time heal all wounds. It's not always about ignoring the scar, or looking away from our permanent deformity and pretend we don't now walk with a savage limp.

It's far more about learning to live with the violence that's been wreaked upon the national body, letting the scale of the wound fuel us, shock us back to life. Question is, do we have enough optimistic ointment to cover it all?

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:58 PM

"WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday that diplomacy was the first option to address Iran's nuclear program, which he is concerned could be used to build a nuclear weapon, but he repeated that all options were on the table.

"I have always said that all options are on the table but the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically," he told reporters ahead of the G8 meeting in Japan next week.

Tensions have been flaring in recent days amid reports Israel is planning for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. That has sent crude oil prices near record highs and led U.S. officials to publicly criticize the reports.

Despite three rounds of U.N. sanctions, Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium, arguing it is for a civil energy program. Western powers last month presented Tehran with a package of economic and diplomatic incentives aimed at convincing Iran to halt its program.

"The best way to solve this diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message and that is that 'you will be isolated and you will have economic hardship if you continue trying to enrich,'" Bush said.

His comments followed indications by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Tuesday that his country was open to negotiations with Western powers over the incentives package.

"We saw the potential for the beginning for a new round of talks," Mottaki said, according to the Washington Post, which also reported that he said he would write a formal response within the next "couple of weeks."

Those comments were met with some skepticism in Washington where State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "At this point, I guess I'll be value-neutral on that.

"They say they are going to react positively. We'll see. They haven't done so in the past," he told reporters. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and Arshad Mohammed, editing by David Alexander)"

---

I would like to believe W, honest I would.

But something tells me he is lying through his teeth, possibly in ways he has so rationalized he can't even see them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:18 PM

"He's No Decider, He's a Ditherer


By Daniel Benjamin
Sunday, July 6, 2008; Page B03

Conventional wisdom holds that George W. Bush's foreign policy failed because the president -- who famously called himself "the decider" -- is too, well, decisive. Bush's reckless, impulsive decision to invade Iraq, the argument goes, opened the door for Iran's ascendancy, distracted the United States from pursuing al-Qaeda more effectively in Afghanistan and Pakistan, diverted Western attention from a worsening relationship with Russia and so on.

There's a lot to this assessment. But you can't fully comprehend the Bush record without understanding another Bush problem: a chronic failure to reach decisions or implement those that are made. On one key issue after another, from the Middle East to North Korea to the Department of Homeland Security, Bush has proven himself to be a dawdler, a foot-dragger who can't make fundamental choices or press his team to follow his commands. Call him the non-decider.



This image of Bush the ditherer is obviously hard to reconcile with his long-cultivated image as a strong executive, a self-described "gut player" with unyielding determination and unfailing clarity of purpose. In his scathing memoir "What Happened," former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan writes that the president sought to present himself as "a disciplined leader who focused on making hard decisions and wisely delegating responsibilities, in the manner of an effective corporate CEO." Bush seems to have hoped to emulate the crisp, effective process run by his father and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft; Bush certainly tried to strike a contrast with President Bill Clinton, whose team's deliberations Gen. Colin L. Powell (somewhat unfairly) said resembled "graduate-school bull sessions."

But as many veterans of the Bush administration have made clear, the president's CEO style has more to do with a fanatical punctuality (he once locked Powell, his first-term secretary of state, out of a Cabinet meeting because he was running late, according to McClellan) than true resolve. This picture of an indecisive, ineffectual leader is being painted not by the predictable Bush haters but by his own former aides -- career civil servants and political appointees alike. After reading "War and Decision," the new memoir from the arch-neoconservative Douglas J. Feith, former assistant secretary of defense Bing West quipped in the National Review that the former Pentagon aide's book should have been titled "War and Indecision" -- perhaps a fitting epitaph for the Bush era.

So why has Bush vacillated so often? Here are some of his key management lapses.

Leaving fundamental disagreements to fester. For all his insistence on moral clarity, Bush has failed to bang heads and create clear policies. That has made for an administration persistently riven by sharp differences of view and personal antagonisms.

The outstanding example here is Iran. More than seven years into Bush's tenure, it's still not clear whether he advocates regime change in Tehran or favors a negotiated deal to stop the ayatollahs' suspected nuclear program. The failure to decide has been a guarantee of failure. After all, we can't have it both ways: The Iranians are hardly going to bargain with us to stop developing the ultimate weapon if they think we want to do away with their government.

But this is just what the Bush administration expects them to do. The United States has joined with European countries to jump-start a set of negotiations with Iran, even asWashington is appropriating $75 million for democracy-promotion programs that underwrite opponents of the regime in Tehran -- which the Iranians understandably view as promoting regime change. The confusion goes to the very top: Last month, Bush derided the notion of talking to the Iranian leaders as appeasement, while National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley insisted that the administration was pursuing a "diplomatic strategy" with Iran. Go figure."...


WaPo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:57 PM

For those of us who care about holding President Bush accountable for illegal wiretapping, there's some bad news and some good news.

The bad news: A little over a week ago, House Democratic leaders caved to the Bush administrationÊand passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped President Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1

The good news: It looked like this bad bill would sail through the Senate, but then Senators Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd announced they would use all the procedural tactics available to defeat the bill (including a filibuster). Other Senators wanted to get out of town for a week-long July 4th break, so the bill was temporarily pulledÑgiving progressives an extra week to organize.

Senators are under a lot of pressure to cave to President Bush. We need to make sure Senator Dianne Feinstein knows that voters back home want her to fight strong against Bush's constitutional violations.

Here's where to call:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: [phone]

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:07 PM

"A ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that details both the threat of global warming and our ability to address the problem has been suppressed by the White House since December. This document, produced in response to a "monumental" Supreme Court mandate, includes a "multimillion-dollar study conducted over two years" that finds "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if strong carbon dioxide emissions standards for the automotive industry are issued.

The proposal to increase today's fuel economy standards by 50 percent from 25 miles per gallon to 38.3 mpg by 2020 is stronger than those included in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which called for a 40 percent increase. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson used the signing of the act as the public excuse to reject the findings of his staff and block California's proposal to regulate greenhouse tailpipe emissions. In fact, congressional investigations have revealed that officials in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) refused to open the email containing the EPA plan and that Johnson has been stonewalling to prevent disclosure of President Bush's role.

$2 TRILLION BENEFIT: As first revealed by the Detroit News, an advanced model used by the EPA andÊNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) foundthat iincreasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent a year would have a net benefit to society of $1.4 to two trillion dollars by 2040. The benefit is strongly tied to the price of gasoline. Using the latest estimates from the Energy Information Administration, the EPA study assumed that gasoline prices would get no higher than $3.50 a gallon. Those figures are already outdated,Êas gasoline prices have reached an average of $4.09 a gallon, and oil prices are nearingÊ$146 a barrel. With higher gasoline prices, the benefits of high carbon dioxide standards would be even greater. ConsumersÊareÊresponding already to the spiking price by moving away from gas guzzlers. Detroit automakers have suffered hard sales declines: "Ford Motor was down 28 percent in June, General Motors was off 18 percent, and Chrysler dropped 36 percent." Toyota likewise fell 21 percent. Only Honda Motor, with its fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles, saw any sales gains.

NEW STANDARDS: The rulingÊ prepared by the EPA in December, after being rejected by the White House was pared down and recrafted as an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" -- a draft version with a request for further rounds of public comment, thus delaying any implementation until the next administration.ÊEven after major cuts from the December version, this document makes a mockery ofÊBush's claim in April that applying the Clean Air Act to global warming pollutionÊ"would have crippling effects on our entire economy" and be a "glorious mess." In fact, the ruling finds "technology is readily available to achieve significant reductions," "the benefits of these new standards far outweigh the costs," and the new standards "would result in substantial reductions" in greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, under the terms of the 2007 Energy Act, NHTSA proposed gas-mileage standards that the Center for Biological Diversity criticized for being kept low "through a number of bizarre assumptions, including asserting that gas will cost $2.36 per gallon in 2020 and $2.51 in 2030." In contrast, the automotive industry -- after arguing they "acted in good faith" to develop the law -- is challenging these standardsÊ saying the NHTSA implementation "goes beyond what it is technologically feasible and economically practicable" and will create "net social costs."
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:13 PM

Kristof of the Times writes:

"ÒThere is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,Ó Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq, declares in a powerful new report on American torture from Physicians for Human Rights. ÒThe only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.Ó

The first step of accountability isnÕt prosecutions. Rather, we need a national Truth Commission to lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing... a Truth Commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11.

We already know that the United States government has kept Nelson Mandela on a terrorism watch list and that the U.S. military taught interrogation techniques borrowed verbatim from records of Chinese methods used to break American prisoners in the Korean War Ñ even though we knew that these torture techniques produced false confessions.

ItÕs a national disgrace that more than 100 inmates have died in American custody in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guant‡namo. After two Afghan inmates were beaten to death by American soldiers, the American military investigator found that one of the menÕs legs had been Òpulpified.Ó

Moreover, many of the people we tortured were innocent: the administration was as incompetent as it was immoral. The McClatchy newspaper group has just published a devastating series on torture and other abuses, and it quotes Thomas White, the former Army secretary, as saying that it was clear from the moment Guant‡namo opened that one-third of the inmates didnÕt belong there.

McClatchy says that one inmate, Mohammed Akhtiar, was known as pro-American to everybody but the American soldiers who battered him. Some of his militant fellow inmates spit on him, beat him and called him Òinfidel,Ó all because of his anti-Taliban record.

These abuses happened partly because, for several years after 9/11, many of our national institutions didnÕt do their jobs. The Democratic Party rolled over rather than serving as loyal opposition. We in the press were often lap dogs rather than watchdogs, and we let the public down.

Yet there were heroes, including civil liberties groups and lawyers for detainees. Some judges bucked the mood, and a few conservatives inside the administration spoke out forcefully. The TimesÕs Eric Lichtblau writes in his terrific new book, ÒBushÕs Law,Ó that the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner, James Ziglar, pushed back against plans for door-to-door sweeps of Arab-American neighborhoods.

The book recounts that in one meeting, Mr. Ziglar bluntly declared, ÒWe do have this thing called the Constitution,Ó adding that such sweeps would be illegal and ÒIÕm not going to be part of it.Ó

Among those I admire most are the military lawyers who risked their careers, defied the Pentagon and antagonized their drinking buddies Ñ all for the sake of Muslim terror suspects in circumstances where the evidence was often ambiguous. At a time when we as a nation took the expedient path, these military officers took the honorable one, and they deserve medals for their courage.

The Truth Commission investigating these issues ideally would be a non-partisan group heavily weighted with respected military and security officials, including generals, admirals and top intelligence figures. Such backgrounds would give their findings credibility across the political spectrum Ñ and I donÕt think they would pull punches. The military and intelligence officials I know are as appalled by our abuses as any other group, in part because they realize that if our people waterboard, then our people will also be waterboarded.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain should commit to impaneling a Truth Commission early in the next administration. This commission would issue a report to help us absorb the lessons of our failings, the better to avoid them during the next crisis.

As for what to do with Guant‡namo itself, the best suggestion comes from an obscure medical journal, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. It suggests that the prison camp would be an ideal research facility for tropical diseases that afflict so many of the worldÕs people. An excellent suggestion: the U.S. should close the prison and turn it into a research base to fight the diseases of global poverty, and maybe then we could eventually say the word ÒGuant‡namoÓ without pangs of shame."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Holy Sameh El-Shahat argues that George W Bush has been the most under-rated president... ever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/holycows/2270920/Holy-Cows-George-W-Bush---buffoon-or-great-leader.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM

"Great piece, Shameh.

I served two tours in Iraq, and I can tell you that what a huge improvement the Bush surge has made in that country. If Democrats (or Obama) in Congress had their way, it would be a mess.

I agree, Bush is very under-rated. History will judge him in very positive light.

Btw, I voted for Gore in 2000, but voted to re-elect Bush in 2004. I wish I could vote for him again in 2008. He is a far better man than both McCain and especially Obama.

Shane King"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

"Brian Paterson on July 09, 2008 04:15 PM:

Thank you for this article. It is entirely refreshing to read something about President Bush in a British publication that is simply objective and, dare I say it, true. Yes there have been errors, and not just in Iraq, but the hateful rantings of the far left in both the US and the UK are not about legitimate differences in policy or methodology. These people just blindly hate Bush and the facts will never matter to them.

As a Brit now living in America, it has been tough to read the nonsense in this publication and others in both countries. The willful ignorance, cowardice and hypocrisy of commentators and politicians alike is nothing new, but on this subject it is entirely transparent, and it is mystifying to me that so many of them still think they have any credibility left.

I am grateful that the lies and the mindless venom are not as universal as one might have feared -- and the views expressed in this article are certainly more widespread than many in the media would ever wish to contemplate."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:25 PM

There were about thirty write-in remarks to that piece, many of which concluded that Shameh's piece had to be satire, it was so misguided and erroneous.

Writing gilt praise does not change the shameful and dishonest methods the man used, nor the harm he did to the country. It is true that he was decisive, and obdurate. These would haver been great virtues except that they simmered in a stew of muddled impulses, dishonesty and distortion.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

Just using your examples of how to show "popular" opinion...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

Bruce:

You are beginning to tick me off.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

Only fair, you know.


I have done nothing to you that you have not repeatedly done to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:56 PM

That's what ticks me off; first, that you feel I have done the same to you, by posting excerpts from various anti-Bush articles (not solely anti--I added in some pro-Bush bits once in a while), and seconde, that your remedy is to post screeds of long articles in an effort ot simply glut the channel into non-operability, and that you think this is a useful rejoinder instead of rebutting the points and issues. As a response it is about as useful as the mockery games played by children who drive others mad by copying them. The logic of it actually escapes me.

If you had evidence of facts that justified invading Iraq -- not just that "everybody was scared", but ground truth -- I haven't seen it posted here.

IF you have rebuttals against those who decry the FISA violations, the heavy handed signing statements, the suppression of habeas corpus, the abuses of torture, and the other points that have been specifically levied againstr the Bush adminitration, they would be welcome.

But by multiplying the screeds of arm-wavers whose logic consists primarily of shouting opinions louder, you do a disservice to your own cause.

And you're going to be tempted to copy that sentence and fire it back at me in a stupid and childish mockery, so please don't.


A

A



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

No need too, as long as you have realized that it applies.

I really think you are too intelligent to think that you can play the game your way and then complain when others join in.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 03:13 PM

Liike most mockery, your "joining in" strikes me as exagerrated and distorted, but this is just my opinion.

THe major distortions in logic of Bush's policies have never been well-answered even by those few who still defend him.

What I really think is that the world view that thinks only in terms of inevitable overwhelm and force is a broken world-view, hampered above all by a lack of imagination and the morals trength to use it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:31 PM

Well, if your major concern is Israel, and you attach only minor importance to things like torture, the Constitution, the economy, separation of power, civil rights, the environment and similar trivia, and disregard his systematic abuse of the English language, maybe he's not quite as bad as he's painted.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:23 PM

Last October, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the "Human Impacts of Global Warming." Gerberding told the committee that global warming "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans," but she gave few specifics, instead focusing on the CDC's current preparation plans. Soon after Gerberding delivered her testimony, CDC officials revealed that the White House had "eviscerated" her testimony by editing it down from 14 pagesÊto four.

The White House initially claimed that Gerberding's testimony had not been "watered down," but White House Press Secretary Dana Perino later admitted thatÊthe Office of Management and Budget had removed testimony that contained "broad characterizations about climate change science that didn't align with the IPCC." In a letter responding to questions by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) yesterday, former EPA official Jason Burnett revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the Council on Environmental Quality pushed to "remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change." During a news conference yesterday, Boxer chided Perino's previous claim that the edits were made in order to align the testimony with the IPCC. "This was a lie," said Boxer. The White House, however,Êrefused to admit wrongdoing. "We stand 100 percent behind what Dana said," White House spokesperson Tony Fratto told reporters.

WHAT'S MISSING: The White House's deletions, which were "overwhelmingly denounced" by scientists and environmental health experts, included "details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC's analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels." The cuts made by the White House included "the only statements casting the health risks from climate change as a problem, describing it variously as posing 'difficult challenges' and as 'a serious public health concern.'" At the time, Perino claimed that "the decision" was made "to focus that testimony on public health benefits" of climate change. "There are public health benefits to climate change," asserted Perino.

But in his letter to Boxer, Burnett said that the reason for the cuts was to "keep options open" for the EPA to avoid making an endangerment finding for global warming pollution, which was required by a recent Supreme Court ruling. In a statement yesterday, Boxer tied the editing of Gerberding's testimony to the recently-revealed effort by the White House to keep a formal EPA endangerment finding "in limbo" by refusing to even open the e-mail from Burnett that contained the document. They're "obviously related," said Boxer.

WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS 'NOTHING UNUSUAL': Defending against accusations that the White House is "recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect," Fratto claimed that the Bush administration did nothing improper in editing the testimony. "There's absolutely nothing unusual here in terms of the inter-agency review process, whether it's testimony, rules or anything else," Fratto told the Washington Post. He added that "the process exists so that other offices and departments have the opportunity to comment and offer their views." But it's apparent that the level of editing involved in Gerberding's testimony was out of the ordinary.

In October, a CDC official told the press that while it was normal for testimony to be changed in a White House review, the changes made to Gerberding's testimony were particularly "heavy-handed." In an interview with CNN yesterday, Gerberding said that she "wasn't aware that there had been any edits" to her testimony until she "got to the hearing." Gerberding maintained that she did "the very best" she could to "answer the senators' questions honestly and openly."ÊCheney's spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, refused to comment on the allegations against Cheney's office, simply saying, "We don't comment on internal deliberations."

CHENEY'S MALIGN ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE: In his letter to Boxer, Burnett revealed that Cheney's office had also objected in January to congressional testimony by EPA administrator Stephen Johnson that "greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment." According to Burnett, an official in Cheney's office "called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed." Such actions are not unusual for Cheney.ÊSince taking office, he has taken "a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business" while undermining any real action to combat climate change.

In December, after Johnson "answered the pleas of industry executives" by announcing hisÊdecision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles, it was revealed that executives from the auto industry had appealed directly to Cheney.ÊEPA staffers told the Los Angeles Times that Johnson "made his decision" only after Cheney met with the executives. Since February 2007,ÊCheney hasÊquietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies -- particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:16 PM

July 10 (Bloomberg) -- Former White House political director Karl Rove, defying a subpoena, failed to appear before a U.S. House panel investigating whether the Justice Department prosecuted people for political reasons.

Rove's action today prompted the House Judiciary subcommittee to rule that his reasons for skipping the appearance weren't legally valid, setting up a possible contempt of Congress vote as soon as next week.

``I'm extremely disappointed and extremely concerned that Mr. Rove has decided to forgo this opportunity,'' said Representative Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who heads the commercial and administrative law subcommittee.

Her finding that Rove's executive privilege claims weren't proper was approved by a party-line 7-1 vote with all Democrats agreeing.

The panel is trying to determine whether partisan politics influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the notion and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel wants to question him about other topics as well, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

... (Bloomberg)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:42 PM

The European view as expressed by Der Spiegel:

"There is little consensus on whether the G-8 summit can be seen as a success for the climate. What is certain is that US President George W. Bush had little part in the efforts to save the world. He didn't lead, he only followed...


US President George W. Bush seems to be coming around to fighting climate change by cutting emissions.

The American president's decision to finally join the global fight against climate change should certainly be welcomed. Still, George W. Bush probably could have spared himself the long trip to the G-8 summit in Japan, where German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the other leaders had to pile on the pressure to get him to change his mind.

His time might have been better spent going for a walk around the White House -- that is, without the company of his spin doctors or any other members of the army of strategists who spend their time trying to relieve the world's most powerful man of his need to do any real thinking.

A short stroll up Pennsylvania Avenue would have been sufficient to provide ample reasons to take the helm of the global movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and America's dependency on oil.

At the small gas station on 28th street he could have observed an attendant trying to calm angry drivers. The price of gas has doubled since last summer, causing fury among the drivers of SUVs and other gas-guzzlers -- in other words, two-thirds of all car-driving Americans.

These people have no one to pass on their extra energy costs to. Businesses, on the other hand, can escape having to shoulder the burden of rising fuel prices. Pizza delivery services, for example, have slapped on extra fuel charges, Washington taxi drivers have implemented a $1 surcharge to help cover staggering gasoline costs and grocery stores have increased prices across the board. Inflation now stands at 4 percent.

Bush would also have learned from the gas station attendant just who people are blaming for this dangerous dependency on oil. Their president, of course. The Texan has had a life-long connection, both politically and privately, with the oil business.

The next recommended stop on this jaunt along Capitol Hill would be at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the members of Congress go about their work in their well air-conditioned chambers. The self-confident managers of the Arabian Foreign Wealth Funds were recent guests here, men whose deep pockets are overflowing with money from the gas stations. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority alone has almost $900 billion in funds at its disposal.

With that kind of money, you could finance the Iraq War for 10 years or purchase all the US automobile companies, planemaker Boeing and one of the big investment banks on Wall Street. Word has already gotten around that the sovereign wealth funds in the Arab peninsula, Kazakhstan and Russia are not automatically friends of the Americans. Oil-rich Iran is also profiting from America's thirst for oil, which is why the recent Congressional hearings into the rising fuel prices caused such unanimity amongst the senators.

We are "enriching the enemies of the United States," said Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate. Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, has said that the US energy policy "allows dictators from hostile regimes to threaten the international community." Moving away from oil on the grounds of national security -- isn't that something that should also make sense to the president?

Bush also would have been able to visit the office of the Washington Post, a mere stone's throw from the Oval Office. This is where economics reporter Steve Pearlstein writes his astute and non-ideological columns, which recently won him the Pulitzer Prize.

Pearlstein had an idea as simple as it is unpopular about how the country could start to save energy. We should increase energy taxes, he said. That would also be the best way of reducing the oil company's profits. How does he know that?

"Well," he said, "general economic theory is one of my sources," the other is the war cry of the oil companies whenever the idea is debated. If Bush were to follow Pearlstein's advice, for the first time in his presidency Bush could make himself both unpopular and useful. Up until now, he has only succeeded at one of these traits.

On his way back to his desk, the a new ad for the Japanese company Sharp might catch his eye. At first he might expect the company's ad to talk about a photocopier, but instead it tells him that Sharp is the world's biggest producer of solar cells. The 21st century is the age of the photovoltaics, it says. "Change Your Power. Change Your Planet."


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

It's a slogan the president could have adopted as his own motto before taking off for the summit.

However, the president doesn't want to understand and he doesn't even want to go for a walk. That's why at the meeting of the world's eight most industrialized nations the most powerful man in the world had to have the world explained to him by seven less powerful leaders. They encouraged him to finally contemplate a future without oil, and they persuaded him that the aim of reducing CO2 emissions by 2050 was possible.

The US president didn't lead, he followed. The world's only superpower has seldom looked quite as small as it did this week."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:17 PM

Bush tours nation to survey damage caused by Bush Administration.

(The Onion).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM

Philip Sands describes how America became a subscriber to torture with damning evidence from those who participated in the evolution of AMerica's war crimes.



Frank Rich reviews "The Dark Side a harsh look at why the Bush crime syndicate os worse than Watergate and the Nixon scandals of the 70's.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:12 PM

Nick Kristof examines curing terrorism with books and schools, as is actually being done in small measure by one American on a shoestring budget. Onee Tomahawk missile could pay for wonders of education. Well worth reading.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:20 PM

"Mr. Bush initially promised to comply, and last December, a task force of agency scientists concluded that emissions do indeed endanger public welfare, that the E.P.A. is required to issue regulations, and that while remedial action could cost industry billions of dollars, the public welfare and the economy as a whole will benefit.

The agency sent its findings to the White House. The details of what happened next are not clear. But investigations by Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Edward Markey have established that the White House, prodded by Vice President Dick CheneyÕs office, decided to ignore the findings Ñ refusing at first to even open the e-mail containing them and then asking Mr. Johnson to devise another response that would relieve the administration of taking prompt action.

Along the way, the administration engaged in what Senator Boxer has aptly called a Òmaster planÓ to ensure that the E.P.A.Õs response to the Supreme CourtÕs decision would be as weak as possible.

This campaign of obfuscation and intimidation included doctoring Congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change; ordering the E.P.A. to recompute its numbers to minimize the economic benefits of curbing carbon dioxide; and promoting the fiction that the modest fuel-economy improvements in last yearÕs energy bill would solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

All this is unfortunate but not surprising. Mr. Bush spent years denying there was a climate change problem. And while he no longer denies the science, he still insists on putting the concerns of industry over the needs of the planet.

We were skeptical last week when Mr. Bush joined other world leaders in a pledge to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century. We worried that without nearer-term targets there would be too little pressure on governments to act. Now we have no doubt that he was merely posturing. The next president, armed with the E.P.A.Õs findings, can and must do better."

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 07:22 PM

A lobbyist with close ties to the White House reportedly was captured on undercover video offering access to key Bush administration figures Ñ including Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice Ñ in return for large donations to a library commemorating the Bush presidency.

The Sunday Times of London reported that Stephen Payne, who claims to have raised more than $1 million for the Republican Party in recent years, said he would arrange meetings with senior administration officials in return for a payment of "several hundred thousand dollars" toward the library in Texas.

During an undercover investigation by the newspaper, Payne was asked to arrange meetings in Washington for an exiled former central Asian president. He outlined the cost of facilitating such access.

ÒThe exact budget I will come up with, but it will be somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush library,Ó said Payne, who also is a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

He is shown on video telling the undercover Sunday Times reporters that the ÒfamilyÓ of an Asian politician should make the donation. He later added that if all the money was paid to him he would make the payment to the Bush library....(FOX News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:27 PM

From The Progress Report:

"n February, Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, TX announced that the university will be home to President Bush's $200 million library. The announcement has been met with widespreadÊprotests from faculty, administrators, staff, and even Methodist ministers. The library will sponsor programs designed to "promote the vision of the president" and "celebrate" Bush's presidency, while minimizing the involvement of historians. Former Bush adviser Karl Rove is reportedly advising the project in "an informal capacity."

On Sunday, the Times of London reported that Stephen Payne, a major Bush-Cheney campaign fundraiser, was caught on tape offering access to key members of the Bush administration inner circle in exchange for "six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush's presidency." As the Times notes, "The revelation confirms long-held suspicions that favours are being offered in return for donations to the libraries which outgoing presidents set up to house their archives and safeguard their political legacies."ÊAsked about the report, White House spokesman Tony Fratto simply responded, "[T]here's no connection between any official administration actions and the library."

MONEY = ACCESS: In the Times' video, Payne is seen promising to arrange a meeting for an exiled Kyrgyzstan leader with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, or Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, in return for a payment of $250,000 towards the Bush library. When asked whether he couldÊarrange a meeting for the former central Asian president, Payne solicited a bribe. "The exact budget I will come up with," he said. "But it will be somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush library." Payne said the remainder of the $750,000 would go to his lobbying firm, Worldwide Strategic Partners (WSP), whichÊhas worked closely with several Bush administration agencies, including the White House, Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury, and the FBI. Payne is a political appointee to the Homeland Security Advisory Council and was George W. Bush's "personal travel aide" during his father's 1988 presidential campaign. He currently "assists the White House as a Senior Advance Representative" for Bush and Cheney. In a lengthy statement alleging that "that the Times attempted to entrap me," Payne responded thatÊ"isolated comments can be taken out of context."

LIBRARY'S SHADY DONATIONS: Payne told the Times' undercover investigators that publicly, the donation would beÊmade in the politician's name "unless he wants to be anonymous for some reason." In February, Bush said he was considering keeping foreign donors' names to the library confidential. "There's some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed," Bush said. In November 2006, the New York Daily News reported that Bush hoped to get roughly $250 million in "megadonations" from some key allies, including "wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry." The Bush administration has also given special favors to some library donors. Dallas billionaire Ray Hunt was listed as a Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign "Pioneer" and previously served on the board of Halliburton. HuntÊdonated $35 million to SMU to help build the library. When Bush announced he would extend the U.S.-Mexico border fence by 700 miles in 2006, he apparently granted a favor to Hunt: the border fence would "abruptly end" at Hunt's property in the small town of Granjeno, TX.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:45 PM

I watched the video of access to Cheney or Rice being sold for a $200,000 donation to the Bush Library.

The buyer representing a deposed dictator was told that "Bush doesn't meet with ex presidents, truth is he doesn't meet with anyone anymore."

Today Bush said that he wasn't an economist but the economy shows growth. Then he had a spoiled brat hissey fit about his Columbian free trade proposal being halted by Congress. He got red in the face and was angry for about 3 minutes before settling back down.
He seemed very disappointed.
His dad got the Noriegan drug connections, but all W got was the Afghanistan poppy fields.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 11:21 PM

ASHINGTON -- In a swift rebuke to President Bush, Congress voted overwhelmingly today to override his veto of a Medicare bill that would forestall pay cuts to doctors who treated seniors, the disabled and military personnel.

The House voted 383 to 41 to block the president's veto. A short time later, the Senate voted 70 to 26 to reject Bush's objections to the bill.


White House vows veto of Medicare bill
Kennedy back in Senate to approve Medicare bill
The pay cut to doctors would have taken effect today. Some observers worried that it would have led many doctors to stop treating Medicare patients.

The bill, called the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, halts a scheduled 10.6% cut in payments to physicians and instead institutes a 1.1% payment increase in 2009.

The bill improves preventive and mental health benefits, increases access to physical, occupational and speech and language therapy, and increases help for low-income Medicare recipients with their out-of-pocket and prescription drug costs.

Bush and many Republicans opposed the bill because funds to prevent the cut in doctor payments will come from more than $12 billion in payment cuts to private insurance companies that offer coverage under the private Medicare Advantage program, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 09:59 AM

"In the face of near hysterical opposition from the Bush administration, the Senate Democratic leadership intends to take up a proposed shield law to provide journalists with limited protection against being compelled to reveal confidential sources in federal court. A similar measure won House approval last October in a bipartisan 398-to-21 landslide. But the White House, as ever, is playing the fear card, orchestrating a barrage of warnings that the law would "wreak havoc" on national security and "completely eviscerate" the ability to investigate terrorism.

Such hype and manipulation is predictable from an administration so obsessed with concealing its own abuses. The Senate must not be cowed. Only through robust reporting has the nation learned the hard lessons of President Bush's illegal programs to eavesdrop on Americans and run torture prisons abroad.

Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, a Republican conservative, punctured the White House alarums with a blunt warning: "The only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press." The Senate should show the same good sense and the same veto-proof resolve." (NYT Ed)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 02:23 PM

"May he have the joy of it; it is not productive, does not lead to any improvements, does not suggest betterment, or even seek it. It is just sour apples in the mouth of a snake."


i think this sums up most of the comments here against the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM

Well, Bruce, you already know that my vituperation against Bush and his self-serving oil cronies is completely justified, rationalized and explained and flawlessly reasoned. So I really can't see what you are complaining about. Most of the comments against the Bush administration have been against their weaselly ways, their criminal neglect, their colossal and egregious offenses against the rights of human beings and/or American citizens, their profiteering at the expense of so many, their needless warmongering, and their hamhanded waste of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, wounding to f the American economy, and ruination of American repute abroad. Neither you nor Krauthammer nor anyone else can level any of these charges at Obama or his campaign group.

So your parallelism is hollow and without merit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 11:40 PM

In a release Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) announced he will hold a hearing July 25 examining "the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses."

The word "impeachment" was not mentioned in the announcement, but it appears the hearing is going to examine issues raised by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in his resolution to impeach Bush. A Judiciary Committee spokesman tells RAW STORY Kucinich will testify at the hearing.

ÒOver the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration,Ó Conyers said in a news release. ÒAt the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next FridayÕs hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.Ó

Conyers did not say who would testify at the hearing, but he laid out a variety of abuses that would be examined, including:


(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administrationÕs surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

...(From this site, which also says Mr Kucinich will be called to testify.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:50 PM

In an impassioned editorial the NEw York Times discusses the Bush Administration's erosion of fundamental rights under law and the burden on the Supreme Court to reverse the recent Marri decision.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

From THomas Freedman:

"I am reliably told by a Bush administration official that there is an old saying in Texas that goes like this: ÒIf all you ever do is all youÕve ever done, then all youÕll ever get is all you ever got.Ó


Could anyone possibly come up with a better description of President BushÕs energy policy? America is in the midst of its worst energy crisis in years and what is the big decision our Decider has decided? Drum roll, please: Our Decider decided to lift the executive orders banning drilling for oil and natural gas off the countryÕs shoreline Ñ even though he knew this was a meaningless gesture because a Congressional moratorium on drilling passed in 1981 remains in force.

The economist Paul Romer once said to me that Òa crisis is a terrible thing to waste.Ó President Bush is well on his way to being remembered as the leader who wasted not one but two crises: 9/11 and 4/11. The average price of gasoline in the U.S. last week, according to the Energy Information Administration, was $4.11.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on breaking our addiction to oil. Instead, he told us to go shopping. After gasoline prices hit $4.11 last week, he had the chance to summon the country to a great nation-building project focused on clean energy. Instead, he told us to go drilling.

Neither shopping nor drilling is the solution to our problems.

What doesnÕt the Bush crowd get? ItÕs this: We donÕt have a Ògasoline price problem.Ó We have an addiction problem. We are addicted to dirty fossil fuels, and this addiction is driving a whole set of toxic trends that are harming our nation and world in many different ways. It is intensifying global warming, creating runaway global demand for oil and gas, weakening our currency by shifting huge amounts of dollars abroad to pay for oil imports, widening Òenergy povertyÓ across Africa, destroying plants and animals at record rates and fostering ever-stronger petro-dictatorships in Iran, Russia and Venezuela...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:20 PM

Voters Finally Inspect Their Rationale... (as explained by Doonesbury).



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM

One reason why the Bush philosophy of picking up the soap for big money fat cats does not work is that it corrupts. It corrodes government, and the systems that government touches. Here's a brief excerpt from a recent NY Times article demonstrating this:

"For one thing, this argument goes, taxpayers Ñ who now confront plunging house prices, a drop on Wall Street and soaring costs for food and fuel Ñ will ultimately pay the costs. To finance a bailout, the government can either pull more money from citizens directly, or the Fed can print more money Ñ a step that encourages further inflation.

ÒThey are going to raise the cost of living for every American,Ó said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a Connecticut-based brokerage house that focuses on international investments. ÒThe government is debasing the value of our money. Freddie and Fannie need to fail. They are too big to save.Ó

Using public money to spare Fannie and Freddie would increase the public debt, which now exceeds $9.4 trillion. The United States has been financing itself by leaning heavily on foreigners, particularly China, Japan and the oil-rich nations of the Persian Gulf. Were they to become worried that the United States might not be able to pay up, that would force the Treasury to offer higher rates of interest for its next tranche of bonds. And that would increase the interest rates that Americans must pay for houses and cars, putting a drag on economic growth...."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 06:54 PM

A European Perspective involving a really cool Mustang.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM

Gore Vidal has little patience for the Bush claque and clique, the tap-it brothers:

"...Press TV: How can it just be one person among so many hundreds of Congressmen who wants the impeachment of George W. Bush in these circumstances?

Gore Vidal: Well it's because we no longer have a country. We don't have a republic any more. During the last 7 or 8 years of the Bush regime, they've got rid of the Bill of Rights, they've got rid of habeas corpus. They have got rid of one of the nicest gifts that England ever left us when they went away and we ceased to be colonies - the Magna Carta - from the 12th century. All of our law and due process of law is based on that. And the Bush people got rid of it. The president and little Mr. Gonzales who for a few minutes was his Attorney General. They managed to get rid of all of the constitutional links that made us literally a republic.

Press TV: You have often written about the US's superpower status in terms of the history of previous superpowers. Do you think we're witnessing the end of US power as some suggest. Will the White House be seen like Persepolis?

Gore Vidal: Well it won't make such good ruins, no. It'll be more like the tomb of Cyrus nearby. They managed to destroy the United States - why? Because they're oil and gas people and they're essentially criminals. I repeat that this is a criminal group that's seized control of the country through what looked like an ordinary election. But there's some very nice films and documentaries about what happened in the year 2000 when Albert Gore won the election for president and they saw to it that he couldn't serve. They got the Supreme Court - which is the Holy of Holies ordinarily in our system - to investigate and then accuse the thieves of being absolutely correct and the winners - Mr. Gore and the Democrats - of being the cheaters. It's the first law of Machiavelli, whatever your opponent's faults are, you pick his virtues and you deny he has them. That's what they did when Senator Kerry ran a few years ago for president. He's a famous hero from the Vietnam War. They said he was a coward and not a hero. That's how it's done. When you have a bunch of liars in charge of your government you can't expect to get much history out of that. But later on we'll dig and dig… and we will dig up Persepolis.

Press TV: Senator Obama talks about change but of course he has courting Wall Street as well as the Israeli lobby - do you see any prospect of change with him as president?

Gore Vidal: Not really. I don't doubt his good faith, just as I do not doubt the bad faith of Cheney and Bush. They are such dreadful people that we've never had in government before. They would never have risen unless they were buying elections as they did in Florida in 2000, as they did in the State of Ohio in 2004. These are two open thefts of the Presidency. When I discovered that this did not interest the New York Times or the Washington Post or any of the press of the country I realized our day was done. We are no longer a country we are a framework for crooks to go in and steal money. Knowing that they'll never be caught and they'll be admired for it. Americans always take everybody on his own evaluation. You say I'm a state and they say "oh, yeah yeah yeah, he's a state, isn't that great." And you accuse the other people of your crimes before you commit them. It's an old trick which was known to Machiavelli who wrote about it in his handbook, the Prince.

Press TV:Finally that issue which is exercising so many minds in the Middle East and beyond. You, yourself have written about so many Imperial wars of the United States. Do you think Bush and Cheney would risk another war in what Mohammad ElBaradei of the IAEA calls a fireball?

Gore Vidal: They are longing to but they have spent all of the money. They have got it in their own private companies like the Vice-President and a company called Halliburton which is stealing more money and should be on trial sooner or later before Congress. But perhaps not, who knows? But it's well known in Washington, these people are leaking away the money of the country. Well there's no more money. They are longing for a war with Iran. Iran is no more a harm to us than was Iraq or Afghanistan. They invented an enemy, they tell lies, lies, lies.
The New York Times goes along with their lies, lies, lies. And they don't stop. When the public that's lied to 30 times a day it's apt to believe the lies, is not it?

Gore Vidal is a renowned American writer and erstwhile political candidate. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:31 AM

Exposing Bush's historic abuse of power

(Salon.com)

July 23, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s.

While reporting on domestic surveillance under Bush, Salon obtained a detailed memo proposing such an inquiry, and spoke with several sources involved in recent discussions around it on Capitol Hill. The memo was written by a former senior member of the original Church Committee; the discussions have included aides to top House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, and until now have not been disclosed publicly.

Salon has also uncovered further indications of far-reaching and possibly illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency inside the United States under President Bush. That includes the alleged use of a top-secret, sophisticated database system for monitoring people considered to be a threat to national security. It also includes signs of the NSA's working closely with other U.S. government agencies to track financial transactions domestically as well as globally.

The proposal for a Church Committee-style investigation emerged from talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress, according to sources involved. (Pelosi's and Conyers' offices both declined to comment.) Looking forward to 2009, when both Congress and the White House may well be controlled by Democrats, the idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror to undermine the Constitution and U.S. and international laws. The goal would be to implement government reforms aimed at preventing future abuses -- and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials.

"If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping despite the administration's attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don't know," says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal and has been involved in several high-profile congressional investigations.

"You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse," says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we don't know [the extent of] what laws have been violated."

...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year, a senior government official told CNN.


The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.

The deficit would amount to roughly 3.5 percent of the nation's $14 trillion economy.

The official pointed to a faltering economy and the bipartisan $170 billion stimulus package that passed earlier this year for the record deficit.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing lack of authorization to speak publicly ahead of an official briefing later Monday by Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," Perino said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.

"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

(CNN)

But ya know, they had to do it to repair the damage caused by Bill Clinton's balanced budget...




A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:03 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will leave his successor with a record-high budget deficit of $482 billion, according to an administration estimate released Monday.

White House officials blamed the slowing economy and a $150-billion bipartisan stimulus package for the worsening picture for the 2009 fiscal year, but Democrats cited the president's tax cuts and fiscal management over his eight years in office.

"The important point to remember is that near-term deficits are both temporary and manageable if, and only if, we keep spending in check, the tax burden low and the economy growing," said Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, which released the budget report -- the last of Bush's presidency.

Nussle argued that although it would be the highest deficit in history, it was manageable as a percentage of the country's economic output -- roughly 3.3% of the gross domestic product. And he said the deficit for fiscal 2008, at $389 billion, would be somewhat less than anticipated.

"The best way to compare a deficit is by your ability in the economy to manage that deficit," Nussle told reporters in a White House briefing. "We have a plan to address that deficit and bring it down, which I think is a responsible one."

The budget office's report also predicted that the country's gross domestic product would grow by 1.6% in 2008, down from February's projection of 2.7%. The lower figure was attributed to higher-than-expected prices for oil and other commodities, problems in the credit markets and the continuing difficulties in the housing market.

Democrats on Capitol Hill blamed the revised deficit figures on Bush's large tax cuts and freewheeling spending.

"If we gave Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, the silver and the bronze, because he's got the three highest record deficits ever," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "He sets records in every single category: 2009 would be the gold; 2004 the silver; 2008 the bronze."

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) noted that Bush inherited a budget surplus from his Democratic predecessor, so the blame for the poor fiscal performance rests with him.

"Mr. Bush came to office with the biggest surpluses in history and he will leave office with the biggest deficit in history. That's the bottom line," said Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee. ...

LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:17 AM

WASHINGTON - Vice President Cheney's invitation to address wounded combat veterans next month has been yanked because the group felt his security demands were Draconian and unreasonable.
The veep had planned to speak to the Disabled American Veterans at 8:30 a.m. at its August convention in Las Vegas.
His staff insisted the sick vets be sequestered for two hours before Cheney's arrival and couldn't leave until he'd finished talking, officials confirmed.
"Word got back to us ... that this would be a prerequisite," said the veterans executive director, David Gorman, who noted the meeting hall doesn't have any rest rooms. "We told them it just wasn't acceptable."
When Cheney spoke to the group in 2004, his handlers imposed the same stringent security lockdown, upsetting members, officials said.
Many of the vets are elderly and left pieces of themselves on foreign battlefields since World War II, and others were crippled by recent service in Iraq and Afghanistan. For health reasons, many can't be stuck in a room for hours....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

Beer-worthy - Doonesbury

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:45 PM

"Fucking stupid."
-- David Kilcullen, advisor to Condoleezza Rice, on the decision to invade Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

Extraditions and Renditions of Terrorists to the United States, 1993-1999
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
March 1993         Mahmoud Abu Halima
(February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         *
July 1993         Mohammed Ali Rezaq
(November 1985 hijacking of Egyptair 648)         Rendition         Nigeria
February 1995         Ramzi Ahmed Yousef
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot,
February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         Pakistan
April 1995         Abdul Hakim Murad
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot)         Rendition         Philippines
August 1995         Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim
(February 1993 World Trade Center bombing)         Extradition         Jordan
December 1995         Wali Khan Amin Shah
(January 1995 Far East bomb plot)         Rendition         *
September 1996         Tsutomu Shirosaki
(May 1986 attack on US Embassy, Jakarta)         Rendition         *
June 1997         Mir Aimal Kansi
(January 1993 shooting outside CIA headquarters)         Rendition         *
June 1998         Mohammed Rashid
(August 1982 Pan Am bombing)         Rendition         *
August 1998         Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya)         Rendition         Kenya
August 1998         Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya)         Rendition         Kenya
December 1998         Mamdouh Mahmud Salim
(August 1998 East Africa bombings)         Extradition         Germany
October 1999         Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
(August 1998 US Embassy bombing in
Tanzania)         Rendition         South Africa
* Country not disclosed

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:21 PM

Interesting list, Sawz. I am not sure what bearing it has on the Bush administration, but perhaps it is intended as a sort of red herring?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:04 AM

It is obvious that you can't see anything outside of the scope of your hate Bush agenda. You post articles about how illegal and unconstitutional the GWB administration renditions are when in fact they are a legacy from previous administrations.

Did GWB campaign on a policy of ending rendition? Did anyone ask him if he would stop rendition? No, he just carried on the customs of previous administrations. If rendition was so wrong then, where was huge public outcry back then? To pretend that the QWB administration is responsible for these things is a red herring, a straw man ploy or scapegoating.

You don't even read the articles you post and ponder their sincerity. That way you can say anybody that disagrees is wrong due to your knowledge and experience while at the same time feigning ignorance of any details by saying you are just repeating what someone else said.

Then, when criticized, you think by belligerently repeating what somone else said several times that you are "overruling" the objection. Quantity does not make up for a lack of quality.

You yourself were in favor of wiretapping when you advocated "spiking their cellphones".

Now you can heap some verbal abuse on me, maybe attack my spelling or sentence structure and post more articles adhering to your agenda to try to obliviate my analysis of your postings.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 10:49 AM

Hold on there, pal.

I don't know the details behind thes eindividual cases, but I think you can plainly see, in addition tot hese similarities, that there are some really big differences.

See, Bush invaded two countries and started major military operations against the wrong target, caused thousands of deaths, orphans, and disabled civilians and soldiers, and spent the country into somethign like a .6 Trillion dollar deficit. Yes?

Maybe (probably) you voted for him and don't like thinking you could have made such a mistake. But not to fret. Come to your senses and forgiveness will be yours.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:52 PM

BEsides, it is a bit whacky to argue that something cannot be illegal because the same crime was committed in the past by someone else.

The way the law acts is on the particulars of a case, you see, and charges against an individual. So the question of antecedent offenses, which remain incompletely defined here in any case, has no bearing on the question of Bush's culpability or innocence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:10 PM

It is insincere however to pretend that something is unprecedented when it is not.

JPK started a war in Asia and lied to the American public and Congress about it.

The congress voted for these wars.

Go back to Abe Lincoln's precedent for suspending the constitution.

To be PC you would have to say GWB was more honest than JFK and Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM

The differences between Lincoln and W are so great as to be colossal in their distinctions.

Clinton lied about sex with an intern. Clinton, therefore, was a liar.

Bush lied about international relations, about the basis of war, about the oil industry, about invading the privacy of Americans, and a long list of other important things. Therefore, W., also, was a liar, and therefore, in the Manichean world view they were equally bad.

That fact that one of the governed the nation in relative prosperity and economic prudence while the other governed the nation into a near-depression makes no nevermind, in light of the fact that they are in an identical moral category.

Dear gawd, how many people are left able to think about differences and similarities without going into cuckooland. I swan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:37 AM

"Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people."
-- George W. Bush, July 4, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:57 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Congress in its fight with the Bush administration can subpoena current and former top White House aides in its investigation over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, rejected the administration's arguments that the aides were immune from such subpoenas and that Congress cannot force them to testify or turn over certain documents.

In a lengthy ruling totaling nearly 100 pages, he rejected the administration's request to dismiss the lawsuit that had been filed by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in March.

The lawsuit seeks to get testimony or documents from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The lawsuit charged that Bolten and Miers, cited by the House for contempt of Congress, defied subpoenas by refusing to testify or provide documents in the long-running investigation into the administration's 2006 firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

It marked the first time the House or the Senate had ever filed a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena aimed at the White House.

Disclosure of the firings prompted charges by Democratic lawmakers that the dismissals were politically motivated and led to the resignations of a number of top Justice Department officials, including the departure under fire nearly a year ago of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney general.

Bates ruled that Miers is required to testify under the subpoena, but she still may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 02:33 PM

Administration urges FISA court to keep its secrets
By Julian Sanchez | Published: July 30, 2008 - 09:35PM CT

The American Civil Liberties Union wants the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to let a little sunlight in to its traditionally closed proceedings. But the Bush administration argues, in a motion filed yesterday, that the only thing the Court should be showing ACLU attorneys is the door.

Related StoriesACLU, others greet Bush FISA bill signing with new lawsuit
Crucial vote on foreign intel reform scheduled for Monday
Vote set on FISA compromise, opposed by "strange bedfellows"
FISA vote looms: hopes, hate focused on Bingaman amendment
As Ars reported earlier this month, the ACLU responded to the passage of the controversial FISA Amendments act with both a constitutional challenge in civil court and a request that the FISC, which oversees foreign intelligence surveillance, notify the group of proceedings likely to raise questions about the "scope, meaning, and constitutionality" of the new law. It also asked for permission to file briefs in such proceedings, in order to ensure that they are "transparent and adversarial," and urged the Court to issue redacted public versions of both its own rulings and legal briefs submitted by the government. Otherwise, the ACLU argues, the Court would be in the position of crafting a body of secret constitutional law, a prospect in tension with basic democratic values.

Justice Deparment attorneys responded yesterday, with a plea for the court to reject the ACLU request. As the government motion argues—and the ACLU does not appear to contest—no third party can claim any statutory right to be informed of or participate in the Court's ex parte proceedings. But the government further claims that the executive branch's prerogative to control classified information and the statutory provision for closed proceedings both limit the Court's discretion to admit outsiders—and that it is "precluded from doing so here by statute, court rule, and mandated security measures."

The FISA court has, in a few exceptional circumstances, elected to release public versions of its own rulings—and even permitted the ACLU to submit arguments. But it has also rebuffed the group's requests for greater disclosure in the past. And that, according to the government, is as it should be, because without access to classified information, the ACLU could not "present any meaningful argument on the questions posed" before the Court.

...

(Ars TEchnica)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 12:04 AM

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee approved a report and resolution recommending that the House of Representatives cite former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, for contempt of Congress for failing to appear before the Committee as required by subpoena. The report and resolution passed by a vote of 20-14.

"TodayÕs vote was an important statement by this Committee that no person Ð not even Karl Rove Ð is above the law." said Chairman John Conyers, Jr. "This weekÕs Inspector General report on the pervasive politicization of the Department of Justice particularly   underscores the urgent need for Mr. Rove to testify before Congress. Any suggestion that the matters for which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed are not important, or that no Administration misconduct has been revealed, is just inconsistent with the facts. Our investigation has revealed Mr. Rove to be a key figure in the firings of US Attorneys, and the questions about his role in the Siegelman case only continue to mount."

"Today's vote demonstrates   that the House will not tolerate Mr. Rove's flawed excuses for avoiding his responsibility to obey a Congressional subpoena," said Rep. Linda S‡nchez, Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. "We are serious about defending the legislative branch's constitutional oversight role, and it's time for Mr. Rove to get serious about following the law."

Below are links to materials related to today's vote.

Committee Contempt   Report

    Judiciary Committee Markup   Memo

Conyers Opening   Statement

S‡nchez Opening Statement

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 02:39 AM

"I don't know the details" Well said Amos. I agree.

Yes, there are more than 300 people in the united states but are there 57 states?

Israel will always be a friend of Israel. I agree.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died" I missed that one. Got Any details on that Amos? Gawd, it must have been worse that the American death toll in Iraq and
Afghanistan together.

"See, Bush invaded two countries and started major military operations against the wrong target, caused thousands of deaths, orphans, and disabled civilians and soldiers, and spent the country into somethign like a .6 Trillion dollar deficit. Yes?"

No I don't see, First of all congress voted on all these actions. The invasions, the spending, the 6 trillion deficit, all of it. Now Bush's approval rating is three times higher than Congress's approval rating.

JFK started his war and invaded two countries in secret. Congress did not know until after it began.

Congress enacted the War Powers Act in 1973, requiring the president to receive explicit Congressional approval before committing American forces overseas.

Thousands of deaths? The [vietnam] war exacted a huge human cost. In addition to approximately 58,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 3 to 4 million Vietnamese from both sides, and 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians lost their lives.

In 1961 and 1962, the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops. Between 1961 and 1967, the U.S. Air Force sprayed 20 million U.S. gallons (75 700 000 L) of concentrated herbicides over 6 million acres (24 000 km²) of crops and trees, affecting an estimated 13% of South Vietnam's land. A 1967 study by the Agronomy Section of the Japanese Science Council concluded that 3.8 million acres (15 000 km²) of foliage had been destroyed, possibly also leading to the deaths of 1,000 peasants and 13,000 head of livestock

The Vietnam war cost between $600 billion and $494 billion. If you can think in percentages, like most people can, the deficit now is less in relation to the GDP than it was in 1960, 1968, 1972 and 1976 and about a tenth of what it was in 1944.

If you need any more details, I will try to help as much as I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:14 AM

"They are offered a deal: They can admit their guilt to lesser charges, waive their rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, spend five months in prison, then be deported. Or, they can spend six months or more in jail without bail while awaiting a trial date, face a minimum two-year prison sentence and be deported anyway.

Nearly 300 people agree to the five months, after being hustled through mass hearings, with one lawyer for 17 people, each having about 30 minutes of consultation per client. The plea deal is a brutal legal vise, but the immigrants accept it as the quickest way back to their spouses and children, hundreds of whom are cowering in a Catholic church, afraid to leave and not knowing how they will survive. The workers are scattered to federal lockups around the country. Many families still do not know where they are. The plant's owners walk freely.

This is enforcement run amok. As Julia Preston reported in The Times, the once-silent workers of Agriprocessors now tell of a host of abusive practices, of rampant injuries and of exhausted children as young as 13 wielding knives on the killing floor. A young man said in an affidavit that he started at 16, in 17-hour shifts, six days a week. "I was very sad, and I felt like I was a slave."

Instead of receiving merciful treatment as defendants who also are victims, the workers have been branded as the kind of predator who steals identities to empty bank accounts. Accounts from Postville suggest that that's not remotely what they were. "Most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served," said Erik Camayd-Freixas, a Spanish-language interpreter for many of the workers. "This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English."

The harsh prosecution at Postville is an odd and cruel shift for the Bush administration, which for years had voiced compassion for exploited workers and insisted that immigration had to be fixed comprehensively or not at all.

Now it has abandoned mercy and proportionality. It has devised new and harsher traps, as in Postville, to prosecute the weak and the poor. It has increased the fear and desperation of workers who are irresistible to bottom-feeding businesses precisely because they are fearful and desperate. By treating illegal low-wage workers as a de facto criminal class, the government is trying to inflate the menace they pose to a level that justifies its rabid efforts to capture and punish them. That is a fraudulent exercise, and a national disgrace."

Complete article here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

Sawz:

Your last post is disjoint, incoherent, and rambling.

So I don't have any idea how to answer it. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

"Another stunning report has documented the bold and illegal influence of politics at the Justice Department over the past eight years. For decades, Republican and Democratic attorneys general had protected from political influence the hiring of career prosecutors and administrative judges. There was an unbroken rule, embodied in law, regulation and department policy, that no political questions would be asked of those who wanted to serve in career -- as opposed to political -- positions in the department. We demanded of our Justice Department, in its core prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, that it be separate from politics. Until the Bush administration.

Last month, we learned that political functionaries deputized by Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales had screened the best and the brightest coming out of law schools, judicial clerkships and other positions to weed out those who appeared to be Democrats or who might hold liberal ideas; favor was shown to Republicans, members of the Federalist Society, and those considered to be good and loyal conservatives. As the department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility noted, this is illegal. It also breaks the promise of justice that is above politics and undermines the department's best values.

Now, an equally graphic report by the same two offices concludes that in 2003, the apolitical process for selecting immigration judges and prosecutors was stood on its head. A chief aide to Attorney General Ashcroft (and later to Attorney General Gonzales) "outlined a new process for hiring [immigration judges] that listed the White House as the sole source for generating candidates."

Thus, immigration judges -- who, by law, are to be chosen without regard to their political pedigree -- were no longer picked by the nonpolitical office that is supposed to find and train the men and women who mete out justice to tens of thousands of immigrants. In the interview files for these candidates were such comments as "Cons[ervative] on 'god, guns + gays' " -- but not much about whether they understood immigration law or had the capacity for fairness.

Even more appalling, others, including a counsel to Attorney General Gonzales, illegally selected individual line prosecutors -- who wield tremendous power over the reputations, liberty and livelihood of Americans -- using Internet searches on such keywords as "Bush, Gore, Republican, Democrat, Clinton, spotted owl, abortion, gay, gun, and Florida recount" to assess their political and policy views.

Why does this matter?

In a long career counseling individuals being investigated by the Justice Department, I have had to explain to sometimes cynical citizens that politics are prohibited from influencing such inquiries. My ability to give that assurance has hinged on both the public perception -- and reality -- that the career assistant U.S. attorneys, line prosecutors and lawyers who work at the department are picked on their merits and proceed without regard to politics.

Until now.

During the Bush administration, we have seen U.S. attorneys fired under circumstances that have led many to conclude they paid the price because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats; honors program applicants screened for their political leanings; and now the process of hiring line prosecutors and immigration judges similarly politicized. How do we reassure the American people that justice is being meted out fairly? Trust and respect lost are hard to win back.

Worse, the reports lay out evidence that the political appointees behind many of these missteps knew that what they were doing was wrong.

But responsibility does not end there. The department's senior leadership turned over hiring decisions to people with no history and no understanding of the institution, people who came from the Republican National Committee or White House political functions. The predictable result was that the department would have, in essence, political appointees in career positions. Thus was the department's fundamental promise to the American people -- which had been respected for decades -- broken. ..." (Full article here on the WaPo site).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:00 AM

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers trimmed jobs once again in July and the unemployment rate hit a four-year high, according to a government report Friday that showed the seventh straight month of job losses .

The Labor Department reported a net loss of 51,000 jobs in the month, compared to a revised loss of 51,000 jobs in June. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had been forecasting a loss of 75,000 jobs in the latest report.

The latest report brought job losses this year to 463,000.

The unemployment rate edged up to 5.7% from a 5.5% reading in June. It was the worst reading since March 2004, and slightly worse than economists' forecast of a 5.6% rate.

The rate has now jumped a full percentage point from a year ago.

But the 5.7% unemployment rate only tells part of the problem faced by job seekers. It doesn't include those who have become discouraged from looking for work, or those who have accepted part-time jobs when they want to be working full time."

---

Heckuva job, there, Georgie!! Be sure and train up that McCain feller real good so he keeps up the good work for ya.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

A federal judge yesterday ordered a former White House counsel to testify before a House committee, rejecting the Bush administration's broad claims of executive privilege in its fight with Congress over the role politics played in the firing of nine federal prosecutors.

Wading into a landmark legal battle between Congress and President Bush, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates sided firmly with lawmakers. Bates ordered former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which had filed suit after being rebuffed by the administration, to answer questions about the dismissals.

He also ruled that White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten must turn over documents to the committee or explain in detail why records are being withheld.

The Bush administration has increasingly invoked executive privilege in its battles with Congress over documents and testimony related to issues as diverse as greenhouse gas emissions and FBI interviews of Vice President Cheney about the controversial leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Bates, who was appointed by Bush, seemed particularly concerned with White House assertions that Miers and other close presidential advisers had immunity from ever appearing before congressional committees.

The administration also argued that it had the right to decide which documents to turn over to Congress under executive privilege, a doctrine designed to protect the advice given to the president by his closest advisers. Bates rejected that contention, too.

"The Executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege and hence Ms. Miers is not entitled to absolute immunity from compelled congressional process," Bates wrote in a 93-page opinion for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Although Miers must appear before Congress to testify, Bates wrote, she will be permitted under his ruling to invoke executive privilege when asked specific questions.

(WaPo)

---

Ohhh, Harriet!!! And we thought everything was so perfect!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 04:17 PM

Saqz-
Just to point out that most folks don't object to W's actions because they hate him--they hate him because they object to his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM

I am pointing out the inconvenient truths that you continue to deny.

#1 Your horror about GWBs war is nothing compared to JFK's war. You choose to grasp at any straw to draw attention to the current war and away from much worse wars As if this is the most horrible thing that has ever happened.

#2 Congress voted for this war and the spending. Why aren't you blaming them?

#3 Congress has an approval rating of 9% while GWB is 27%.

#4 Why don't you condemn Congress for the war and the spending?

#5 You have no knowledge of the factuality of what you present. You are incapable of recognizing a fact and refuse to do so. You just echo what someone else said, defend it with personal assaults and refuse to discuss the details.

#6. You refuse to admit that Rendition, wiretapping and spying were legacies legacy handed to GWB by previous administrations. It is nothing new as you pretend.

#7 You accuse others of being rambling and incoherrant while your contributions to the form are similar to "Ohhh, Harriet!!! And we thought everything was so perfect!" "Sounds like Oedipal dŽjˆ vu all over again" Which are rambling an incoherrant.

#8. When confronted with facts and questions like I have outlined above you avoid answering fully and completely by either ridiculing the question or the questioner.

#9. You yourself advocated spying and "summary justice" so how can you possibly object to it?

Do you need any more details?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:52 PM

Sawz:

I assume that was you purloining my login and disguising yourself as a Guest.


1. The important difference between the Vietnam War, which you loosely call JFK's, and Bush's war is that this one is happening now, and is an illegal excursion, pre-emptive and optional.

2. Cngress voted under false information provided by the Rove machine. They were lured into the vote by false PR. That is a criminal abuse of office.

3. Bush's 27% is the lowest f any President in history. FUrthermore I have no interest in who approves of which criminal.

4. This thread is focused on the Bush Administration. There are plenty of other threads complaining about Congress.

5. Which fact are you thinking of? Let's be specific.

6. I never refused to admit any such thing. I rejec ted those assertions on the grounds that it in no way lessens a crime just because someone once committed a similar crime at an earlier time. The very idea is idiotic.

7. Sorry my humor didn't appeal to you, but it was not incoherent, which you should learn to spell, merely sarcastic.

8. I attack "questioners" when they resort to really dumb or really invidious arguments instead of discussing facts and issues.

9. You claim to have found a quote of mine, but have given no context for it, so I really don't know what you are carrying on about. Did you actually read the thread in which you believe I advocated such things? You may need to have your irony filter re-tuned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:31 PM

Excerpt from a new report from the Rand Institute:

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday
July 29, 2008

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."

The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.

Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.

Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida's goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.

The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force -- though not necessarily the U.S. military -- when insurgencies are involved.

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.

"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."...

Full report here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM

I did not use your name on purpose. I guess I was typing in Amos to begin the post and did not notice it was in the From: box. Sorry.

"Bush's 27% is the lowest of any President in history"

I notice you want to compare Bush to history now but you really should check your facts.

Details:

Harry S. Truman

In February 1952, Truman's approval rating was at 22% from a public that was tired of the Korean War and outraged at his order to break a steelworkers strike by seizing the factories. He also had the lowest sustained approval ratings. During the last three years of his second term, Truman's approval rating never went above the low thirties.

Unlike Truman, President George W. Bush also holds the record high approval rating, over 93%. This occurred shortly after the September 11th attacks.

Richard Nixon

Nixon's 23% approval rating during the Watergate scandal is still second to Truman's 1952 low of 22%.

Jimmy Carter

George W. Bush was at one time tied with President Jimmy Carter for third lowest approval rating at 28%. Carter's popularity hit the skids during the Iranian hostage crisis and resultant gas station lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM

From the LA Times:

"Seven months before the end of his term, President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low.

In the just-released Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll, the president won approval from 23% of all registered voters -- including 3% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. Those numbers are down from February, when he had an approval rating of 35%. His high mark, according to the poll, was in November 2001, just after the 9/11 terror attacks, when the president's popularity rating among registered voters was at 85%.

Perhaps the most interesting number is that 50% of self-described conservatives disapprove of the way the president is handling his job. But conservatives have been besieging The Times with complaints that the sample was overly weighted with Democrats. Jamie Gold, the paper's readers' representative, plans to post a blog response soon. (*Update: This is now online at the Readers' Representative Journal.)"

One commentator on this piece remarked:

"Bushs approval rating was at 19 percent in February...and it's much worse now....the MSM refuses to report on the reality that dumbya's poll numbers are more than likely in the single digits and john mcsame mcbush jr is going to lose in a landslide on November 4th 2008."

HEre's an interesting graph:

Approval Ratings 2004-2007.

And from last month month:

"George W. Bush's overall job approval has dropped to 21% as 76% of American say the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 21% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 72% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 77% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 22% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 18% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 77% disapprove.

A total of 76% say the national economy is getting worse, 61% say their household financial situations are getting worse, and 68% say the national economy is in a recession. Of those disapproving of the way Bush is handling his job, 84% say the national economy is getting worse, 73% say their household financial situations are getting worse, and 79% say the national economy is in a recession."

The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed July 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Overall, 21% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 72% disapprove, and 7% are undecided...

(American Research July 08)

It is a pathetic record, given the amount of control his Administration exercised over the media.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

"illegal excursion, pre-emptive and optional."

How was it Illegal when Congress approved of it?

Did North Vietnam attack the US? The Gulf of Tonkin attack was fabricated.

Did North Korea attack the US?

Weren't both wars optional?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:49 PM

"2. Cngress voted under false information provided by the Rove machine. They were lured into the vote by false PR. That is a criminal abuse of office."

Why were so many members of congress declaring that Saddam had WMDS before GWB took office?

"it was the Clinton administration, not the current administration, which first insisted-despite the lack of evidence-that Iraq had successfully concealed or re-launched its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Clinton's fear-mongering around Iraqi WMDs began in 1997, several years after they had been successfully destroyed or rendered inoperable. Based upon the alleged Iraqi threat, Clinton ordered a massive four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, forcing the evacuation of inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.) As many of us had warned just prior to the bombing, this gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. It also provided a "lesson" that unilateral military action, not nonviolent law-based processes through inter-governmental organizations, was the means to respond to the threat of WMD proliferation.

Clinton was egged on to take such unilateral military action by leading Senate Democratic leaders -- including then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and others who signed a letter in October 1998 -- urging the president "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Meanwhile, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was repeatedly making false statements regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs, even justifying the enormous humanitarian toll from the U.S.-led economic sanctions on Iraq on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction."

Congressional Democrats continued their efforts to scare the American people into believing the Iraq was a threat to U.S. national security after President Bush came to office. Connecticut senator Joseph Leiberman sent a letter to President Bush in December 2001 declaring that "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs" and that Iraq's "biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status." Eight months later, in order to frighten the American people into supporting a U.S. takeover of that oil-rich land, the 2000 Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee even claimed "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

The Carter Doctrine:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:39 PM

October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'.....
  .....By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.
  Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.
  Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.
  Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'
  I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM

From the Salt Lake Trib:

"Bush the abuser
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 08/01/2008 07:52:22 PM MDT

How great it is to read about a politician who will stand up and call out President Bush on the abuses he has bestowed upon the office of president and the American people ("Ex-SLC mayor to Congress: Impeach Bush," Tribune, July 26). It amazes me that the two candidates for president have not been more adamant about the dictator-like manner in which this president has behaved while in office.
    Bush's unrestrained power and total disregard for the opinion of the people is disgraceful and embarrassing. It is sad to think of the lives that could have been saved, both American and innocent Iraqi, as well as money, if only someone had stood up and said, "No, Mr. Bush, you cannot do whatever you please." How much different our economy might be if so much had not gone for a an unwarranted and unnecessary war.
    Remember, Mr. President, you work for us!
   
    Mary Anne Hyde
    Salt Lake City
   
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:12 AM

The perfidious Justice Department.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:37 AM

Dear Amos:

"Bush's 27% is the lowest of any President in history"

____ TRUE?


____ FALSE?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

No, Sawz, you are right. 27% is not the lowest approval rating in history, I was mistaken. Congratulations--your man is not the most disapproved of in history, at 27%.

In some respects, though, his approval rating has been as low as 18%.

Ya jknow, though, even when he was highly thought of he was commitng impeachable offenses, so I don't really see the linkage you posit between is culpability and his approval rating.

A lot of people like Pretty Boy Floyd, Billie Bonnie, and Robin Hood, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

Amos:

You are the one who brought up the approval rating so it must be you who thinks it is linked to his culpability.

Mother Joness
Smart Fearless Journalisim

" Worth noting that the American Research Group may not be the bellweather for accurate polling. A little digging shows that the group is backed by New Hampshire pollster Lafell Bennett, and that ARG was widely off the mark in New Hampshire in 2004 when it called a victory for Bush, only to see John McCain take the state by an 18-point margin.

Also, turns out ARG doesn't believe in including cell phone numbers in its random draws, which of course lops off a chunk of Obama supporters. He defended his rationale telling the New Hampshire Business Review that he omits cell phones because mostly young people "don't vote."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

Sawz:

Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced byu this post:

"#3 Congress has an approval rating of 9% while GWB is 27%.

#4 Why don't you condemn Congress for the war and the spending?
"

which appeared under your name.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:29 AM

"

Book: White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Intelligence

The White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to forge a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein in an attempt to portray a false link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The fake letter was backdated July 1, 2001, and it stated that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained for his mission in Iraq. Those are the claims of the explosive new book, The Way of the World, by journalist Ron Suskind. He reports the Bush administration then used the forged letter to show there was an operational link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. On NBC's The Today Show, Suskind said then-CIA Director George Tenet received orders directly from the White House to forge the letter.

Ron Suskind: "Well, the CIA folks involved in the book and others talk about George coming back—Tenet—coming back from the White House with the assignment on White House stationary and turning to the CIA operatives, who are professionals, saying, 'You may not like this, but here is our next mission.' And they carried it through, step by step, all the way to the finish. Ultimately, people even talked about it after the fact. It was a dark day for the CIA. It was the kind of thing where they said, 'Look, this is not our charge. We're not here to carry forward a political mandate,' which is clearly what this was, to solve a political problem in America. And it was a cause of great grievance inside of the agency."

According to Ron Suskind, the CIA's forged letter was passed on to Con Coughlin, a reporter from the London Sunday Telegraph, who wrote a front-page article titled "Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike Was Trained by Saddam." The story was published on Dec. 14, 2003, the same day Saddam Hussein was captured. Coughlin's article was picked up in the US media, and he was interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press. Suskind reports the CIA forgery was likely produced in violation of statutes that bar the agency from conducting covert operations intended to influence US public opinion or the media. The White House described Suskind's report as absurd and accused Suskind of engaging in "gutter journalism.""

(Democracy Now!)

---

THis is not, particularly, a surprise -- it is in keeping with the constant tenor of low-life immorality we are accustomed to hearing about from the Bush regime.

But it does highlight the stark and desperate depths to which these warmongers were willing to sink in order to pursue their confused, anti-social (not to say psychopathic) agenda.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:00 PM

Suskind's new book reveals that the documents that supported an alledged Iraq - AlQuada connection was not only a forgery, but it was ordered by the White House.

MY friend Tucker Carlson was the moderator of a low budget pbs segment that used these documents to justify an invasion of Iraq.
It stunk then and it stinks now.



Public justice is needed if the justice department will not act.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

God bless America
and damn its enemies
traitors and dissenters.

On 9-11 the pretender
pretended surprise
with total failure.

When the pretender commits murder
They say who cares?
It doesn't matter.

After Katrina
The pretender's feet of clay
washed away

On his knees
an amputatee pretender yells
"none shall pass"

Now buried to his neck
the pretender forges one last letter
God bless America, adios.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM

Amos:

Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced by you in these posts:
--------------------------------------------------
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM
From Salon on-line, an essay by Garrison Keillor:
Daddy issues

Our president is resolving unconscious Oedipal obsessions by lashing out at foreign countries -- and it's time his father stepped in.

By Garrison Keillor

Jan. 3, 2007 | As the new Congress convenes this week and Speaker Pelosi .... and then he doggedly stuck by them until his approval ratings sank into the swamp.Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
----------------------------------------------------
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:38 PM

The Australian "theage.com.au" opines:

"
Bush's popularity hits new low



US President George Bush's popularity fell to a new low following his state of the nation speech this week, Newsweek has reported in its latest poll.

With two years left in the White House, only 30 per cent of the 1003 people polled said they approved of Bush's job performance, down from a high of 83 per cent approval at the beginning of 2002.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:26 AM

Paul Krugman has an interesting essay on why Bush is the extension of the spirit of Reagan's administration in today's Times.

An excerpt:

"Why is there such a strong ............... to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:16 PM

The WSJ reports:

"Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq.

The story, broken yesterday by the Journal's Gina Chon, marks the latest of serial defeats for Mr. Sadr, beginning in February 2007 when he was forced underground (reportedly to Iran) in anticipation of the surge of U.S. troops. More recently, the Mahdi Army was defeated and evicted from Basra and other southern strongholds by an Iraqi-led military offensive. The Mahdi Army capitulated without a fight from its Baghdad enclave of Sadr City. Now the young cleric will focus his group's efforts on politics and social work, perhaps while he pursues theological studies in Iran. He wouldn't be the first grad student in history with a tendency toward rabble-rousing.

"

If true, this is a serious piece of good news for Western interests.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:18 PM

"Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties.

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq.

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

..."

Hillary Clinton, writing for the Wall Street Journal today.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:32 PM

"allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government"

This was invented by Al Gore who praised Halliburton during the Clinton Administration.

"To understand why contractor fraud keeps happening over and over again, it's worth thinking about why some folks thought contracting out for services was such a good idea in the first place. Think back to the 1990s, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore talked proudly about "reinventing government"—tapping into the supposed efficiencies of the private sector, cutting out the supposed inefficiencies of the public bureaucracy (Clinton and Gore eliminated 426,200 federal civilian workforce jobs)."

This is another legacy handed to the Bush Administration by the previous administration.

You keep taking things out of context while you complain about others taking things out of context.

"So his certainty about something that went so wrong is not ancient history. It's context."

One standard for Amos. A different standard for those that disagree. I guess any crutch will do when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 08:31 PM

Given your general history of inaccuracy, I think your claim that "this" was invented by Al Gore deserves to be substantiated. The profiteering from government contracts Grand Prize of all time goes to Haliburton over the last eight years--I'd bet money on it.

Care to provide any references to your windy claim?

"Oh HEEE started it", is not an excuse outside of kindergarten, pal, especially without evidence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:13 AM

ANother streak of dirt on the nation's face, compliments of the Administration:

"It is impossible, in any case, to judge the evidence against Mr. Hamdan because of the deeply flawed nature of this trial — the blueprint for which was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, one of the worst bits of lawmaking in American history.

At these trials, hearsay and secret documents are admissible. Mr. Hamdan's defense was actually required to began its case in a secret session. The witness was a camp psychologist, presumably called to back Mr. Hamdan's account of being abused by his interrogators.

Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor in Guantánamo, put the trial in a disturbing light. He testified that he was informed by his superiors that only guilty verdicts would be tolerated. He also said that he was told to bring high-profile cases quickly to help Republicans score a pre-election public relations coup.

Colonel Davis gave up his position on Oct. 4, 2007. That, he wrote in The Los Angeles Times in December, was "the day I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system."

In his article, Colonel Davis described a highly politicized system in which people who were supposed to be neutral decision-makers were allied with the prosecutors. According to Colonel Davis, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed out a fair-minded "convening authority" — the official who decides which cases go to trial, which charges will be heard and who serves on the jury.

That straight-shooting administrator was replaced by Susan Crawford who, Colonel Davis said, assessed evidence before charges were filed, directed the prosecution's preparation and even drafted charges. This "intermingling" of "convening authority and prosecutor roles," Colonel Davis argued, "perpetuates the perception of a rigged process."

Colonel Davis said the final straw for him was when he was placed under the command of William J. Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel. Colonel Davis had instructed prosecutors not to offer evidence obtained through the torture technique known as waterboarding. Mr. Haynes helped draft the orders permitting acts, like waterboarding, that violate American laws and the Geneva Conventions.

We are not arguing that the United States should condone terrorism or those who support it, or that the guilty should not be punished severely. But in a democracy, trials must be governed by fair rules, and judges must be guided by the law and the evidence, not pressure from the government. The military commission system, which falls far short of these standards, is a stain on the United States." NYT


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 02:16 PM

Mark Morford offers a path of amends for those who voted for that no-good sumbitch in the White House:

"Vote for Bush? Pay up
Did you help put America's worst prez into power? Time to make amends
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, August 6, 2008


Sure, you could start with an open-palmed apology, a profoundly contrite on-your-knees sort of thing, maybe an open letter in your local paper or a heartfelt speech at your next dinner party whereby you stumble though some sort of "I don't know what the hell I was thinking" or "I must've been blind" or "Wow, that mescaline sure was potent" type of defense for your unfortunate and reprehensible choices.


But the fact is, that's not really gonna cut it.


Of course, you could do the obvious thing and cast your vote in November for Barack Obama, but even I know that's probably asking too much — and besides, all signs indicate a potential landslide for Obama anyway, given the unprecedented worldwide rush of positive energy, the tremendous cosmic craving for intelligent and new and ingenuous, coupled with a deep undercurrent of karmic revulsion toward the wonky, bloodthirsty agenda of grandpa McCain.


So then, what can you do, all you increasingly humiliated, disillusioned, deeply mistaken Bush voters? How can you, having hopefully realized by now the violent error of your ways, take steps both small and large to try and make amends for shoving Dubya down the throat of the world, for your tiny but oh so poisonous contribution to the worst and most demeaning eight years in modern American politics?


First, let's be clear: As tempting as it is, I do not suggest some grand humiliating gesture, some sweetly demeaning spectacle whereby you must dye your hair blue and run naked through the streets of rural Alabama waving a rainbow flag and carrying a bottle of fresh stem cells as you suddenly claim to care deeply about blue fin tuna and Brazilian rain forests and honest sex ed for teens. Unless you really want to.


Nor do I suggest, say, an immediate "Bush tax," whereby everything you ever purchase from now until you die will cost 10 percent more than it does for liberals, and every cent of it will go to the arts, and schools, and women's rights, and alternative fuels, and GLAAD, et al and so on. Don't get me wrong, it's a damn fine idea, just a bit unrealistic.


Let's keep it simple. The next time, say, gay marriage comes up in conversation, perhaps you say, well, you know, I don't really get the gay thing at all and certainly my anxiety about it is rooted somewhere too deep and sad to explore right now, but I've been doing a bit of actual homework (!), and it turns out that homosexuality is simply all over the animal kingdom, across all sorts of species, and animals seem to enjoy it for both survival and pleasure. Who knew?


In other words, nature seems to approve. And isn't nature merely God in a nice grass suit?


As your baffled pals pick their jaws up off the floor, you can add: Hell, science is pretty much proving homosexuality is biological anyway, not a "lifestyle" choice at all. And gays in the military? Hell, if the badass Israeli army can handle it, the United States sure as hell can, am I right? Now, pass me a stogie and let's go blast some canned pheasant with a shotgun.


See? It doesn't have to all be liberal tofu gobbledygook. I know that waking up to the contemptible wrongheadedness that was your support of the BushCo neocon agenda must be painful. Baby steps, honey. Baby steps.


Speaking of the military, maybe it's time you openly acknowledge that you actually can support our troops, enjoy your righteous sense of patriotism, think America is the world's greatest kick-ass whateveryoulike, and yet not think it's OK that a secretive and bloodthirsty cadre of inept leaders has wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of young American lives in a failed grab for power and petroleum and megalomania. You think?


Which brings up another point: It's also perfectly OK to make whatever you do sound like something you thought up, all by yourself. Yes, progressives have been urging you to raise your awareness of things humane and open-minded for eons. No matter. You can take all the credit. We're generous that way.


Let's say you do something as simple as trade in your massive American gas hog for a Mini Cooper. And now you find you really love your little German-engineered wonder, its handling and efficiency and joyous kick. Perfectly fine to hide your newfound refinement and tell your macho friends that you did it because you hate giving all that oil dough to those greedy Saudi sheiks — and what's more, now you can take corners at 50 mph without rolling over and bursting into flame. Cool, no?

While you're at it, mention to your buds that the steaks they're eating are actually locally raised and grass-fed, not because you give a good goddamn about humane animal treatment or toxic industrial feedlots (though you really should), but because the meat tastes better and costs less and you wanna save some dough to, you know, buy more guns and porn. Hey, whatever works.


But don't stop there. Might as well tell your homies to throw their food scraps in your new compost bin, too, not because you care about garbage, but because you learned how to cultivate some great topsoil in which to grow your heirloom tomatoes for your famous spaghetti sauce for NASCAR night. Look at you! Actually caring about the health and the environment, but pretending not to! Hey, it's a start.


How about secretly beginning to note the overarching brilliance of, say, Dan Savage as well as the nauseating rancidity of Ann Coulter? Or stick a Cabela's catalog cover over an issue of Mother Jones or the Nation, and read it with an open mind and a bottle of premium chilled sake? Or realize, with increasing sense of shame, that across just about every social and environmental issue, the hippies were pretty much right about everything, no matter what you thought of the clothes and the music and the hair? Now you're getting it.


Don't forget the money. Feel free to make a series of large, anonymous donations to the Sierra Club, or a local battered women's shelter, or even Planned Parenthood. Trust me when I say, the odds are shockingly good your own daughter/son/wife will be incredibly grateful for their wise and informed counsel someday soon, if she or he hasn't been already.


You get the idea? Really, compared with the disgusting levels of damage wrought by your support of the dark armies of Bush, these suggestions are nothing. You actually owe quite a bit more. OK, a lot more. Incalculable, really.


But for now, let's be reasonable. After all, the sooner you realize that the world is, in fact, not America's bitch, that it's actually a living, humming organism, interconnected and interdependent in ways and on levels no organized religion or fear-based neocon political agenda can possibly comprehend, much less bomb into submission, well, the sooner we can get our collective s— together and move the human experiment forward once again.


And after what you've put us all through, it's the very least you could do."

(SF Gate)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

WAPO:

"When the Vice President began this Administration's bold journey on the road to reinventing government eight years ago," said National Partnership for Reinventing Government Director Morley Winograd, "he thought it was the career front-line employees who knew what needed fixing and who were in the best place to create real and lasting change."

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/history2.html


From the NYT and WAPO:

The riff was laid down by Dennis Kucinich, but now all the candidates are playing along. Howard Dean says the Halliburton contracts show that the Bush administration ''has sold this country down the river.'' John Kerry says the administration has broken faith with the American people with its no-bid contracts with Halliburton. In the parade of Democratic bogeymen, the word ''Halliburton'' elicits almost as many hisses as the chart-topping ''Ashcroft.''

The problem with the story is that it's almost entirely untrue. As Daniel Drezner recently established in Slate, there is no statistically significant correlation between the companies that made big campaign contributions and the companies that have won reconstruction contracts.

The most persuasive rebuttals have come from people who actually know something about the government procurement process. For example, Steven Kelman was an administrator in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Bill Clinton and now is a professor of public management at Harvard.

Last week, Kelman wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post on the alleged links between contributions and reconstruction contracts. ''One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,'' he observed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM

Democrat Attacks On Contractors; Supposed "reforms" of the Clinton-Gore era instead created a flawed federal-contracting system that shuts out innovative businesses
Insight on the News, Feb 16, 2004

It was in this new era that Halliburton's controversial contracts developed. In the 1990s the Army created its Logistic Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which designs multiyear ID/IQ contracts, the initial process being competitive. Companies submit proposals and bids, but after a bid is taken the Army can buy a number of services, such as electricity and food preparation, from the winning company for a specified number of years without going through another bid process. And these winning contractors are on call to the Army anywhere in the world. In 1997, Halliburton lost out on a bid for the LOGCAP contract to the Reston, Va.-based DynCorp, a company that derived almost its entire income from government contracts. But the Army still gave Halliburton a no-bid contract to set up some bases in the Balkans. And Halliburton so impressed government leaders that Gore gave it a "Hammer" award for efficiency.
     Meanwhile DynCorp, as Insight's Kelly Patricia O'Meara has reported [see "DynCorp Disgrace," Feb. 4, 2002], became mired in scandal after some of its employees were accused of raping Bosnian girls as young as 14.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:07 PM

At the risk of pointing out that you are making another dumb argument...

Even if Al Gore did give the first no-bid contract to Halliburton, it doesn't excuse all the money that this government has thrown down that rat hole. Its not like they were in any way Obligated to follow Al Gore's lead. If they can say no to Kyoto, they can say no to Halliburton.

Out of curiosity.. Are you coming to these conclusions by yourself? Or is someone else leading you down these rabbit holes?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:25 PM

Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:37 PM

1. "Some work in the Balkans" is a few hundred thousand dollars, most probably. The Bush Administration has seived billions of dollars to Haliburton and its subsidiaries, and one of the senior agents of the Bush Administration is a major stockholder in Haliburton and subsidiaries. How naive do you want to be?

2. The topic here is whether the offenses of the Bush Administration and particularly the President and Vice-President are grounds for their impeachment. Against the law. Constituting mismanagement of the nation, sufficient to be classed as dereliction of duty, misdemeanors, crimes or high crimes against the country.

I think yes, you think no. We've already established that. Leave Calvin Coolidge's precedents out of it and stop trying to blame Bush's pathological aberration on Clinton.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:41 PM

>>>Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions.<<<

So what if that is true. So what?

If Bill Clinton jumped of a bridge would George Bush have to jump too? (Oh what a lovely day that would be.)

But seriously, you try to make the strangest points. How does Clinton awarding the no bid contract excuse Cheney awarding dozens? If its wrong for Clinton/Gore its wrong for Bush/Gore. Right? What am I missing here?


Does it have anything to do with trees? :-)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke.)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:09 PM

A new Center for American Progress report released today --ÊUnderstanding Bushonomics: How We Got Into This Mess In the First Place -- documents "the extraordinary transfer of wealth that took place between ordinary households and the extremely well-to-do and the effort by this administration to address the consequences of that problem without addressing the root cause." Senior Fellow Scott Lilly argues that while the "economy did in fact grow at a reasonably strong pace through most of the Bush presidency" and "the hourly productivity of American workers" increased by "more than 19 percent," average Americans did not reap the benefits of economic expansion. Instead, President Bush's economic policies redistributed wealth to the richest Americans and left the majority with stagnating wages and declining household incomes. The transfer "drained the American consumer of the resources needed to keep the economy humming" and led the administration to stimulate the economy by expanding credit -- an action that only weakened "our long term capacity for growth," heÊ concludes.

WEALTH GOES TO THE RICH: The Bush administration directed its economic policies and the benefits of economic growth towards a narrow segment of the population, the wealthiest Americans. Looking at the effects of the first three Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded thatÊ"the percentage by which the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for those in the middle of the income spectrum." Meanwhile, the administration's failure to raise the minimum wage coupled with its poor enforcement of federal wage and hour laws, trade agreements, and union rights further undermined the economic security of middle and lower-income Americans. Consequently, between 2000 and 2006, "those among the top 10 percent of all households on average increased their income by about 2 percent, while those in the bottom 90 percent lost more than 4 percent." The "biggest beneficiaries of U.S. economic growth that occurred between 2000 and 2006 were U.S. corporations," the report concludes. While corporate profits grew "at a little less than two-thirds the growth rate of the gross domestic product" during the second half of the 20th century, between 2000 and 2006, "corporate profits grew nearly four times as fast as GDP," increasing by an estimated 66 percent.

NO TRICKLE DOWN: The newfound prosperity of the top 10 percent of families, "which accounted for 95.3 percent of the nation's income growth between 2002 and 2006," did not trickle down the economic spectrum, and left most Americans incapable of absorbing the rising output of consumer products. Recognizing the precarious condition of the U.S. consumer, corporations retained their extra profits, invested little in new commercial structuresÊsuch as factories and office buildings, bought back their own stock, and "increased dividends rather than expand capacity." High-income individuals absorbed some of the extra output by consuming luxury items, but most of their "increased income went to savings rather than consumption," Lilly writes. Ê


(See graph on actual effects of Bush tax cuts.

COmplete report is in thisPDF file.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:14 PM

"Tax policy

An analysis in 2004 on the effects of the first three Bush administration tax cuts by
the Congressional Budget Office showed that the average tax cut received by the top 1
percent of households (families with an average income of $1.2 million) equaled more
than $83,000 while that of middle-income households (families with an average income
of $51,600) was less than $1,000Ñeven after excluding the Òbonus depreciationÓ
business tax cut and the phase-out of the federal estate tax. The percentage by which
the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for
those in the middle of the income spectrum.

Minimum wage

The Bush economic team was also anxious to assist the Òsupply sideÓ of the economy
in ways that extended beyond tax cuts. One involved the cost of labor. The most
immediate issue was whether the minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation. At
$5.15, it had been not been adjusted in three-and-a-half years, and had already fallen
in real terms by 8 percent. Compared to the $5 per day or $.063 per hour minimum
that Henry Ford offered his employees in 1914 the federal minimum wage in 2001
amounted to about $0.30 an hour in 1914 dollars.

The Bush administration was careful not to directly oppose an adjustment in the
minimum wage, but threatened to veto the measure if it were not accompanied by
further large business tax cuts. These it was argued were necessary to offset the negative
effects on businesses that were forced to pay higher wages.

The result of the administrationÕs position was that the minimum wage was stuck at
$5.15 for a total of 10 years, the longest period without adjustment since it was instituted in 1938. In inflation-adjusted dollars it reached its lowest value in over 50 years, dropping by 29 percent before the new law was adopted in 2007.

(Excerpts from above PDF link)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:18 PM

The budget deficit for fiscal year 2008 will be "around $400 billion," according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate. CBO's prediction is "slightly higher than the White House's deficit estimate of $389 billion," both of which "approach the record-breaking deficit suffered in fiscal 2004 of $412.7 billion." Last month, the White House predicted the deficit could reach nearly $490 billion in fiscal year 2009. (The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:48 PM

Paydirt Amos. Ain't ya finally proud of your country like Michelle?

        WASHINGTON (AP) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a chilling string of other terror plots during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, which was held last Saturday.

The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks.

In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing.

Using his own words, the extraordinary transcript connects Mohammed to dozens of the worst terror plots attempted or carried out in the last 15 years—and to others that have not occurred. All told, thousands have died in operations he directed.

His words draw al-Qaida closer to plots of the early 1990s than the group has previously been connected to, including the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing. Six people with links to global terror networks were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison.

It also makes clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans- Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.

Mohammed said he was involved in planning the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two Bali nightclubs were bombed.

Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London—none of which happened.

He said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton, attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants and suspension bridges in New York, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia, attacks on American naval vessels and oil tankers around the world, and an attempt to "destroy" an oil company he said was owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Sumatra, Indonesia.

He also claimed he shared responsibility for assassination attempts against Pope John Paul II and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 28 attacks and assisting in three others. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which blacked out some of his remarks.

Mohammed also claimed he was tortured by the CIA after his capture in according to an exchange he had with the unidentified military colonel who heads the three-member panel that heard his case.

"Is any statement that you made, was it because of this treatment, to use your word, you claim torture," the colonel asked. "Do you make any statements because of that?"

Portions of Mohammed's response were deleted from the transcript, and his immediate answer was unclear. He later said his confession read at the hearing to the long list of attacks was given without any pressure, threats or duress.

The colonel said Mohammed's torture allegations would be "reported for any investigation that may be appropriate" and also would be taken into account in consideration of his enemy combatant status.

In one rambling remark apparently spoken through a translator, Mohammed appeared to express some regret for some of the casualties of 9/11.

"When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids," the transcript said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:26 AM

Well, Sawz, the logic of your post escapes me, but I am getting used to that. It was pretty well-established sometime back that this guy, and a few of his colleagues under Osama bin Laden, were behind these actions.

Why is this a "popular view of the Bush Administration"?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 08:27 AM

"So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: ÒDrill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!Ó O.K., I added that last part.

And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something IÕve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the Òparty of ideas,Ó have become the party of stupid.

Now, I donÕt mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly donÕt mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism Ñ the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that thereÕs something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise Ñ has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The partyÕs de facto slogan has become: ÒReal men donÕt think things through.Ó

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: ÒThe market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,Ó said Representative John Shadegg.

What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be ÒinsignificantÓ? Presumably theyÕre just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, Òwant Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs.Ó

Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? DonÕt count on it.

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, ÒThey attacked us, and weÕre going to strike backÓ Ñ and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama werenÕt the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French.

LetÕs also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. ÒMr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,Ó declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. ÒHeÕs not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.Ó

It wasnÕt until Hurricane Katrina Ñ when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, Òif thereÕs a fire on the block, heÕll run out and helpÓ revealed the true costs of obliviousness Ñ that the cult began to fade.

WhatÕs more, the politics of stupidity didnÕt just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.

Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly Ñ that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.

All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. BushÕs plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right.

Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling Ñ and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

The headway Republicans are making on this issue wonÕt prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains Ñ and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race.

In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the countryÕs problems. ItÕs not going to happen Ñ not as long as one of AmericaÕs two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM

Honest, Sawz, your disjointed, non-sequitur, dedicatedly ad hominem posts are getting wearisome.

1. The "dark armies" phrase, as you can plainly see, was part of a quote from a columnist for the SF Chronicle/SFGate, not my choice of phrasing; but I don't find it inaccurate. In case you missed third grade that day, the word "dark" has several meanings related neither to Sci Fi not to race, such as "connotating evil or immoral spiritual qualities".

2. The truth, as far as I can see, is that the last eight years have been grotesque examples of gross management blunders, compromised ethical standards and illegal manipulations by the Bush Administration and its cronies, one after another after another.

3. You keep trying to say that these towering incompetencies and disservices are really Bill Clinton's fault. This is like trying to blame the Son of Sam attacks on Jack the Ripper, or trying to say that the Great Depression was really the fault of the Founding Fathers or Andrew Jackson. The argument doesn't really hold much water.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jayto
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:18 PM

I think the most popular view of Bush for me will occurr in January. When I view his back while he is walking out of the oval office end term. I'm just scared I will be seeing McCain's frontside as he is walking into the oval office starting term yuck. Bad thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 04:41 PM

Sawzaw's argument appears to be"Bush did a bunch of bad things, but that's OK because Clinton did them once or twice before Bush did and that;s the reason you should vote against Obama.

Its better than the argument the GOP was using in 2004, "All the problems are Clinton's fault, Bush is trying to clear things up so give him four more years. Besides, Kerry speaks French and he probably only deserves 3 war medals of the five he got, so we should let the politically connected draft dodgers continue the war they blundered us into."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 07:36 PM

In truth, Iraqis have had little incentive to spend their own money given the willingness of the United States Congress to keep writing blank checks for President BushÕs disastrous adventure there. Congress has appropriated $48 billion for rebuilding in Iraq since 2003 and committed all but $6 billion of that amount, mostly for oil, electricity, water and security projects.

By contrast, between 2005 and 2007, when all that oil revenue was piling up, only $3.9 billion of IraqÕs budget went to reconstruction. An even tinier amount went to maintaining United States and Iraqi-financed projects like roads, bridges, buildings, water and electrical installations. That raises serious questions about the wisdom of making those capital investments in the first place if they are not going to be properly tended.

One of the Bush administrationÕs most damaging postinvasion decisions is at the heart of this problem. In its ill-considered dismissal of everybody who had any connection to Saddam HusseinÕs Baath Party, American overseers depleted the ranks of Iraqi bureaucrats who had the skills and experience to run an oil-producing country of about 27 million people.

As the Congressional investigators found, Iraq now lacks the trained professionals to prepare and execute budgets and to solicit, award and oversee capital projects. The United States must redouble its efforts to help Iraq build this capacity, including bringing back skilled Iraqis who have fled the country.

Congress is finally losing patience with the indefensible image of Americans paying historic high gasoline prices while Iraq pockets huge profits and Americans underwrite IraqÕs rebuilding. Like Democrat Carl Levin and Republican John Warner, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we question the PentagonÕs decision to spend $33 million from an emergency fund on an economic zone at Baghdad International Airport. Iraq has committed $44.8 million to the project but should pay for the whole thing...

(NYT 8-8-08)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:10 PM

"The last eight years have been grotesque examples of gross management blunders, compromised ethical standards and illegal manipulations"

How about the eight years before that? Remember Marc Rich? Somalia?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:36 PM

Yeah good comparison. They lost 18 men in Somalia.

How about Bosnia and a budget surplus?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 12:37 AM

Amos.
Did you forget how Bush's new redefining of the overtime federal wage stautes got iced & diced. How many workers were helped by that one & what were the costs to the companies that they worked for?

Don't forget how new bankruptcy laws were changed, in whose favor?

Or how the middle & lower classes are getting stiffed out of a good education, giving way to an elite well educated upper class ruling society that continues to get richer & more powerful, while I might add is staying very healthy while we working bee's drop dead trying to keep bread on the table & a bit of heat in our hearts. It costs less to let us die uninsured, kind of like when slaves were tossed off the turn row when they were done with, feed us to the buzzards.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:03 AM

What happened to that surplus in 2000? How about the recession that began in 2000 and the stock market bubble of 2000?

How about Bosnia?

Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia...
...DynCorp, based in Reston, Va., has been a worldwide force providing maintenance support to the U.S. military through contract field teams (CFTs). As one of the federal government's top 25 contractors, DynCorp has received nearly $1 billion since 1995 for these services and has deployed 181 personnel to Bosnia during the last six years.....
..He laughs bitterly recalling the work habits of a DynCorp employee in Bosnia who "weighed 400 pounds and would stick cheeseburgers in his pockets and eat them while he worked.
The problem was he would literally fall asleep every five minutes. One time he fell asleep with a torch in his hand and burned a hole through the plastic on an aircraft." This same man, according to Johnston, "owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who weighs 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick." It is precisely these allegations that Johnston believes got him fired....
... Johnston reports that he had been in Bosnia only a few days when he became aware of misbehavior in which many of his DynCorp colleagues were involved. He tells INSIGHT, "I noticed there were problems as soon as I got there, and I tried to be covert because I knew it was a rougher crowd than I'd ever dealt with. It's not like I don't drink or anything, but DynCorp employees would come to work drunk. A DynCorp van would pick us up every morning and you could smell the alcohol on them. There were big-time drinking issues. I always told these guys what I thought of what they were doing, and I guess they just thought I was a self-righteous fool or something, but I didn't care what they thought."
The mix of drunkenness and working on multimillion-dollar aircraft upon which the lives of U.S. military personnel depended was a serious enough issue, but Johnston drew the line when it came to buying young girls and women as sex slaves. "I heard talk about the prostitution right away, but it took some time before I understood that they were buying these girls. I'd tell them that it was wrong and that it was no different than slavery - that you can't buy women. But they'd buy the women's passports and they [then] owned them and would sell them to each other."....
.... But Johnston worries about what this company's culture does to the reputation of the United States. "The Bosnians think we're all trash. It's a shame. When I was there as a soldier they loved us, but DynCorp employees have changed how they think about us. I tried to tell them that this is not how all Americans act, but it's hard to convince them when you see what they're seeing. The fact is, DynCorp is the worst diplomat you could possibly have over there."

But Sawzaw, it was Bush not Bubba that alienated everybody. Wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 10:49 AM

NEwsweek runs a longish article called What Bush Got Right, but the article doesn't really deliver on its title. It is an interesting analysis, however.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek:

"The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things.

Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands.

The theory did not originate with Bush's administration. Others had made this case: scholars like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, the Arab intellectuals who wrote the United Nations' now famous "Arab Human Development Report" and even this writer. (Three weeks after 9/11 I wrote an essay titled "Why Do They Hate Us?" that made this case.) These ideas were gaining some ground in the Arab world, especially after 9/11. But Bush's adoption of them was absolutely crucial because he had the power to pressure the region's regimes. Efforts to change the dynamics of the Middle East had always collapsed in the past as its wily rulers would delay, obstruct and obfuscate. Bush has pushed them with persistence and, increasingly, he is trying to build a broader international effort. The results might surprise. ."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

Thanks, Sawz. This is an interesting rationalization for Bush's long term effects. In a way it is like justifying starting a wildfire which cost many lives and destroyed many homes, because when you go back a year later, life has reasserted itself and things are starting to grow green again. So oobviosuly the wildfire was a Good Thing.

SImilarly, in my view, Bush's noble course of action was obstreperous and destructive in many, many ways and paid far too high a price in blood, tragedy, and terror.

The same benefits could have been acheived by more natural means at a much lower cost.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:00 PM

US House of Representatives Turns Back Bush Impeachment Effort
By Dan Robinson
Washington
11 June 2008
        
The House of Representatives has blocked an effort by a Democratic lawmaker to impeach President Bush for his decisions and actions on Iraq, and other issues. Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders in Congress have opposed any effort to impeach, drawing criticism from some of the most vocal critics of the president.

Dennis Kucinich announces Articles of Impeachment against Vice
For Dennis Kucinich, a two-time unsuccessful Democratic candidate for president from the state of Ohio, it's the second impeachment effort in as many years.

Previously, he introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, and the document regarding President Bush echoed much of the criticism from that effort.

The 35-point resolution on President Bush was read twice into the House record, the first time by Kucinich himself. "Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

In his resolution, Kucinich stated that President Bush and Vice President Cheney conducted a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for the war in Iraq, and violated U.S. and international law in ordering an invasion.

Kucinich referred to actions of a White House advisory group, comprising key advisers that his resolution asserts were closely involved in shaping the case for war based on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that later proved inaccurate:

"The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task forced formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people," he said.

Kucinich also accused the president of failing to properly equip U.S. troops, illegally detaining without charge U.S. citizens and "foreign captives", and using signing statements when approving bills passed by Congress, in what the Ohio Democrat asserts is a violation of U.S. laws. Other criticisms involved the refusal of White House officials to comply with congressional subpoenas, and the U.S. government's poor response to Hurricane Katrina.

The resolution was brought to the floor Monday under privileged status, requiring the chamber to act on it in within two days.

The House voted 251 to 166 to send it to the House Judiciary Committee, effectively killing the effort because it is unlikely to undergo hearings before President Bush leaves office.

Since taking control of Congress, Democratic leaders, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular, have declined to support impeachment saying it would only be divisive and interfere with their agenda, a position reiterated Wednesday by a Pelosi spokesman.

Democratic leaders faced sharp criticism for this from the far left of their party, where they are also faulted for not taking a stronger stand on an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:10 PM

The 11th of June, as these matters go, is pretty mouldy news.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:38 AM

Amos is reduced to plugging up the holes in his sinking impeachment showboat with rhetoric.

Don't worry Amos, if impeachment fails there is always "summary justice" or a few "smart bombs".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:18 PM

Fascism in Bush's America Described.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

"Democratic leaders in Congress have opposed any effort to impeach,"


Shall we start a thread on "Popular views of the Democratic Congress"?



Or just assume they are lower than Bush, as the polls indict.


Has anyone noticed that Obama has ONLY been a national Politician in the present Congress, which has a lower rating than Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:54 PM

That is the sort of mindless conflation that only a Republican could embrace, Bruce.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:59 PM

As opposed to the mindless Bush-bashing that only a Democrat could embrace?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM

Jaysus, man. No--as opposed to some sort of effort at keeping logic and rational discourse in play.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:41 PM

Bruce, I don't want to break your heart here. But Obama has a higher favorable rating than Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM

Last time I looked, Bush was doing his job 3 times better than Congress according to the polls.

But polls don't mean anything unless they support Amos's fanatical Anti-Bush campaign.

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)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM

..."THE CHALLENGE: Seven years later, Bush has squandered the goodwill of the world. Global opinion of the United States is lower than at almost any time in history. Our country remains deeply involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which continue to drive extremist anti-American ideologies. Tragically, even though it has used the rhetoric of freedom and democracy to defend its policies, the Bush administration remains wedded to a national security strategy that prioritizes the use of military force and denies the full range of American economic, political, and cultural power. Recently, senior U.S. intelligence analyst Thomas Fingar presented the findings of  a new report, "Global Trends 2025," that "assesses how international events could affect the United States in the next 15 to 17 years." Fingar said that "the U.S. will remain the preeminent power," but he saw U.S. leadership eroding "at an accelerating pace" in "political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas." The Washington Post reported that, according to Fingar, "the one key area of continued U.S. superiority -- military power -- will 'be the least significant' asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future."

BUSH'S FAILED APPROACH: Despite the changing world dynamic, military power continues to be the asset which the Bush administration has most often used in the misnamed and misconceived Global War on Terror. After routing al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts from their base in Afghanistan in late 2001 and 2002, Bush turned his attention to Iraq, where the U.S. military continues its occupation to this day at a cost of over $12 billion a month. More than one in five Iraqis has been displaced since the 2003 invasion, both inside and outside the country. The 2007 troop surge, while helping to reduce violence, has also frozen in place "a fragmented and increasingly fractured country," with no sign that Iraq's leaders are prepared to make the tough power-sharing compromises necessary for a stable future Iraq. As a result of the unfinished war in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al Qaeda eventually regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, and have carried out an increasingly destructive insurgency. According to the Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress 2008 Terrorism Index, which surveyed 117 national security experts from across the political spectrum,  "eighty percent of the experts say that the United States has focused too much on the war in Iraq and not enough on the war in Afghanistan." Yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen warned Congress that the United States. is "running out of time" to succeed in Afghanistan and that sending in more troops will not necessarily guarantee victory.

THE PROGRESSIVE APPROACH: Mullen's other comments offer a clue to the way forward. In discussing the Afghanistan front, Mullen noted the "poor and struggling Afghan economy" and "significant political uncertainty in Pakistan" as major barriers to real security and progress in the region. As Center for American Progress Senior fellow Brian Katulis and co-author Nancy Soderbergh argue in their new book, "The Prosperity Agenda," American leadership "has been absent from the scene of many other important global issues -- oil dependency, food shortages, climate change, global poverty, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons." Americans must expand their conception of national security to encompass more than military solutions for what are in many cases environmental, economic and political problems. With the continuing rise of economic competitors such as China and Russia, the United States must acclimate its security policies to an evolving multi-polar reality in order to work more effectively to deal with problems like Iran's nuclear program. And with the persistence of non-state actors such as Al Qaeda, the United States must look to a more comprehensive approach to national security, one that addresses the conditions which give rise to terrorism, and rethink its reflexive dependence on military power as the first option against potential threats."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:34 PM

KATRINA -- REPORT SAYS MILLIONS WASTED ON NO-BID CONTRACTS FOR KATRINA RECOVERY: According to a report by the Homeland Security Department's office of inspector general, "The government wasted millions of dollars on four no-bid contracts it handed out for Hurricane Katrina work." The Associated Press called the report "the latest to detail mismanagement in the multibillion-dollar Katrina hurricane recovery effort, which investigators have said wasted at least $1 billion." In the new report, investigators cite temporary housing contracts that were "awarded without competition to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Group Inc., CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. and Fluor Corp." by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Investigators found that FEMA "did not always properly review the invoices submitted by the four companies" and "also issued open-ended contract instructions for months without clear guidelines on what work was needed to be done and the appropriate charges," which "wasted at least $45.9 million." Approximately $20 million of the wasted money went towards "a camp for evacuees that was never inspected and proved to be unusable." FEMA said that it "generally agreed" with the report and "would further investigate the $45.9 million in questioned costs and recoup the money as necessary."

ETHICS -- REPORT DETAILS 'CULTURAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND PROMISCUITY' AT GOVT. OFFICES: Yesterday, the Interior Department's inspector general revealed that 13 government officials "handling billions of dollars in oil royalties improperly engaged in sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them." The report notes that nearly a third of the Denver Minerals Management Service's 55-person office "received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies." The report reveals that government officials tried to rewrite ethics rules in order to accommodate their partying and cover up their misdoings. In the summer of 2006, Royalty in Kind (RIK) employees wrote up a document titled, "Initiative to Clarify Guidance for RIK Interaction with Industry," which would codify employees' "uniqueness." Employees also illegaly took drugs, often while at the office. Gregory Smith, Program Director of the RIK, referred to cocaine as "office supplies" and rewarded his employees for obtaining it for him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) criticized "how cozy the relationship between Big Oil and the Administration's regulators have been." The AP called the scandal part of a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." (The Progressive newsletter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:17 PM

Has good USA friend India been lost and replaced by China and Iran?

Iran to develop Caspian Sea oil reserves with India, China
Tehran looking East for financing energy projects

Global Research, September 11, 2008
Xinhua - 2008-08-23

Iran is in talks with India's Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and China's offshore oil corporation for the development of oil reserves in the South Caspian Sea region, the Press TV satellite channel reported Saturday.

The report quoted the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) deputy director Hojatollah Ghanimifard as saying that NIOC has been discussing the issue with India's ONGC Videsh, the overseas arm of the ONGC, and China's state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).

NIOC is reviewing proposals to make the terms of the current contracts more attractive to international oil companies by offering them production-sharing contracts for the first time, the report said.

Under such contracts the developer is entitled to a share of production, which allows them to recoup their investment costs and make improved profits.

Over the past 20 years, the NIOC has mainly offered pay-back contracts to developers under which the investors receive a pre-agreed remuneration rate for their investment. The rate is typically determined by the global price of energy and the field hitting targets, and is paid over a 25-year period.

Some developers have voiced concerns over pay-back contracts, saying the contracts have serious market risks to developers as their profits depend on the fluctuating global price of energy.

'We think this region might be the exception to the rule,' Ghanimifard said. 'Since it is deep water, it looks like the production cost per barrel would be much more than in other regions like the south, or the Persian Gulf.'

The Brazilian state-run oil company Petrobras is currently drilling three wells in the Caspian Sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:26 PM

The other news of note is that Russia is sending a friendly delegation to the OPEC conveniton for the first time. This opens up a real can of worms in balance of power consideration. Russia sponsors Iran's militarism and is traditionally at arm's length, to say the least, with the Saudis for whom the US is their power agent. Interested in participating in future price spikes and power games over oil, Russia is feeling their way into amicable relations with OPEC, possibly in consideration of getting past their peak-oil supply years, who knows. But it sure complicates things and simply reinforces the motivation for the US to move rapidly toward energy independence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:22 PM

On 9-11 and McCain (Sorry for the HTML goof).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:30 AM

It seemed inevitable that bad things would happen when President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate. But it was left to Earl Devaney, the department's inspector general — and the busiest gumshoe inside the federal bureaucracy — to demonstrate just how bad things could be.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (45) »
In three extraordinary reports delivered to Congress this week, Mr. Devaney found that officials at the Minerals Management Service — the division responsible for granting offshore oil leases and collecting royalties — accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drugs and sex with oil company employees as part of what he described as a broader "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity."

At the center of the scandal is the royalty-in-kind program, under which the service takes delivery of oil and gas in lieu of cash payments from energy companies, then sells it to refiners. The program is vulnerable to manipulation at either end of the transaction, by overvaluing the oil and gas when it is received or undervaluing it when it is sold.

The program obviously needs a complete overhaul. It has already been the subject of multiple investigations — by Mr. Devaney; Dirk Kempthorne, the interior secretary; the Justice Department; and Congress — for mismanagement and conflicts of interest. In an earlier report in 2007, Mr. Devaney found that the agency had failed — through negligence and possible ethical lapses — to collect billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies for leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

His new reports add more shameful details, including allegations that agency employees accepted gratuities and other favors — meals, ski trips, sports tickets and golf outings with industry representatives — "with prodigious frequency."

Mr. Kempthorne, who has already transferred some employees and almost certainly will fire more, can take some comfort from the fact that nearly all of the misbehavior occurred before he arrived in Washington in 2006 to replace Gale Norton as interior secretary.

The White House can take no comfort at all. The people it brought to Washington to run the department had no interest in policing the oil, mining and agricultural interests they were sworn to regulate and every interest in promoting industry's (and their own) good fortune. The most notorious of these was J. Steven Griles, a mining industry lobbyist who really ran the agency for four years and who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

The fruit of these terrible appointments was aptly described by Mr. Devaney two years ago when he appeared before a House subcommittee. "Short of a crime," he said, "anything goes at the Department of the Interior."

It now appears that crime could be part of the mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:57 PM

From a review of Ron Susskind's "Th Way of the World", in the NY Times:

"...More startling are Suskind's revelations about the Iraq war and the handling of prewar intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. In one instance, Suskind says that denials by the foreign minister of Iraq, Naji Sabri, that his country possessed W.M.D. were simply rewritten — "almost certainly altered under pressure from Washington," Suskind writes — into a false assertion that Sabri had substantiated suspicions about active Iraqi biological and nuclear programs.

Even more disturbing is the story of a former Iraqi intelligence chief named Tahir Jalil Habbush. Suskind describes in gripping detail secret meetings between Habbush and British intelligence in January and February of 2003. Habbush insisted that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his weapons programs but would not publicly admit it, so as to maintain a facade of deterrence against regional rivals like Iran. Not only did the White House dismiss Habbush's statements, Suskind writes, but an irritated Bush even asked whether the Iraqi could be asked for "something we can use to help us make our case." A subsequent $5 million C.I.A. payment to Habbush, disclosed by Suskind, has the smell of hush money.

Then comes what may be the ultimate bombshell: that the White House in structed the C.I.A. to forge a letter, backdated to July 2001, stating that the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had trained in Iraq and, furthermore, that Iraq had received suspicious shipments (presumably of yellowcake) from Niger with Al Qaeda's help. The letter was to be written and signed by Habbush on Iraqi government station ery and addressed to Hussein himself. This preposterously convenient summary of what a perfect case for war might look like almost resembled some wry gag from The Onion. But at the end of 2003 the letter did, in fact, turn up in a British newspaper, before seeping into the American media.

Suskind does not establish who dreamed up this pernicious document. But he says one of his sources, a former senior C.I.A. operative named Robert Richer, recalls being ordered directly by George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to have Habbush transcribe it himself from a draft produced by the White House. ­Richer even remembers "the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written," as Suskind puts it. Since the book's release, however, Tenet, Richer himself and another key source have adamantly denied that such a thing occurred. (Tenet also denies that Habbush's prewar claims were muffled.)

Even in the context of the past seven years, the stupid brazenness of a forged letter drafted on White House stationery does test credulity. But any claims made by Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a Pulitzer Prize winner, should not be casually dismissed. That no credible challenges have been made to numerous other scoops in his book suggests an attempted covering of exposed der rières. Still, his release of partial transcripts from recorded interviews with Richer has not definitively affirmed his reporting.

Suskind's point isn't about proving liabil ity. Rather, the Habbush episodes, if accurate, illustrate a creeping amorality in the way America has managed its war on terror. As our moral standing suffers, so does our ability to shame other nations into cracking down on their nuclear black markets. And so does our battle for the hearts and minds of people like the Afghan exchange student, the Pakistani émigré, the possibly innocent Guantánamo detainee and the followers of Benazir Bhutto. Their conclusions about America may determine whether Rolf Mowatt-Larssen will have the pleasure of being remembered as a Chicken Little, or will experience the horror of becoming a prophet of atomic disaster.

Michael Crowley is a senior editor at The New Republic...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:39 PM

SALACIOUS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: The IG report is full of accounts detailing the unethical relationships between government officials and the oil industry, calling it "a culture of ethical failure" and "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." The report notes that "employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and natural gas company representatives," despite being subject to restrictions on taking gifts. Royalty in Kind (RIK) officials, however, attempted to rewrite the ethics rules to cover up their misdoings. Two employees engaged in "brief sexual relationships" with oil and gas representatives, yet they did not recuse themselves from work with those companies and officials. Oil giant Chevron gave roughly $2,500 over the course of five years, "most of it spent on meals and drinks." Three others, Shell, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. and Hess Corp., also were named as gift-givers. Other agencies, such as the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM), were implicated as well. MRM Associate Director Lucy Denett created a "lucrative contract" for her special assistant Jim Mayberry, upon Mayberry's retirement and later sought to increase funding for the contract. Gregory Smith, who managed RIK at MMS, was said to have demanded sexual favors from an employee; Attorney General Michael Mukasey in May 2008 "declin[ed] to prosecute Smith on various charges," the report notes.  

THE DRILLING DEBATE: The MMS, the agency that would oversee the expansion of offshore oil drilling, is now front and center in the oil drilling debate in Congress because of the IG report. This week, House Democrats announced that they would bring an energy bill allowing for expanded oil exploration off the coasts. "On the eve of Congress starting this big debate you've got a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct in programs that are going to be a key part of the discussion," Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-OR) observed. Conservatives are attempting to block the legislation because it would eliminate an estimated $17 billion in tax breaks for oil companies over 10 years. "So we're saying: OK, you want to drill, this is how it will be. No more subsidies," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday. Pelosi said the energy measure in Congress will now include a "strong integrity piece" to shield the government from oil industry influence.

SCANDAL-CLAD DEPARTMENT: The revelations from the IG are the latest in scandal-clad Interior Department. The IG previously found that the Department under-collected billions of dollars of revenue owed the U.S. taxpayer from oil companies that produce and sell oil and gas from public lands and waters. Government workers "routinely failed to seek out legal advice on complicated deals and that the agency used outdated computers and a $150 million software program that resulted in royalty money going uncollected." J. Steven Griles, former mining lobbyist and Interior Department Deputy Secretary, pleaded guilty in 2007 to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal. "Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate," the New York Times noted yesterday.

(From The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 02:27 AM

FOR YEARS, critics have accused the Bush administration of being in bed with the oil industry. They thought they were speaking figuratively, but they weren't.

According to a scathing new report by the inspector general of the Interior Department, employees of the department who handle royalty payments from the oil and gas industry for drilling on federal land have accepted gifts from industry executives - and had sexual relations with them as well. With admirable understatement, Inspector General Earl Devaney declared, "Sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length."

His office's investigations, he said, revealed "a culture of ethical failure" and an agency rife with conflicts of interest.

The report justifies the skepticism of many in Congress over the industry's recent push to use high oil prices to win permission to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. A department that is as cozy with industry as the report spells out cannot be counted on to protect the public's financial, safety, or environmental interests - especially if the oil industry starts drilling in crucial fishing areas like New England's Georges Bank.

Devaney's report zeroed in on officials in the department's Minerals Management Service who handled contracts with oil companies that paid their royalties in barrels of petroleum, which the government then sold. But the report also puts a new light on revelations in recent years that the service has looked the other way and allowed the industry to escape royalties altogether for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. According to government auditors, the failure of service employees to collect payments aggressively could cost taxpayers $10.5 billion over 25 years.

The Clinton administration shares blame for this loss of revenue. In the 1990s, the administration persuaded oil companies to drill in deep-water areas with the promise they would not have to pay royalties on oil they discovered. Interior officials failed to include a standard provision that royalties would be due if the barrel price of oil exceeded $34, which it long since has. This omission was brought to the attention of Bush administration officials no later than 2004, but they never made any effort to renegotiate the contracts. (Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:55 PM

The location of a President Bush fundraising event in Florida has been changed after event planners realized that the original host is under an IRS investigation. The event was originally scheduled to be at the home of John Boswell, whose Boswell House Ministries is undergoing an IRS probe.



(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 01:18 PM

"The Pakistani military said on Tuesday its troops would fire on foreign forces if they crossed the country's borders but denied that this was a change of policy.

The comments came after the United States sent commandos into Pakistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda earlier this month, and as confusion continued to swirl over a possible Monday incursion by United States forces into Pakistani territory along the border with Afghanistan.

Local residents and a Pakistani government official said Monday two American helicopters were repulsed in South Waziristan when Pakistani soldiers fired at them.

But the Pakistani and United States military publicly denied any such incident, and a Pakistani intelligence official said that an American helicopter had mistakenly crossed the border briefly, leading Pakistani ground forces to fire into the air.

On Tuesday, a military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the army reserved the right to use force to defend the country and its people, but he said there was "no change in policy."

Asked what the Pakistan military would do if there was a future incursion by American troops, he said: "There is a big if involved. We will see to it when such a situation arises."

Tensions have been mounting since the United States intensified its campaign in Pakistan's border areas against militants suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States has become increasingly frustrated that the militants use the border areas as a refuge to stage attacks against American and NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

On Sept. 3, helicopter-borne American Special Operations forces made their first publicly acknowledged ground operation on Pakistani soil, when they attacked Qaeda militants in a Pakistani village near the border with Afghanistan.

Following that raid, in an unusually strong response, Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said that his forces would not tolerate such incursions and would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."

The raid complicated relations with the new civilian government in Pakistan, which is trying to stabilize the country after the resignation in August of President Pervez Musharraf, whom the Bush administration regarded as a strong ally in its campaign against terrorism. "

---

This appearance of yet another Bush-inspired flop in international relations begins to crystallize on the horizon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:43 AM

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda

BBC

Barack Obama delivers foreign policy speech
Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to tackle al-Qaeda
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:35 AM

It has been nearly two years since Congress first began asking questions about the firing of nine United States attorneys, who appear to have been removed for partisan political reasons. Mr. Rove may have been directly involved in these possibly illegal firings, but he has not told Congress what he knows. In defiance of a legally binding subpoena, he refused this summer to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.

Congress's investigation of the United States attorneys matter is of the utmost importance. It now seems clear that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales operated as a partisan political actor, using its prosecutorial authority to help the party in power win elections. That was a grave abuse, which undermined American democracy.

There are real victims in this scandal. Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was sentenced to seven years in prison as a result of a prosecution that appears to have been politically motivated. Mr. Siegelman is free pending an appeal, but he has already served part of the sentence and could end up returning to prison.

Congress is also pushing to obtain testimony and documents from Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel. Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers have also defied Congressional subpoenas. The House voted to hold them in contempt in February, and it is fighting in court right now to force them to testify.

A Federal District Court judge appointed by President Bush ordered them to comply with the subpoenas, but the administration appealed the ruling. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is also doing his best to block Congress from getting the testimony it is entitled to. Clearly, the administration's goal is to run out the clock, to get out of town before the subpoenas are enforced.

The House needs to start pushing just as hard on Mr. Rove. The important step is for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to schedule a vote on holding him in contempt in the next two weeks. The House is eager to adjourn — the members want to get back to their districts so they can campaign for re-election. But it would be a mistake to leave without taking this vote.

There are many vital principles at stake, but none is more important than the power of Congress itself. In this era of expanding presidential authority, Congress is a critical check on executive branch abuses. It cannot perform this function if it allows members of the executive branch to flout its subpoenas and its oversight.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:10 PM

Sawz:

The excerpt you post makes little sense. As far as I can ascertain there was, in fact, an American armed incursion across the Pakistan border, which resulted in multiple deaths some of whom or all of whom were civilian, non-participants.

AFter that Pakistan announced it would defend its borders with armed force if American troops crossed them uninvited.

Your post seems to argue that since they haven't done it since the last time, no situation exists.

That is just silly, if it is what you mean.

It may seem inconceivable to some at present but it would be an easy misstep to find ourselves in a hot firefight with Pakistani forces if present trends continue.

Same old crap, different day. Welcome to the World According to Cowboy W.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:55 PM

Bush's Overseas Policies Begin Resembling Obama's
by Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2008; Page A02

"....an Obama presidency might look a bit like Bush's second.

On a range of major foreign policy issues over the past year, Bush has pursued strategies and actions very much along the lines of what Sen. Obama has advocated during his presidential race, according to the Illinois Democrat's campaign and many diplomatic and security experts.

The administration has pushed ahead with high-level diplomatic negotiations with Iran and North Korea, agreed to a "time horizon" for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and announced plans last week to shift troops and other resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government's approval -- an idea that Obama first endorsed, and was heavily criticized for, last year...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 12:17 AM

Wow!! Infectious rationality at work!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 09:09 AM

"When the final report on the secret meetings between the British intelligence agency MI6 and Iraq's former Chief of Intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, was presented to George Bush bearing the conclusion that Saddam possessed no WMDs, Bush responded, "Fuck it. We're going in." This anecdote, along with other disturbing revelations from inside the Bush administration, is detailed in Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World. In addition to revealing startling information about Benazir Bhutto, Guantanamo, and the threat of nuclear terrorism, this Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter gives us an alarming new account of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and the extent to which the White House was willing to deceive not just the public, but intelligence officers and government officials.

Suskind's book, when put together with Scott McClellan's What Happened, Barton Gellman's Angler, and Bob Woodward's The War Within, paints an extremely dark, deceptive, and frankly, evil picture of the Bush administration. While there have been many accusations over the past eight years, these books offer fairly definitive proof of Bush and Cheney's two terms of illegal operations. Unfortunately, with the media completely fixated on the election, no one seems to care. Bush is hardly talked about anymore (with the exception of comparisons to McCain), and outrage at his presidency seems to be dwindling.

Suskind explains that there were two main Iraqi sources that provided the CIA with reliable inside information on Saddam's WMD program: Naji Sabri (Saddam's Foreign Minister) and the aforementioned Tahir Jalil Habbush (Saddam's Chief of intelligence). Sabri was put in contact with the CIA through French Intelligence officials, who enjoyed a long-standing relationship with the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Sabri revealed to the U.S. that Saddam neither possessed WMDs nor was he trying to procure or develop them. Any vestige of a bioweapons program was negligible, and neither he nor his military possessed chemical weapons. This information was immediately passed up the chain of command to the Bush White House, where it was dismissed as misinformation. They sent it to the CIA station in New York, where a final report was concocted that completely contradicted Sabri's actual claims.

The introductory paragraph of the report claimed that Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons and that he was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons. This false report was passed to the upper echelons of British Intelligence, and the real findings were immediately buried and never conveyed to Colin Powell before he gave his notorious presentation to the UN detailing Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger.

The second source, Tahir Habbush, also revealed that Saddam had no WMDs or programs to develop them. As the head of Iraqi intelligence, he also had extensive access to Saddam and gave both the British and the American intelligence agencies unprecedented access to Saddam's state of mind. Habbush detailed to the British that Saddam was worried his neighbors, especially Iran, would discover he had none of the weapons they most feared: "Saddam's focus [was] on his own image and his regional enemies. That was key."

None of this was of interest to the Bush administration because it didn't fit the narrative they were trying to build. When George Tenet saw the report, he stated, "They're not going to like this downtown." He was correct: when Bush was briefed on Habbush, he asked, "Why don't they ask him to give us something we can use to help us make our case?"

Habbush was ordered to be quickly silenced, and just before the invasion, he was slipped out of Baghdad into Jordan with the assistance of the CIA. Months later in January, when no WMDs could be found, "everyone was holding their breath, saying, 'I hope Habbush doesn't pop up on the screen.'" Habbush was then given $5 million to keep quiet on the issue of WMDs and provide the type of assistance the Bush Administration valued...."


Georgetown Voice

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:11 PM

Sunday, 02 July 2006
BAGHDAD – The Iraqi government released a list of its 41 most wanted terror suspects on July 2 including top Baath Party members and members of Saddam Hussein's former Revolutionary Command Council, as well as Hussein's wife and daughter, and al-Qaida in Iraq's new leader, Abu-Ayyub Al-Masri.

"We're releasing this list so that our people can know their enemies," said Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie during a press conference on July 2.3. Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti: Former Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, member of the New Regional Command; financier of New Baath Party and active in the insurgency. The Central Criminal Court of Iraq issued an arrest warrant for Habbush on May 4 May, 2005. There is an offering of a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to his capture."

He sounds like a reliable source to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:33 AM

Intresting, Sawz. If this is the same guy, there's obviously a lot more to his story than has been told.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:23 AM

Washington Post:

Name That Doctrine

By Michael Gerson
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A19

It is an odd thing to observe a historical debate on events about which one possesses the knowledge of a participant -- something like watching archeologists dig and sift through your living room, proposing their own interpretations of your photos and knickknacks. And it raises a disturbing prospect: That most such debates are conducted by experts possessing great confidence and little knowledge.

This controversy began when ABC's Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin to give her view of the Bush doctrine. Palin's vague answer provoked a dismissive response from Gibson, who defined the doctrine as "anticipatory self-defense." Charles Krauthammer came to Palin's defense, arguing that there were four consecutive versions of the Bush doctrine, culminating in the democracy promotion agenda of Bush's second inaugural address -- a description that is closer to the truth. Joe Klein, with absolute and unjustified self-assurance, then insisted, "There was only one Bush doctrine" -- the preemption of emerging threats. One frustrated Canadian columnist concluded: "It turns out nobody really knows what the Bush doctrine is."

But that is not quite true. The Bush doctrine is not the Da Vinci Code. It developed over time, but it developed according to the intentions of a single man. The content of the Bush doctrine directly reflects President Bush's convictions about the nature of the post-Sept. 11 world. And the form of that doctrine is something I worked directly with him to shape.

There are many speeches that could be cited. But when President Bush's foreign policy vision was under general assault in late 2005 and early 2006 -- the bloody low point of the Iraq war -- he set out in his 2006 State of the Union address to defend three prongs or elements of the Bush doctrine against growing American isolationism:

· Aggressively confronting emerging security threats. From the start, President Bush stated that the preemption of new-age threats -- terrorist networks, the regimes that aid and shelter them, and weapons of mass destruction -- is not always a military task. Economic and diplomatic pressure are the preferred and likely tools for dealing with outlaw regimes. And there is no doubt that the Iraq war has sapped public support for military options, even as a last resort. But Iraq shows the challenges of implementing preemption; it does not disprove the theory. If Iraq had possessed stockpiles of nerve gas and biological agents, who would now question the need to forcefully confront that threat? In this election, it is Barack Obama who has proposed the extension of greater American power into the dangerous border regions of Pakistan, the current home base of al-Qaeda. What possible reason could there be for such action except the preemption of threats to America and its allies?

· Democracy promotion. The idea that America benefits in the long run from the spread of a liberal, democratic, free-trading world order is not a Bush innovation, it is a post-World War II consensus. Not every tyrant in recent history has been an enemy of America. But every major enemy of America in recent history has been a tyrant. Bush's true innovation was to apply this consensus -- at least occasionally -- to the Arab Middle East. It is not an easy task. There are many valid arguments about the pace, phasing and methods of reform. But eventually there is no alternative. The dictators of the Middle East not only rule unjustly but generally ineffectively, and their oppression pushes most opposition toward the radical mosque. As these nations fail and become unstable, the question will inevitably be asked of any president: What did you do to promote a viable political alternative to Islamism while you had the time?

· Fighting disease and promoting development. This is perhaps the most unexpected and underappreciated element of the Bush doctrine. Bush, in some ways, has accepted a "root causes" theory of world disorder, from terrorism, to criminal and drug networks, to pandemics and refugees. So he has doubled overseas development assistance during his time in office and nearly quadrupled aid to Africa (an increasingly important battlefield in the war of ideas against radical Islam). He has tied some of this increased aid, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, to improvements in governance that make other forms of economic and social progress possible. Both of the current candidates for president have indicated they will expand global aid as well.

It really doesn't matter much if the next president and vice president can identify these three elements of the Bush doctrine. They will live by them anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:31 AM

Washington Post:

History Will Judge

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A19

For the past 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt -- have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.

In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence -- not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.

But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:50 AM

Commentary: Return Of The Geeks


(This commentary was written by Chris Mooney, with additional reporting by Jen Phillips. It appeared in the Mother Jones online edition for September/October 2008. Mr. Mooney's commentary follows):

If the Bush administration had consciously plotted to leave office with one last jab at American scientists, it could hardly have done better than the North Atlantic right whale incident. This fish tale has everything: attacks on science, appeasement of special interests, delays in government action-even a cameo by Moby Dick Cheney.

North Atlantic right whales can grow to 55 feet in length and weigh 70 tons, but that hardly makes them invincible. Because they have a habit of calving amid shipping lanes off the Atlantic coast, the whales sometimes perish in collisions-no small matter when there are fewer than 400 of them left in existence. Accordingly, in 2006 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sought to protect these endangered cetaceans by requiring speed limits for ships passing through critical areas at key times of year-in essence setting up the marine equivalent of school crossing zones.

But if science is a right whale, the Bush administration is a container ship doing 25 knots. The White House stalled, and continues to stall, the NMFS regulation, and now we know why. Behind the scenes, it has been indulging in opportunistic attacks on whale science that echoed those by the shipping industry, especially the World Shipping Council, a trade group that has lobbied heavily against the NMFS rule.

..."

Posted here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:06 PM

OK, I will give you that Bush will NOT get the whale vote this election.



Oh, wait! Bush is not running in this election ( in spite of what some are saying).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:25 PM

Just for the record, the following quotes on the question of permanent military bases in Iraq from Bush and his Administration.

"It is never our intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our military forces." —Secretary of State Colin Powell, October 2002

"We will stay as long as necessary to make sure that the Iraqi people have a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. And then we'll come home." —George W. Bush, May 2003

"We have no desire to stay any longer than necessary." —American envoy Paul Bremer, July 2003

"I assured [Iraqis] that America wasn't leaving. When they hear me say we're staying, that means we're staying." —George W. Bush, November 2003

"I can't say whether it is going to be 2006, 2007...It is not going to be months for sure." —British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, January 2004

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation—and neither does America." —George W. Bush, April 2004

"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq." —Then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, February 2005

"We have no goal of establishing permanent bases." —Zalmay Khalilzad, then US ambassador to Iraq, March 2006

"US troops could be in Iraq for a thousand years or a million years...It's not American presence; it's American casualties." —John McCain, explaining his "100 years" remark to Mother Jones, January 2008

"[America's Korean and German bases] have been there for 50 years; they are US facilities in the sense that they are US-only in many instances. That's not what we have in mind…We have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq." —Defense Secretary Robert Gates, June 2008

"

You may want to refer to these at some point as a reality check.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:39 PM

"...About the firings of United States attorneys and Karl Rove's defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify about them:

In a well-reasoned decision, Judge John D. Bates of United States District Court rejected the administration's strained arguments favoring executive supremacy. The Bush administration should now attempt to reach a reasonable compromise with Congress. Congress, for its part, should negotiate in good faith and continue its measured efforts to get to the bottom of the firings.

If Mr. Rove persists in resisting the subpoena, Congress should indeed hold him in contempt.

Carl Tobias
Richmond, Va., Sept. 17, 2008"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM

"Author Ron Suskind writes in Esquire: "George Walker Bush is not a stupid or a bad man. But in his conduct as president, he behaved stupidly and badly. He was constrained by neither the standards of conduct common to the average professional nor the Constitution. This was not ignorance but a willful rejection on Bush's part, in the service of streamlining White House decision-making, eliminating complexity, and shutting out dissenting voices. This insular mind-set was and is dangerous. Rigorous thinking and hard-won expertise are both very good things, and our government for the past eight years has routinely debased and mocked these virtues.

"President Bush was unmoved by any arguments that challenged his assumptions. Debate was silenced, expertise was punished, and diversity of opinion was anathema, so much so that his political opponents--other earnest Americans who want the best for their country--were, to him and his men, the moral equivalent of the enemy. It is important to note just how different such conduct has been from the conduct of other presidents from both parties. . . .

"[T]his ahistoric president seems to have never appreciated just how hard-won are the institutions of American liberty. Article II of the United States Constitution grants stunning power to the president, power almost beyond imagining to be entrusted to one man. But for George Bush and Dick Cheney, it wasn't enough. And so, with a level of secrecy that betrayed a basic mistrust of the American people, they proceeded to expand the awesome power of the presidency and in the process upset the balance of powers designed by the founders. And in this, the president and vice-president found their greatest success. In fact, this presidency has succeeded spectacularly in the project that most mattered to Bush and Cheney, and that is putting the United States on a more authoritarian footing.

"And with our fear being very carefully managed by our national leaders, and with President Bush exploiting our darker instincts, we in the press, in the Congress, in the electorate generally, simply weren't vigilant enough. And that is perhaps the best lesson to take away from the presidency of George W. Bush.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:58 PM

""'Bush's response to the financial crisis has been Katrina-esque,' said Douglas Brinkley, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, referring to the widespread perception the president was out of touch with the situation when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005.

"'It's a very fast world and we look for a president to step out in public and get ahead of events. Instead we get delays and wishful thinking,' said Brinkley."

Roger Simon writes for Politico: "George W. Bush will continue to draw a paycheck until noon on Jan. 20, 2009. (If there is still any money left in the U.S. Treasury to pay him, that is.) But what has he been doing to earn his pay lately? Not calming fears among his fellow citizens about their life savings, that's for sure. . . .

"We are talking about a real crisis in America that is going to turn into a real panic unless the president does something. Modern presidents have assumed duties beyond their constitutional ones, and one duty is to provide guidance and leadership that establish calm and restore confidence in times of trouble. George Bush did this very well following Sept. 11, but he is not doing it now.

"The stock market swoons, home prices fall, job losses mount. But the president does not want to talk about it. Not really. And he certainly does not want to take any questions about it. . . ." (Washington Post)

---

I have to hand it to you who cast your votes for GWB in 2004.

You sure know how to pick them.

Perhaps its time for a deep and quiet moment of reflection about how you ended up contributing to this madcap prince's rise and continuation in the halls of power. Perhaps it is time to ask, seriously and quietly, "What was I thinking?" or "What did I miss, misinterpret, or hallucinate about?"

We can always hope to do better next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 08:05 PM

Poll Topic —         Is the world safer seven years after 9/11?
                          
14.4 %
                 Yes, because terrorist networks have been weakened
                          
5.2 %
                 Yes, because democracy is slowly taking root in the Middle East
                          
41.2 %
                 No, there are more terrorists today than ever
                          
39.2 %
                 No, climate change and other issues are more dangerous than terrorism

This poll reflects the voting of our readers since Thursday, September 11, 2008. This poll is not scientific and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Globalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 08:56 PM

I've never heard anyone apologize for voting for Cheney/Bush in 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 09:04 PM

I have heard a couple who acknowledge they were wrong, about as close as its gonna get.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:02 AM

But is the administration's proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I've been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I've spoken with who aren't at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right — or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

But will political leaders dare oppose it? Barack Obama called Sunday for more accountability, and I imagine he'll support the efforts of the Democratic Congressional leadership to try to add to the legislation a host of liberal spending provisions. He probably won't want to run the risk of actually opposing it, or even of raising big questions and causing significant delay — lest he be attacked for risking the possible meltdown of the global financial system.

What about John McCain? He could play it safe, going along with whatever the Bush administration and the Congress are able to negotiate.

If he wants to be critical, but concludes that Congress has to pass something quickly lest the markets fall apart again, and that he can't reasonably insist that Congress come up with something fundamentally better, he could propose various amendments insisting on much more accountability and transparency in how Treasury handles this amazing grant of power.

Comments by McCain on Sunday suggest he might propose an amendment along the lines of one I received in an e-mail message from a fellow semi-populist conservative: "Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States." This would punish overpaid Wall Streeters and, more important, limit participation in the bailout to institutions really in trouble.

Or McCain — more of a gambler than Obama — could take a big risk. While assuring the public and the financial markets that his administration will act forcefully and swiftly to deal with the crisis, he could decide that he must oppose the bailout as the panicked product of a discredited administration, an irresponsible Congress, and a feckless financial establishment, all of which got us into this fine mess.

(Wm Kristol in the NY Times)

It is noteworthy that Mr Kristol, the token Republican on the Times staff, is joining the chorus regarding a discredited administration.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

Democracy or Police State? New Lawsuit Targets Bush, Cheney, NSA over Illegal Spying
by Tom Burghardt / September 22nd, 2008

On Wednesday, Antifascist Calling reported on moves by the Department of Justice to seek blanket immunity for AT&T under provisions of the disgraceful FISA Amendments Act (FAA).

If approved by Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding magistrate hearing the landmark Hepting v. AT&T lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco, the giant telecommunications corporation and Bush crime family partner would walk away scott free.

The suit, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers caught up in the state's illegal internet and telephone driftnet surveillance, is challenging unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens and legal residents.

The shocking extent of the "public-private partnership" in political repression was first revealed in depth when former AT&T technician Mark Klein filed an affidavit in support of EFF's contention that AT&T had systematically violated their customers' right to privacy.

As Antifascist Calling has previously reported on many occasions, the telecommunications giant had constructed a secret room (SG3 Secure Room, room number 641A) for the exclusive use of the National Security Agency's spying operations at AT&T's Folsom St. office.

On Saturday, EFF reported that the government "started the formal process for retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies sued by EFF and others for their involvement in the warrantless surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans." That hearing is set for December 2, 2008 in San Francisco.

The state filed a secret "certification" by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with the court along with a public submission of its claim of limitless executive power "during a time of war."

However in a bold, preemptive move on Thursday, EFF filed a new lawsuit against the government. That suit, Jewel v. NSA, targets the National Security Agency, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's sinister chief of staff, David Addington, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Filed "on behalf of AT&T customers," the civil rights organization has opened a new front against the government and their corporate partners. EFF declared:

The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. ("EFF Sues NSA, President Bush and Vice President Cheney to Stop Illegal Surveillance," Electronic Frontier Foundation, Press Release, September 18, 2008)

As in Hepting v. AT&T, the identical evidence of gross malfeasance on the part of well-heeled corporate lawbreakers who acted in concert with unaccountable secret state agencies, is central to Jewel v. NSA.

These covert intelligence operations arose as the result of secret Department of Justice memorandums written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to an unsigned and undated memo released by by the OLC, the Justice Department claims that President Bush has an "inherent right" to carry out "communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Indeed, as the extent of these illegal programs have revealed, the "enemy" is none other than the American people themselves!

A January 19, 2006 Justice Department White Paper, Legal Authority Supporting the Activities of the NSA Described by President Bush, states:

The NSA's activities are supported by the President's well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States...."

From a website calling itself Dissident Voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 06:47 AM

White House warned about Fannie and Freddie
September 23, 2008 - 0:49 ET

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."   (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 09:04 PM

The catalyst for this current crisis may be the housing market, but the larger culprit is the killing of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this recklessness.

Yet, rather than considering the massive risks of merging commercial and speculative banking interests, federal officials actually pushed for Bank of America's $50 billion all-stock takeover of Merrill Lynch. That knee-jerk move follows the same dangerous pattern that began when Citigroup took over Salomon Brothers in 1999.

The Fed wants to avoid another huge failure in Merrill Lynch by pushing it under the rug of Bank of America, but B of A can't possibly know the extent of Merrill's potential losses. That a commercial bank is taking over a speculative giant is much more dangerous than Lehman Brothers tanking. The Fed was well within its rights to say 'no' to Lehman's plea for a bailout. But unlike Lehman or Bear, B of A is responsible for the accounts of millions of customers—real people with real money on the line. If Bank of America gets in real trouble, the Fed's hand may be forced.

The speculative nature of the current banking industry, in which commercial and investment banks can borrow beyond their abilities to repay, is a threat to national economic security. Lehman's demise means the dumping of more worthless real estate investments into an already over saturated market. (If Lehman could have sold its assets for enough capital infusion, it would have done so.) Lehman's bankruptcy will only damage the market further, as other players find even less appetite for their real estate waste.

In all of this turmoil, citizens will see their ability to get loans, even if they are qualified, cut further. Bank of America, as one of the nation's leading lenders, would be wise to figure out what their risk is in taking over the behemoth that is Merrill, and quantify just how much capital it is on the hook for before extending any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 10:14 PM

New York Times

"These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war -- the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of ''Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals'' would then be replaced by ''Saddam was shrewder than we thought.''

This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing -- and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

Defeatism's second ''no'' is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.

Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

The third ''no'' is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

The fourth ''no'' is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:11 PM

Mister Sawz' insightful post was written by William Safire, a specialist in linguistics, in 2004.

It is safe to say that it has been thoroughly overtaken by events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 10:38 AM

The letter Bush should be writing to Maliki et al, as voiced by THomas Friedman. "Dear Iraqi Friends...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM

North Korea to restart nuclear programme
North Korea is preparing to restart a nuclear reprocessing plant used to make weapons-grade material after refusing access to United Nations inspectors.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai and Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 5:24PM BST 24 Sep 2008

In a major blow to international efforts to contain its development of nuclear weapons, the reclusive Stalinist state told the International Atomic Energy Agency it would restart the Yongbyon plant next week.

The country has barred United Nations inspectors from the site had removed IAEA seals and surveillance equipment, a spokesman for the UN watchdog said.

North Korea started dismantling Yongbyon in November, but has now backed away from its commitments made in negotiations with South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia.

Pyongyang's decision was a disappointment to Washington, which had tempered its hostility to North Korea in favour of a multilateral, diplomatic approach.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, issued a cautious response, saying that the six-party talks were not defeated.

"We have been through ups and downs in this process before," she said in New York, where she was attending the United Nations General Assembly.

"We believe that for the North Koreans to do so, it will only deepen its isolation."

(Guardian UK)

One heckuva job, there, Bushie!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:01 PM

Amos,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM

Amos,

You are being critical that Bush tried diplomacy instead of taking action? You seem a little inconsistant.


You applauded him before, now that the result is the same as with Saddam in Iraq ( and Iran) you want him to have done something different????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM

The President of Iraq said that the Bush administation promised to take their troops home in 2010 but then weeks later changed it to 2011 due to domestic political reasons.

Sorry troops, you get another year due to doemstic political problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

I applaud his effort at diplomacy; but apparently it was less effective than it was presented to be. Hell, so was his attempt at military adventurism, his attempt at economic leadership, and his attempt to hold a position committed to defending the Constitution.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM

ANother major encroachment on the COnstitutional protections of the citizens of this country:

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?
(updated below - Update II)

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

They'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever -- times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."

Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
...(See rest of article here.)

The slippery slope toward fascism -- the marriage of military force, dictatorial politics and large business interests -- seems to be getting slipperier as Bush's administration slides down it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM

CORRECTION:

The final update of the above article (9-24-08) modifies the original, which was written in 2007. My error.

Here is the update:

"UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future."

Apologies for the mistake.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 08:18 PM

The Goodbye Bush celebration here is hereby canceled

due to the fact that McCain Palin will win.

In the unlikely event that Obama wins, he loses... with a trillion dollar hole beneath his feet when he takes his first step as President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 08:24 PM

A Bush think tank
http://www.cato.org/
What will they do without Wall Street to shill for?


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cato+institute&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 02:51 AM

WASHINGTON -- Senior Bush administration officials held a series of meetings in the White House in 2002 and 2003 to discuss allowing the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods on Al Qaeda detainees, according to a written statement Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently provided to Senate investigators.

Rice's written response to investigators on the Senate Armed Services Committee marks the first time a high-ranking White House official has formally acknowledged the White House discussions, which led to the CIA's use of waterboarding and other coercive methods.


Waterboarding is legal, White House says
In particular, Rice wrote in the Sept. 12 statement that officials discussed simulated torture techniques that elite U.S. soldiers were subjected to as part of a survival training program, and that she and other officials were told that such methods "had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm."

(LAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:30 AM

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed, etc.쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:06 AM

"It took President Bush until Wednesday night to address the American people about the nation's financial crisis, and pretty much all he had to offer was fear itself.

There was no acknowledgement of the shocking failure of government regulation, or that the country cannot afford more tax cuts for the very wealthy and budget-busting wars, or that spending at least $700 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out Wall Street and the banks should be done carefully, transparently and with oversight by Congress and the courts.

We understand why he may have been reluctant to address the nation, since his contempt for regulation is a significant cause of the current mess. But he could have offered a great deal more than an eerily dispassionate primer on the credit markets in which he took no responsibility at all for the financial debacle.

He promised to protect taxpayers with his proposed bailout, but he did not explain how he would do that other than a superficial assurance that in sweeping up troubled assets, government would buy low and sell high. And he warned that "our entire economy is in danger" unless Congress passes his bailout plan immediately.

In the end, Mr. Bush's appearance was just another reminder of something that has been worrying us throughout this crisis: the absence of any real national leadership, including on the campaign trail.

Given Mr. Bush's shockingly weak performance, the only ones who could provide that are the two men battling to succeed him. So far, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is offering that leadership.

What makes it especially frustrating is that this crisis should provide each man a chance to explain his economic policies and offer a concrete solution to the current crisis.

Mr. McCain is doing distinctly worse than Mr. Obama. First, he claimed that the economy was strong, ignoring the deep distress of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already lost their homes. Then he called for a 9/11-style commission to study the causes of the crisis, as if there were a mystery to be solved. Over the last few days he has become a born-again populist, a stance entirely at odds with the career, as he often says, started as "a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution."
...(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:28 AM

"This poll reflects the voting of our readers since Thursday, September 11, 2008. This poll is not scientific"

And therefore means nothing like most of the crap Amos posts here. He even refuses to verify which of his posts are true and which are not.

The Washington Post
September 11, 2008


9/11: Views on Terrorism at the Seventh Anniversary

Seven years after 9/11, more than six in 10 Americans feel the U.S. campaign against terrorism is going well and deep concerns about future attacks have declined, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Now, 62 percent said the nation is now safer than it was before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Positive assessments of the fight against terrorism are at their highest level since late 2003, and 10 percentage points higher than at this time two years ago, just before the midterm elections....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:42 AM

Sawz:

Don't get nasty. I post the time and the source of my information, and I do not slip in news-stories from five years ago and try to pretend they are the current news. I did once in error put an old story forward as though it were new, and when I found out the next day, I acknowledged the error and apologized for it. That's the manly thing to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

Like "this thread is horseshit" is not nasty?

And If someone does not post the date, they are not pretending anything.

But when they claim to be bringing the truth and actual proven facts like the US has been cut off from oil, they are either being sloppy or disengenuous.

You like polls so to cheer up your day, Obama blinked when challenged by Mac and now they are neck and neck in the polls.

McCain has stunning comeback in Thursday's Gallup Poll

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

After John McCain's bold decision to suspend his campaign, he has stunningly erased a three-point lead and now is tied with Barack Obama at 46-46 in Thursday's Gallup Poll....

Kansas City Star
That's what I are
Yodel-ee-da- layeeee
You outghta see my car

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 07:04 PM

Sigh.

Current poll status:

        Date        Sample        Obama (D)        McCain (R)        Spread
RCP Average        09/18 - 09/24        --        47.8        44.6        Obama +3.2
Gallup Tracking        09/22 - 09/24        2731 RV        46        46        Tie
Rasmussen Tracking        09/22 - 09/24        3000 LV        49        46        Obama +3
Hotline/FD Tracking        09/22 - 09/24        912 RV        47        43        Obama +4
Battleground Tracking        09/18 - 09/24        1000 LV        47        48        McCain +1
FOX News        09/22 - 09/23        900 RV        45        39        Obama +6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl        09/19 - 09/22        1085 RV        48        46        Obama +2
ABC News/Wash Post        09/19 - 09/22        780 LV        52        43        Obama +9
LA Times/Bloomberg        09/19 - 09/22        838 LV        49        45        Obama +4
Ipsos-McClatchy        09/18 - 09/22        923 RV        44        43        Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research        09/19 - 09/21        697 LV        51        47        Obama +4


See Real Clear Politics web site.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 08:31 PM

Duuuh, Today is September 24th and as of today it is 46 to 46


Boston Globe, United States - 2 hours ago:
McCain, Obama neck-and-neck in NH


Isn't NH the state you keep hooting about every time some 1 horse town wants to impeach Bush?

---

September 25, 2008
Gallup Daily: Race Back to a Tie at 46% Each
McCain now on equal footing with Obama

PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain has gained ground and is now tied with Barack Obama among registered voters in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update for Sept. 22-24, with each candidate getting 46% support.

---

10:51 a.m. EDT Sept. 25, 2008
LANCASTER, Pa., Sept 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The Franklin & Marshall College National Poll, produced in partnership with Hearst-Argyle Television, finds that John McCain/Sarah Palin lead Barack Obama/Joe Biden nationally by two percentage points (45% to 43%) among registered voters, with 10% undecided. McCain has an advantage among men (52% to 37%), those over 55 (48% to 37%), whites (53% to 35%), fundamentalist Christians (60% to 30%, up from an 8% lead in a June poll), military veterans (58% to 29%), and among Southerners (50% to 36%). Obama leads among women (48% to 38%), those between 18-34 years of age (49% to 39%), Catholics (45% to 41%), African Americans (85% to 2%), and those living in the Northeast (53% to 35%).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:42 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Monday appointed a prosecutor to examine potential criminal charges in the Justice Department's firings of nine federal prosecutors after an inquiry found evidence several of the dismissals were politically motivated.

The appointment of Nora Dannehy, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, came as the department released an inspector general's report that found former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had "abdicated" his responsibility in the matter.

The report also said several White House officials, including President George W. Bush's former top political aide Karl Rove, were unwilling to be interviewed by investigators about the firings.

Dannehy would have to power to subpoena witnesses such as Rove who did not cooperate with inspector general's probe, and her appointment revives the controversy over the firings just as Sen. John McCain is seeking to extend the Republican hold on the U.S. presidency in November elections.

"At a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. Attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and that the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking," Mukasey said in a statement.

Mukasey took over the department last year after Gonzales resigned in the wake of the firings controversy.

The report concluded, "The primary responsibility for these serious failures rests with senior department leaders -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty -- who abdicated their responsibility to oversee the process and ensure that the reasons for removal of each U.S. attorney were ... not improper."

...(Full story at Reuters).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:13 PM

"Not Too Bright


The rhetoric gets heated this time of year, but Paul Begala, the CNN commentator, went way over the line in calling President Bush a "high-functioning moron."

The former Bill Clinton aide can be a witty partisan, but there are 50 ways he could have ridiculed Bush's capacity to govern without using such a slur. Begala, though, is undeterred: "I said it. I meant it. I don't regret it. . . . You cannot imagine the positive feedback I've gotten." ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:22 PM

Definitely over the line. From the Dem Swift-boating last election.

Go check that:

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/presidents/index.html

"Other researchers have looked at performances on actual IQ-correlated tests taken by George W. Bush and his two political opponents, such as the SAT and aptitude tests given to prospective military officers. These have given an estimated IQ of 125 for George W. Bush (and 120 for John Kerry and 134 for Al Gore).[14]"




You have another apology to make- this was debunked years ago. So, what other lies do you want to keep spreading after they are shown false?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor Monday to pursue possible criminal charges against Republicans who were involved in the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

San Diego's Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for California's Southern District, was among nine who were fired. She left office in February of 2007. But the investigation dismisses claims that Lam's firing was related to the prosecution of former Congressman Randy Cunningham on corruption charges.

Mukasey's move follows the leading recommendation of a Justice Department investigation that harshly criticized Bush administration officials, members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which were seen by many as politically motivated.

Results of the investigation were made public Monday. The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico — among 9 prosecutors who were fired — as the most troubling.

Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, had complained about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, and that led to his firing, the report said.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility director Marshall Jarrett said that a prosecutor was needed because "serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved."

Potential crimes described in their report include lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud.

Domenici's spokesman did not immediately return a call Monday from The Associated Press and a Wilson spokesman reached Monday morning declined to comment immediately. Both lawmakers are leaving Congress at the end of the year....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 08:13 PM

Senator BArbara Boxer spoke:

"The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Bush Administration's record on important public health and environmental matters. Unfortunately, instead of reviewing accomplishments—we look back on years filled with environmental rollbacks that serve special interests, and do not serve the American people.

Today, this Committee will shine a light on the Bush Administration's efforts to undermine EPA and the Department of the Interior's mission to protect public health and the environment.

A clear picture of the Bush Administration's environmental record can provide a roadmap for the next Administration and Congress which will be useful in the effort to reverse these dangerous decisions.

Time and again, the White House has interfered in EPA decisions that should be based on science and the law. Time and again, EPA has ignored the law and the advice of its own scientific experts.

Let's take a look at a few examples of this disturbing record:

In one of its first official acts, the Bush EPA announced that it was suspending the newly strengthened standard for arsenic in tap water. After a public outcry and legislation blocking it, EPA finally retreated.

EPA proposed to do what it called the "CHEERS study" jointly with the chemical industry, in which low-income families were offered gifts and other incentives if they agreed to enroll their newborn children in pesticides studies in their homes over a two year period. After a great outcry, EPA cancelled the study. EPA recently tried to revive a study much like CHEERS, but retreated after our Committee's staff asked detailed ethical questions about it, which EPA could not answer.

EPA set a weaker clean air standard for toxic soot than its independent scientific advisors, children's health advisors, and its own scientists recommended. Soot kills thousands of Americans every year, especially children and the elderly.

EPA also rejected the advice of its own scientists, scientific advisors and children's health experts, and set a weaker health standard for smog than the scientists recommended. Smog poses a serious health risk to millions of people, killing thousands of people every year.

EPA set a weaker standard for lead pollution in air, and for lead paint cleanup, than its independent scientific advisors recommended. As we all know, lead is highly toxic to children and can reduce IQ, cause learning and behaviour problems, and damage children's developing brains.

The courts, including Bush-appointed judges, have repeatedly struck down EPA rules that weakened public health protections. Judges have used strong language to express their frustration with EPA's failure to comply with the law, saying for example "only in a Humpty Dumpty world" would EPA's explanations make sense, or that EPA "employs the logic of the Queen of Hearts" in Lewis Carroll's classic Alice in Wonderland, in two EPA clean air cases.

According to a recent GAO report prepared at my request, EPA political officials worked with the White House and the Pentagon to undermine the process for evaluating toxic chemical risks. The Bush Administration's system puts polluting agencies like DOD in the driver's seat, with an ability to secretly stop or weaken EPA actions to control toxic chemicals like perchlorate, TCE, and other pollutants.

EPA has severely weakened its Office of Children's Health Protection and largely ignored its Children's Health Advisory Committee, as we learned from GAO just last week.

EPA's record on global warming could hardly be worse.

Despite the President's campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the White House reversed course and rejected actions to control global warming pollution.

It literally took an order from the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA to force EPA to begin to address the problem. Even then, the White House blocked EPA from issuing its proposed "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act, which would have given the green light to action on global warming.

The Bush Administration denied the California waiver, which would have allowed California and other states to set limits on global warming emissions from vehicles. EPA management, after meetings at the White House, reversed the agency's plans and ignored unanimous career staff recommendations for the first time in 40 years under the Clean Air Act. ..."

The rest of the introductory indictment is on this site.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 09:34 AM

"Mr. Mukasey acted on Monday after the Justice Department released a harshly critical report by the inspector general that confirmed what an incompetent, unethical and very possibly corrupt attorney general Mr. Gonzales was. Given that history, and Mr. Mukasey's failure to clean up his own house, the burden will be on the newly appointed prosecutor to investigate the matter fairly and thoroughly.

Congress's inquiry into the firing of nine United States attorneys has already uncovered improper and perhaps illegal activity at the highest levels of the Justice Department. There is considerable evidence that the prosecutors were fired because they insisted on bringing cases harmful to Republicans' electoral chances, or refused to bring cases harmful to Democrats.

Monica Goodling, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, resigned after having taken politics into account in hiring lawyers for nonpolitical positions. Mr. Gonzales resigned after questions were raised about his role in the firings and about the truth of his testimony to Congress.

Now, a 392-page joint report from the department's inspector general and its office of professional responsibility "found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several of the U.S. attorneys."

It concluded, in particular, that David Iglesias, the United States attorney for New Mexico, was removed because of complaints from influential Republicans about his handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases. He was removed, the report said, "without any inquiry into his handling of the cases."

The report also confirmed that the Bush administration has been stonewalling. It found that Mr. Gonzales, his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and his deputy, Paul McNulty, failed "to provide accurate and truthful statements about the removals and their role in the process." It also noted that important witnesses, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, refused to be interviewed. And it said that the White House refused to provide certain documents.

Mr. Mukasey has named Nora Dannehy, the acting United States attorney in Connecticut, to lead the investigation. Internal investigations always invite skepticism. That is particularly true when a department's officials have actively obstructed an initial inquiry.

For Ms. Dannehy's investigation to have any credibility, she must obtain sworn testimony from Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have defied Congressional subpoenas. She also needs to get the documents that the White House has refused to hand over to Congress and the inspector general"....(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:48 PM

From Senator Barbara Boxer:

I wanted to let you know that I have joined many of my Senate colleagues in expressing concerns about a proposed rule by the Department of Health and Human Services.  The proposed rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.  This rule would undermine women's health.  You can see our actual letter by using this link.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

---

This strikes me as a covert breach of "separation of Church and State". Medical services are a secular duty, not a religious choice or a hurdle of conscience. If you are a professional, yu don't need a back door to inject your religious sentiments into medical issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:51 PM

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor Monday"

Mukasey was appointed by GWB

Washington Post September 29, 2008

Investigators probing the firing of nine U.S. attorneys concluded that top Justice Department officials "abdicated their responsibility" by failing to supervise subordinates who carried out the botched plan, according to a long-awaited report released today.

In the 390-page report, issued this morning, they said Gonzales "bears primary responsibility" for the debacle and asserted that he was "remarkably disengaged" from the process, which stretched on for months. Investigators said that after the mass firings came to light, Gonzales made "misleading" public statements about his involvement, failing to recall his attendance at a critical meeting and documents that landed on his desk.

But investigators stopped short of concluding that a crime had been committed. Instead, they called for further inquiry to determine the facts underlying the removal of Iglesias and whether department officials had issued false or misleading statements to Congress and the public.

Reached by phone, Iglesias said he was cheered by the findings and said he looked forward to the results of the investigation as it proceeds.

In their strongest conclusions, the Justice Department investigators said that D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Gonzales, had committed "misconduct" by making a series of questionable public statements and failing to share information with the White House, lawmakers and his own superiors about the extent of the White House involvement in the firings.

Bradford Berenson, a lawyer for Sampson, said it was "mystifying and disappointing that the inspector general chose to impugn Mr. Sampson's candor and integrity when, virtually alone among significant participants in this matter, Mr. Sampson at all times cooperated fully and voluntarily with any and all investigators, without preconditions, and provided his best, most honest and complete recollection of these events. He has behaved with honor and dignity throughout this difficult episode and has never attempted to shirk his responsibility for problems in the U.S. attorney firings."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:03 AM

The Legacy (NYT)

Among the many dispiriting things to come out of Bob Woodward's quartet of books on George W. Bush is his observation that the president has not changed since he first started talking to Woodward in 2001.

No growth. No evolution. No regrets.

"History," Bush replied, when asked by Woodward how he would be judged over time. "We don't know. We'll all be dead." Broke, as well.

It would have been nice to let Bush's two terms marinate a while before invoking Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan from the cellar of worst presidents. But then — over the last two weeks — he completed the trilogy of national disasters that will be with us for a generation or more.

George Bush entered the White House as a proponent of a more humble foreign policy and a believer that government should get out of the way at home. He leaves as someone with a trillion-dollar war aimed at making people who've hated each other for a thousand years become Rotary Club freedom-lovers, and his own country close to bankruptcy after government did get out of the way.

It's a Mount Rainier of shame and folly. But before going any further, let's allow his supporters to have their say.

"He's going to have an unbelievably great legacy," said Laura Bush in an ABC interview, citing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Fifty million people liberated from very brutal regimes."

Fred Barnes argues that Bush is a visionary on a par with Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Bush is a president who leads," he wrote in a 2006 book. "He controls the national agenda, uses his presidential power to the fullest and then some, prepares far-reaching polices likely to change the way Americans live, reverses other long-standing polices and is the foremost leader in world affairs."

Finally, from Karl Rove, the Architect. Bush will be viewed "as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century," he said.

After wading through books with words like "fiasco," "hubris" and "denial" in the title, historians will go to first-hand sources, the people who worked with Bush daily. There they will find Paul O'Neill, the president's former Treasury secretary. In 2002, he sounded an alarm, saying Bush's rash economic policies could lead to a deficit of $500 billion. This, after Bush had inherited a budget surplus, prompted many to scoff at O'Neill.

He was wrong, but only in one respect – the projected deficit, even without a financial bailout, will almost certainly be higher.

This means a lot, for every bridge not built, every Pell grant not given to a kid who may never go to college without one, every national park road left to crumble, every sick person who cannot afford to see a doctor in a country that wants to be known as the best on earth.

Historians will also go to Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary. Bush may not be a "high functioning moron," as Paul Begala called him recently. He is "plenty smart enough to be president," McClellan wrote this year. But McClellan, in his job as the president's mouthpiece, found him chronically incurious. He also said Bush deliberately misled the country into war, and in that effort, the news media were "complicit enablers."

Historians will recall that in each of the major disasters on Bush's watch, there were ample warnings — from the intelligence briefing that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike a month before the lethal blow, to the projections that Hurricane Katrina could drown a major American city, to the expressed fears that letting Wall Street regulate itself could be catastrophic. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:28 AM

A thoughtful dissertation on Palin, Bush and Nixon (NYT).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 09:58 PM

"after Bush had inherited a budget surplus"

When was that?

Do you have any data to support your actual proven facts?

If you study this chart carefully, you will see that the deficit was shrinking just before Clinton took office. He inherited a shrinking deficit. Just before GWB took office, the surplus was shrinking at a rapid rate. If Gore had been elected the momentum would have been the same and he could not have turned it around. GWB inherited a growing deficit whether you want to admit it or not.

"Joseph Stiglitz,(the most cited economist in the world, as of June 2008) the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, admits that "the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier."

By the way Stiglitz coined Moral Hazard which explains a lot about the current financial crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:04 AM

The Legacy

"Among the many dispiriting things to come out of Bob Woodward's quartet of books on George W. Bush is his observation that the president has not changed since he first started talking to Woodward in 2001.

No growth. No evolution. No regrets.

"History," Bush replied, when asked by Woodward how he would be judged over time. "We don't know. We'll all be dead." Broke, as well.

It would have been nice to let Bush's two terms marinate a while before invoking Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan from the cellar of worst presidents. But then — over the last two weeks — he completed the trilogy of national disasters that will be with us for a generation or more.

George Bush entered the White House as a proponent of a more humble foreign policy and a believer that government should get out of the way at home. He leaves as someone with a trillion-dollar war aimed at making people who've hated each other for a thousand years become Rotary Club freedom-lovers, and his own country close to bankruptcy after government did get out of the way.

It's a Mount Rainier of shame and folly. But before going any further, let's allow his supporters to have their say.

"He's going to have an unbelievably great legacy," said Laura Bush in an ABC interview, citing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Fifty million people liberated from very brutal regimes."

Fred Barnes argues that Bush is a visionary on a par with Ronald Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Bush is a president who leads," he wrote in a 2006 book. "He controls the national agenda, uses his presidential power to the fullest and then some, prepares far-reaching polices likely to change the way Americans live, reverses other long-standing polices and is the foremost leader in world affairs."

Finally, from Karl Rove, the Architect. Bush will be viewed "as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century," he said.

After wading through books with words like "fiasco," "hubris" and "denial" in the title, historians will go to first-hand sources, the people who worked with Bush daily. There they will find Paul O'Neill, the president's former Treasury secretary. In 2002, he sounded an alarm, saying Bush's rash economic policies could lead to a deficit of $500 billion. This, after Bush had inherited a budget surplus, prompted many to scoff at O'Neill.

He was wrong, but only in one respect – the projected deficit, even without a financial bailout, will almost certainly be higher.

This means a lot, for every bridge not built, every Pell grant not given to a kid who may never go to college without one, every national park road left to crumble, every sick person who cannot afford to see a doctor in a country that wants to be known as the best on earth.

Historians will also go to Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary. Bush may not be a "high functioning moron," as Paul Begala called him recently. He is "plenty smart enough to be president," McClellan wrote this year. But McClellan, in his job as the president's mouthpiece, found him chronically incurious. He also said Bush deliberately misled the country into war, and in that effort, the news media were "complicit enablers."

Historians will recall that in each of the major disasters on Bush's watch, there were ample warnings — from the intelligence briefing that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike a month before the lethal blow, to the projections that Hurricane Katrina could drown a major American city, to the expressed fears that letting Wall Street regulate itself could be catastrophic.

Voluntary regulation. That phrase now joins "heckuva job, Brownie" and "mission accomplished" among those that will always be associated with the Bush presidency.

It's painful now to realize, just as the economy craters and the world looks aghast at the United States, that the other cancer from the Bush presidency – his failure to even start the nation on the road to a new energy economy – gets short-changed during the triage of his final days.

Bush has hinted that his legacy will be about the war. So be it. He never caught bin Laden, the mass murderer who launched the raison d'etre of the Bush presidency.

But he did topple a paper army in Iraq, opening the drainage for our currency, blood and global reputation. It may go down as the longest, even costliest war in our history.

In a survey of scholars done earlier this year, just two of 109 historians said the Bush presidency would be judged a success. A majority said he would be the worst president ever...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 12:06 PM

60 Minutes:

Saddam believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:29 PM

And if Rumsfeld had had three brain cells he would have seen right through Saddams desperate ploy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 01:33 PM

Amos: "Bush after all is the one who took prosperity and gave back recession; and who gave us less peace than we had, as well."

Joseph Stiglitz, "The Roaring Nineties," The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02:

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure. "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

---

Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/02 Sunny Clinton Forecast Leaves Cloud Over Bush:

:...Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year, while in fact it was declining...."

---

Bill Clinton's peace that Bush inherited:

The No-Fly Zone War
The Yugoslav War
Bosnian Civil War
Kosovo War
bin Laden's War
Intervention in Somalia
Intervention in Haiti
Sudan bombing
Afghanistan bombing
Baghdad bombing 1996
Baghdad bombing 1998
Khobar towers attack
Trade Center attack
Kenya embassy attack
Tanzania embassy attack
USS Cole attack

number of military deaths during the Clinton administration:
1992 ......... 1,293
1993 ......... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 ......... 2,465
1996 ......... 2,318
1997 .........   817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 ......... 1,984
--------------------------------
Total...13.417

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 03:00 PM

COdswallop, Mister Sawz. THose figures are WAY out of line.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:56 PM

So where are your figures Einstein?

This is the part I like:

"It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 09:59 PM

You are right Amos.

Here are more accurate numbers:

Number of military deaths during the peaceful Clinton administration:

1993 ......... 1213
1994 ......... 1075
1995 ......... 1040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 827
1999 .......... 796
2000 .......... 758
--------------------------------
Total....... 7500

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 10:29 PM

I missed a few of Clinton's peacetime activities:

U.S. drops cluster and 'laser-guided' bombs near Mosul August 19, 1993
U.S. Navy fire missiles on southern Iraq July 29th, 1993
U.S. fighter jet fires missile on southern Iraq June 29, 1993
U.S. fires 23 missiles on Baghdad June 26, 1993
U.S. bombs suspected radar site in northern Iraq April 18, 1993
U.S. fires two missiles on northern Iraq January 22, 1993
U.S. attacks suspected 'missile battery' in northern Iraq January 21, 1993
U.S. fires missile near Mosul and drops cluster bombs elsewhere in Iraq January 19, 1993
U.S. attacks northern Iraq and 75 US, British and French aircraft attack southern Iraq January 18, 1993
U.S. attack northern Iraq and U.S. warship fires 45 missiles on nuclear facility in Baghdad January 17, 1993
U.S. attacks 32 suspected missiles sites in Iraq January 13, 1993
No reported bombings during 1994 and 1995
U.S. fighter jet fires missile at Iraqi radar November 4, 1996
U.S. fighter jet fires missile at Iraqi radar....'oops, by mistake' November 2, 1996
U.S. Navy fires 17 missiles on southern Iraq September 4, 1996
U.S. Navy and B-52s fire 27 missiles on southern Iraq; extend southern 'no-fly-zone' September 3, 1996
U.S militarily helps the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) capture Irbil, August 31, 1996
Turkey approves of continued U.S. bombing in Northern Iraq, commencing Operation Northern Watch 1997
As UN-Iraq deal stalls US bombing: Clinton issues new war threats February 24 1998
Missile attack on Iraq anti-aircraft battery near Basra July 1 1998
Clinton Allegedly Orders Aerial Bombing on Iraq and then Pulls Back November 13, 1998
U.S. Attacks Baghdad for Four Days During Ramadan December 16-19, 1998
U.S. Fires Missiles on Northern Iraq December 28, 1998
U.S. Drop Bombs on Southern Iraq December 30, 1998
U.S. jets flew 34 sorties over Basra, Maisan, Dhi Qar and Najaf February 13 1999
American and British planes flew 42 missions in the South, killing 5 and wounding 22 February 15 1999
Navy fighters fire missiles at a SAM site near the city of an-Najaf Nov 22 1999
U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft attack two Iraqi SAM sites near Al Iskandariyah.Feb. 24 1999
U.S. and British warplanes fire at two air defense sites in Iraq Feb. 10 1999
F-15s and two F-14s fire a total of six missiles at four Iraqi MiG-25s Jan. 5 1999

As of May 22 2000 there had been more than 470 separate incidents of Iraqi SAM and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed against coalition pilots since December 1998. Iraqi aircraft violated the southern no-fly zone more than 150 times during the same period

Coalition aircraft target four Iraqi military sites at Nasiriyah.April 4 2000

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:02 PM

confuse casualty with killed or enemy with US, and you saz are exposed as a vendor of french fried fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 04:46 PM

You are one piece o'work, Sawzall. You would do better to face up to the fact that you backed a loser and exercised very poor judgement, and figure out why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 10:49 AM

Voters in the George W. Bush era gave the Republican Party nearly complete control of the federal government. Now the financial markets are in turmoil, top government and corporate leaders are on the verge of panic and scholars are dusting off treatises that analyzed the causes of the Great Depression.

Mr. Bush was never viewed as a policy or intellectual heavyweight. But he seemed like a nicer guy to a lot of voters than Al Gore.

It's not just the economy. While the United States has been fighting a useless and irresponsible war in Iraq, Afghanistan — the home base of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 — has been allowed to fall into a state of chaos. Osama bin Laden is still at large. New Orleans is still on its knees. And so on.

Voting has consequences.

I don't for a moment think that the Democratic Party has been free of egregious problems. But there are two things I find remarkable about the G.O.P., and especially its more conservative wing, which is now about all there is.

The first is how wrong conservative Republicans have been on so many profoundly important matters for so many years. The second is how the G.O.P. has nevertheless been able to persuade so many voters of modest means that its wrongheaded, favor-the-rich, country-be-damned approach was not only good for working Americans, but was the patriotic way to go.

Remember voodoo economics? That was the derisive term George H.W. Bush used for Ronald Reagan's fantasy that he could simultaneously increase defense spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. After Reagan became president (with Mr. Bush as his vice president) the budget deficit — surprise, surprise — soared.

In a moment of unusual candor, Reagan's own chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Martin Feldstein, gave three reasons for the growth of the deficit: the president's tax cuts, the increased defense spending and the interest on the expanding national debt.

These were the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who were behaving so profligately. The budget was balanced and a surplus realized under Bill Clinton, but soon the "fiscal conservatives" were back in the driver's seat. "Deficits don't matter," said Dick Cheney, and the wildest, most reckless of economic rides was on.

Americans, including the Joe Sixpacks, soccer moms and hockey moms, were repeatedly told that the benefits lavished on the highfliers would trickle down to them. Someday.

Just as they were wrong about trickle down, conservative Republican politicians and their closest buddies in the commentariat have been wrong on one important national issue after another, from Social Security (conservatives opposed it from the start and have been trying to undermine it ever since) to Medicare (Ronald Reagan saw it as the first wave of socialism) to the environment, energy policy and global warming.

When the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion, Tom DeLay, a Republican who would go on to wield enormous power as majority leader in the House, mocked the award as the "Nobel Appeasement Prize."

Mr. Reagan, the ultimate political hero of so many Republicans, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In response to the historic Brown v. Board of Education school-desegregation ruling, William F. Buckley, the ultimate intellectual hero of so many Republicans, asserted that whites, being superior, were well within their rights to discriminate against blacks.

"The White community is so entitled," he wrote, "because, for the time being, it is the advanced race..." He would later repudiate that sentiment, but only after it was clear that his racist view was harmful to himself.

The G.O.P. has done a great job masking the terrible consequences of much that it has stood for over the decades. Now the mask has slipped. As we survey the wreckage of the American economy and the real-life suffering associated with the financial crackup of 2008, it would be well for voters to draw upon the lessons of history and think more seriously about the consequences of the ballots they may cast in the future. " (Herbert, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 02:56 PM

"you backed a loser and exercised very poor judgement"

You haven't provided any proof of that except for opinions and bullshit like the US oil supply was cut off.

You backed the loser, Kerry. And don't evoke the crybaby Kerry won refrain. The south did not rise again. And what was that about Summary Judgment again?

I see you are trying to blame Bush for what Reagan did and the great depression. Late breaking news Amos, Reagan is dead and the depression was is over. Remember when the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television? Yeah that was Bush's fault too.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 03:03 PM

"And if Rumsfeld had had three brain cells he would have seen right through Saddams desperate ploy."

I suppose that goes for Clinton, the US senate and all of the coalition forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:05 PM

In America; Clinton's Own Web

By BOB HERBERT
Published: August 17, 1998

Headlines are calling it the moment of truth. We'll see.

Presidential candidate Bill Clinton went on the ''60 Minutes'' program right after the Super Bowl in late January 1992 to clear up the Gennifer Flowers mess. The idea was to tell the truth, to be straight with the American people, and thus save his damaged candidacy. Here's what happened. With more than 30 million viewers looking on, and with Hillary Clinton at his side, he lied.

It worked. The Flowers story, replete with taped conversations between Ms. Flowers and Mr. Clinton, was so sordid the press was uncomfortable with it and the public soon grew sick of it. When Mr. Clinton came in second in the New Hampshire primary in February, he dubbed himself ''the comeback kid.''

Within weeks of the ''60 Minutes'' appearance, Mr. Clinton was facing new questions about how he had avoided the draft during the war in Vietnam. He didn't want to be seen as a draft dodger. If he won the nomination, he would be facing George Bush, who had a strong record of service in World War II. So, as he so often does, Mr. Clinton gave the truth the slip.

Had he received a draft notice or not? Did he escape simply by virtue of a high number in the draft lottery or had he pulled strings? Was he a committed anti-war activist willing to pay a price for sticking by his principles, or just a coward willing to let others fight and perhaps die in his place?

Who knew? The candidate told so many stories, crafted so many evasive answers, came up with so many lame excuses that he gave everybody a headache. The public got tired of the matter and the story went away.

It took Mr. Clinton years to come up with the classic ''I didn't inhale'' response to questions about marijuana. He danced around that issue like Fred Astaire, saying he hadn't broken this law, or violated that statute. We've gotten used to it. It's as if the idea of a straight answer to a difficult question is completely alien to the man.

Now he is going before a Federal grand jury in an effort to salvage what remains of his Presidency. Just about every question he'll be asked will be tough. The danger is that he has woven so many lies he'll be trapped in his own insidious web.

The issue at the moment is not about impeachment. The Republicans have neither the clout nor the inclination, based on what is now known, to remove Mr. Clinton from office. Rather than fiddling with the dangerously unpredictable bomb of impeachment, the Trent Lotts, Newt Gingriches and Orrin Hatches of the world would much rather see the President, the hope of so many Democrats, sitting humiliated in the White House through the year 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

The worst President ever...so, now it's a music thread.

Sawzall, I fail to see what you think you are doing posting articles from ten years ago on this thread. It is a sort of mindless, desperate scraping on your part.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:15 PM

You didn't get it at the time, you haven't gotten it since, and you don't get it now.

It's sad, but your incessant thrumming on the low register of desperate ignorance makes an ugly drone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 08 - 04:18 PM

The Herald News
Posted Oct 10, 2008 @ 05:38 PM
Once again, we find our nation in dire straights at the hands of and due to the Republican administration.

John McCain professed loudly that his campaign should be put on hold due to the financial crisis. A pure political ploy much like that which he accused Barack Obama of a few weeks back. It appears that the McCain campaign is starting to flounder and he is starting to increase the use of dirty politics and lies about his opponent much like Bush did, to not only him during the Republican nomination process eight years ago, but also during the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 to Al Gore and John Kerry.
This campaign and upcoming election has been mired in the absolutely irrelevant issue of McCain picking Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate, and Sen. Hillary Clinton not winning the nomination and then not being asked to be a running mate.

This election is about so much more than that inconsequential issue. This election is about returning the United States to its people. It is about repairing the damage to our country and those liberties, rights and principals that set us apart from all other countries. It is about the treasonous acts committed by the Bush administration. Those acts include the suspension of Habeas Corpus by dogmatically characterizing enemy soldiers as enemy combatants. It is about the U.S. invading a sovereign country for reasons based on lies by the administration. It is about the resulting loss of more than 4,000 valiant and dedicated soldiers who go where they are told without questioning their orders.

It is about the invasion of privacy by using illegal wire taps and subsequently ignoring the Constitution they swore to uphold. It is about the outing of a covert CIA employee and the termination of federal judges for political reasons, just to name a few.
There are many more immoral and illegal actions committed by this administration that can be noted. All are reasons for impeachment, yet we find our nation struggling with a decision coming this November. We find ourselves actually trying to decide who should lead our country. It should be clear that McCain is another four years of Bush.
He has continually sided with the Bush administration. He has been either in the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate since 1982 and has been part and parcel of the legislations that have allowed big business to live by different rules than the average citizen as well as receive relief in the form of government subsidies and bailouts. Where is ours after all we have been paying for big business? He has sided with the Bush administration on every action that flew in the face of the U.S. Constitution. He has helped this administration commit troops to battle knowingly based on lies and misinformation. Troops should never go to battle unless it is a last resort. I know ... I am a Vietnam combat veteran.

Capitalism is not about saving floundering businesses, yet McCain and the Republicans think so. Liberty, freedom and justice are not about changing the rules as you go to fit your desired outcome. They are precise in their intent, design and permanence.
Being a soldier in this country is not about fighting wars that exist for the sake of big business and imperialism. In this country, being a soldier is a noble profession as witnessed by our previous historically righteous reasons for sending them into combat.
Our country needs to change its direction and regain its principled place in the world's society.

Michael Buckley

(Herald News)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 12:35 AM

Amos, I am deeply sorry that you choose to ignore history. Except when you want to cite history yourself. Then history become essential to discussion. As if any body that does not know that bit of history is ignorant.

Michael Buckley's rant is about McCain instead about Bush but he does have some rather entertaining opinions similaar to yours. You and he would make a lovely couple.

Michael Buckley is an American internet celebrity based in Connecticut who satirizes American celebrity culture on his vlog What the Buck. He has one of YouTube's most subscribed channels with several million viewers each month. In October 2007 Buckley "broke all records" of YouTube ratings when four of his shows ended up on the week's 10 top-rated videos. Buckley has appeared in magazines like The Advocate discussing subjects like homophobia on the internet. On 18 March 2008 Buckley won a 2007 YouTube Awards for best commentary with the video "LonelyGirl15 is Dead!".

Buckley has a husband and lives in Connecticut with their four dogs Ellie, George, Colin and Buddy. To show his fans his "softer side", Buckley has also begun to vlog about their home life.

Here is a response to Mr. Buckley:

Taxpayer Jim:

You say that 'It should be clear that McCain is another four years of Bush'. But you have provided little evidence that this is true. You also state that 'Capitalism is not about saving floundering businesses'. Would you rather the US sink into a deep depression? Based on your story, I believe you would. I hope I see you in the breadline so you can admit how stupid that statement was. the government isn't merely giving the businesses the money - it's a loan. The government has a long history of loaning money to businesses - the country was built on it. And while you're griping about 'paying for big business', ask yourself where you'd be if it weren't for big business to give you a job. Or are you a deadbeat? Exactly how much in taxes did you pay last year? I paid over $100K in taxes - and Obama admittedly wants to raise my taxes higher. If Obama is elected - the country will slip deeper into a recession, or worse. He has not the experience nor the ethics to run the greatest and most powerful country on earth. McCain does.

And how about you Amos? Do you work for a company? Would you want the Government help keep that company from going out of business or would you rather collect welfare form the government after it goes out of business?

I don't have to worry because I can always get a job flipping burgers and parking luxury cars for the filthy rich elitists who know what is best for the American public.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 08 - 09:12 AM

Well, I haven't ignored eight years of history, driving the country into perhaps the worst economic, diplomatic and domestic circumstances it has been in since the second world war.

I haven't ignored the river of distorted or directly false facts coming out of the mouths of your heros in the White House, and their wannabe proxies.

So I think your slur is unfounded, senor.

Yeah I know what you mean about those filthy rich elitists--the ones with multiple houses all over the nation, who marry huge amounts of money instead of working their way up. Your candidate qualifies if anyone does. Maybe you should support someone who worked their way up n brains and effort, like Mr Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 12:45 PM

..."The economy began going south at Warp 6. People started losing their jobs in an economy that John McCain insists is still fundamentally sound. All those tangled webs of high finance and low morals started unraveling. A few of the biggest gamblers went bust, and Uncle Sam stepped in. A few even bigger institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private corporations with some government backing, had to be taken over by Uncle Sam.

And so it was that panic set in and the economic forecasts began to sound like the weather forecasts for Galveston Island a couple of weeks ago.

Now the same Republicans who sat back cashing campaign checks from Wall Street fat cats for seven plus years and busily deregulated everything in sight, including those who'd watched over everything from baby milk powder to brightly colored lead-painted toys to pet food, want to use our money to rescue the robber barons.

If we don't go along, and pronto, they say, the Second Great Depression is right around the corner, and don't bother blaming them, because they at least tried to save us from themselves.

If you needed any further evidence that there's something rotten at the heart of this deal, just look at the Wall Street lobbyists circling around the rescue bill like so many ravenous wolves.

We the people and our national treasury are going to buy all those bad mortgages out of the portfolios of the guilty and the innocent alike. We're going to have to pay some of them to maintain that property, auction off that property and hold the money earned from the auctions.

The wolves smell blood and they smell money, and we the people are supposed to rescue them and make them whole and forgive them and, oh yes, let them make more money in the process.

If you're ready to buy this deal from a used war salesman like George W. Bush and his cronies on Wall Street, then I have a real deal for you on a bridge to nowhere.

Trust us, they say. In a pig's ass, I say."

Joe Galloway, McClatchey Newspapers

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:06 PM

Dear Friend:

In the closing months of this administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it does not plan to regulate perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel that contaminates sites in at least 35 states, including California.

According to the EPA, perchlorate, a chemical found in rocket fuel, is found in the drinking water supplies of up to 16.6 million Americans. However, other independent researchers have estimated that 20 million or more Americans are exposed to the toxin, which particularly threatens pregnant women, infants and children.

The Bush EPA's failure to set a standard for perchlorate is outrageous, and I will do everything in my power to reverse it.  Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral.

As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I've been working to protect the American people from exposure to perchlorate through legislative means.  I've introduced the Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act (S.24), requiring that the EPA resume testing of drinking water for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests be disclosed to the public; and the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act (S.150), requiring the EPA to promptly set a standard for perchlorate in drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. Both of these bills were approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July 2008, but our effort to move the bills on the Senate floor was blocked opponents of the measures.  We will continue our fight to enact these bills.

You can count on me to continue to work to protect the health of all Americans by pushing for the regulation of perchlorate.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 03:22 AM

As if it fucking matters what this or that nutbar out there says

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 05:37 PM

ADMINISTRATION -- BUSH ISSUES TWO NEW SIGNING STATEMENTS: The New York Times reports today that President Bush issued signing statements on Tuesday asserting "that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control." In the authorization bill, Bush objected to being required to enter "negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there" and a prohibition on the use of U.S. funds "being used 'to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.'" President Bush has challenged over 1,100 sections of laws during his two terms, while "all previous presidents combined challenged about 600 sections of bills." Prominent conservatives, including Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), have repeatedly introduced legislation to ban the use of signing statements. The American Bar Associations calls signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers." A recent House Armed Services Committee report found that Bush's justifications for his signing statements are often "broad and unsubstantiated."

CONGRESS -- BIPARTISAN HOUSE REPORT FINDS BUSH MADE 'INAPPROPRIATE' USE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee released a bipartisan report finding that President Bush made a "legally unprecedented and an inappropriate use of executive privilege" when the administration withheld Patrick Fitzgerald's interview with Vice President Cheney on the CIA leak scandal. Attorney General Michael Mukasey had previously told the committee "that Bush's refusal to release the Cheney interview was within the president's authority, under executive privilege, to keep his discussions with advisers private." But the report, which was signed by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and ranking Republican Tom Davis (R-VA), argued that "there is no reason to believe that the special counsel's interview with the vice president" relates to "presidential decision-making about foreign policy or national security." White House spokesman Tony Fratto dismissed the report as a "campaign attack." The committee also released a separate report criticizing Bush's assertion of executive privilege regarding his recent climate change and Clean Air Act decisions, saying that they were "wrong and an abuse of the privilege."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 05:39 PM

From WaPo today:

"The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents. Although Justice Department lawyers, beginning in 2002, had signed off on the agency's interrogation methods, senior CIA officials were troubled that White House policymakers had never endorsed the program in writing.



The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for "policy approval."

The repeated requests for a paper trail reflected growing worries within the CIA that the administration might later distance itself from key decisions about the handling of captured al-Qaeda leaders, former intelligence officials said. The concerns grew more pronounced after the revelations of mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and further still as tensions grew between the administration and its intelligence advisers over the conduct of the Iraq war.

"It came up in the daily meetings. We heard it from our field officers," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the events. "We were already worried that we" were going to be blamed...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 12:14 AM

No. 2 al-Qaeda leader killed in Mosul

BAGHDAD (AP) â€" The No. 2 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Moroccan, has been killed in the northern city of Mosul, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

The death was a major blow to the terror network as American commanders have warned it remains a significant threat despite recent security gains.

U.S. troops, acting on tips, killed Abu Qaswarah, also known as Abu Sara, on Oct. 5 after coming under fire during a raid on a building that served as an al-Qaeda in Iraq "key command and control location" in Mosul, according to a statement.

The insurgent leader became the senior al-Qaeda in Iraq emir of northern Iraq in June 2007 and had "historic ties to AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and senior al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan," the military said.

It called him "al-Qaeda in Iraq's second-in-command" as the senior operational leader for the head of the network, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Abu Qaswarah â€" one of five insurgents killed in the raid â€" has been positively identified, the military said, without elaborating.

It said he had trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and directed the smuggling of foreign terrorists into northern Iraq for suicide bombings and other attacks.

"Abu Qaswarah reportedly killed foreign terrorists who wanted to return to their home countries instead of carrying out attacks against Iraqi citizens," military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said.

The announcement would indicate that al-Qaeda in Iraq's leadership has maintained a presence in the wartorn country amid recent media reports that many had fled to Afghanistan and Pakistan where fighting has been on the rise.

Abu Qaswarah was described by the military as a "charismatic AQI leader who rallied AQI's northern network in the wake of major setbacks to the terrorist organization across Iraq."

The death of the senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leader will cause a major disruption to the terror network, particularly in northern Iraq, the military said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 01:19 AM

Thanks, Sawz. That is good news, I think....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 06:28 PM

Two items from Congressman Waxman's Committe on OVersight and Reform:

Wednesday, October 15, 2008
White House Orchestrated Taxpayer-Funded Trips to Help Republican Candidates
A draft Committee report circulated by Chairman Waxman finds that in the months before the 2006 elections, the White House Office of Political Affairs "enlisted agency heads across government in a coordinated effort to elect Republican candidates to Congress," directing them "to make hundreds of trips – most at taxpayer expense – for the purpose of increasing the electability of Republicans."

Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bipartisan Committee Report Criticizes President's Assertion of Executive Privilege
A bipartisan report circulated today by Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis finds that President Bush made a "legally unprecedented and an inappropriate use of executive privilege" when he directed Attorney General Mukasey to withhold Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's interview of Vice President Cheney from the Committee. A separate report circulated by Chairman Waxman criticizes the President's assertion of executive privilege in the Committee's investigation into recent climate change and Clean Air Act decisions. Both reports will be considered by the full Committee next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 09:37 AM

In the end game of the Bush Administration's tenure, serious offenses are planned against the environment and against the code that protects it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 09:49 AM

More law-bending by the Bushit wizards:

WASHINGTON — In a newly disclosed legal memorandum, the Bush administration says it can bypass laws that forbid giving taxpayer money to religious groups that hire only staff members who share their faith.

The administration, which has sought to lower barriers between church and state through its religion-based initiative offices, made the claim in a 2007 Justice Department memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel. It was quietly posted on the department's Web site this week.

The statutes for some grant programs do not impose antidiscrimination conditions on their financing, and the administration had previously allowed such programs to give taxpayer money to groups that hire only people of a particular religion.

But the memorandum goes further, drawing a sweeping conclusion that even federal programs subject to antidiscrimination laws can give money to groups that discriminate.

The document signed off on a $1.5 million grant to World Vision, a group that hires only Christians, for salaries of staff members running a program that helps "at-risk youth" avoid gangs. The grant was from a Justice Department program created by a statute that forbids discriminatory hiring for the positions it is financing.

But the memorandum said the government could bypass those provisions because of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It sometimes permits exceptions to a federal law if obeying it would impose a "substantial burden" on people's ability to freely exercise their religion. The opinion concluded that requiring World Vision to hire non-Christians as a condition of the grant would create such a burden.

But several law professors who specialize in religious issues called the argument legally dubious. Ira C. Lupu, a co-director of the Project on Law and Religious Institutions at George Washington University Law School, said the opinion's reasoning was "a very big stretch."

And Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002, said the memorandum's reasoning was incompatible with Supreme Court precedent. He pointed to a 2004 case, in which the court said government scholarships that could not be used to study religion did not substantially burden recipients' right to practice their religion because they could still study theology with their own money.... (NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 10:35 AM

Another Invitation to Abuse
E-MAIL
PRINT
SAVE
SHARE

Published: October 18, 2008
We still don't know all of the ways that the Bush administration has violated Americans' civil liberties and undercut the balance of powers in the name of fighting terrorism. Even now, in President Bush's waning months in the White House, that overreach continues.

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
Related
Times Topics: Terrorism
Times Topics: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently issued new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use a range of intrusive techniques to gather information on Americans — even when there is no clear basis for suspecting wrongdoing.

Under the new rules, agents may engage in lengthy physical surveillance, covertly infiltrate lawful groups, or conduct pretext interviews in which agents lie about their identities while questioning a subject's neighbors, friends or work colleagues based merely on a generalized "threat." The new rules also allow the bureau to use these techniques on people identified in part by their race or religion and without requiring even minimal evidence of criminal activity.

These changes are a chilling invitation for the government to spy on law-abiding Americans based on their ethnic background or political activity.

Mr. Mukasey has promised that investigations conducted under the new rules will be consistent with the Constitution. Clearly, the Bush administration cannot be trusted to find the right balance between law enforcement and civil liberties. Even before this administration the F.B.I. had its own long history of abusing its powers to spy on civil rights groups and antiwar activists.

Critics also warn that the new rules could impede legitimate law enforcement efforts by alienating communities whose cooperation the F.B.I. needs and by distracting agents from focusing on genuine criminal activity and national security threats.

Mr. Mukasey and Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, refused requests from several senators, including Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, to delay the new rules until Congress and the public could thoroughly review them. Instead they rushed to put the changes in place before President Bush leaves office....(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 09:27 AM

Oct 20, 2008, 00:10

"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."-- Plato (427-347 b.c.)

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." --Aesop (620–560 b.c.)

"When fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), American journalist

"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? . . . I'll give you a sound bite: Throw all the bums out!" --Lee Iacocca, former CEO of Chrysler Corporation (book: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?)

Whoever is elected president in the coming November 4 American election will inherit a most miserable situation on nearly all fronts. This is because George W. Bush has been one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had, if not the worst. It is widely recognized that he was a below average politician who led his country on the wrong track, both domestically and internationally. Today, only a meager 9 percent of Americans dare to say that their country is moving in the right direction.

As a matter of fact, a very large majority of Americans -- both Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and of rural areas, high school graduates and college-educated -- all say that the United States has been headed in the wrong direction under George W. Bush's stewardship. Bush's approval rating reflects the lack of confidence that Americans have in him and his administration. In fact, George W. Bush has recorded the lowest approval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. And, around the world, the United States has never had a leader who commands so little respect and confidence. Most people in the U.S. and abroad will find satisfaction in seeing his term come to an end.

This is a terrible indictment of the Bush administration that has presided over America's destinies for the last eight years. What is more disconcerting, this all came after George W. Bush awarded the presidential election in 2000, with fewer popular votes than Democratic candidate Al Gore, on a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, this is an administration that had no widespread democratic mandate to do what it has done. And it has done a lot of things wrong. In fact, many people think this has been a morally bankrupt administration.

International disaster: An illegal and immoral war of aggression

At the center of this fiasco, is the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration and its neocon cohorts rushed to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to implement a preconceived pro-Israel and pro-oil plan in the Middle East. This led them to adopt a simplistic response to Islamist terrorism, barging into complex Middle East societies on elephant feet. But in the process, they have only succeeded in making matters worse and in encouraging more hatred against the U.S. and more terrorism.

Indeed, George W. Bush will be remembered above all as the man who launched an illegal and immoral war of aggression against another sovereign nation on false pretenses and forged documents, destroying in so doing the entire country of Iraq, and damaging perhaps irreparably the U.S. reputation in the world. As Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary (2003-2006), stated, Bush and his advisers in launching the Iraq War "confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Bush's deception and lies about Iraq in order to initiate a war of aggression, an aggression that is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the U.S., are well documented. Thus, historians will have no difficulty in establishing the fact that the United States, under Bush, acted as a lawless international aggressor. (...)

Excerpted from The Failed Presidency of George W. Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:02 PM

Bushies Give COlin Powell The Cold Shoulder After Obama Endorsement

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:50 AM

The Bush administration is writing one more sad chapter in the long, tortured history of Appalachia's coal-rich hills. Last week, the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining proposed a revision, amounting to a repeal, of one of the last regulatory protections against an environmentally ruinous mining practice called mountaintop removal.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Mountaintop removal is just what the name suggests: enormous machines scrape away mountain ridges to expose the coal seams. The leftover rock and dirt are then dumped into adjacent valleys and streams. The practice has gone on for years. By one estimate, 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried this way and hundreds of square miles of forests damaged.

No recent administration, Democrat or Republican, has made a serious effort to end the dumping, largely in deference to the coal industry and the political influence of Robert Byrd, West Virginia's senior senator. But beginning in the late-1990s, concerned citizens tried to slow things by invoking the so-called stream buffer zone rule, which seeks to protect water quality by prohibiting any mining activity within 100 feet of flowing streams.

With the urging of the coal companies, the Bush administration started looking for creative ways to ensure that this destructive practice could continue. In 2002, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency found itself inconvenienced by a rule explicitly prohibiting the use of mining waste as "fill" in streams and wetlands for development and other purposes. So the administration simply rewrote the regulations.

The nettlesome buffer zone rule still remained in place, so in 2004 the administration began a systematic effort to weaken it as well. That culminated Friday when the Office of Surface Mining sent its proposal for gutting the rule to the E.P.A., whose concurrence is required.

...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:06 AM

We've all been burned by the son ..

GEORGE H. W. Bush's presidency began with the fall of the Wall and the collapse of communism. George W. Bush's presidency ends with the fall of Wall Street and the collapse of capitalism.

As George Sr watches the destruction of the political dynasty founded by his father senator Prescott Bush, he must wish that he too was turning in his grave. The family tomb must be looking very attractive.

Polls agree that about 80 per cent of Americans are appalled by his son and you can bet George H.W. heads the list. Pretty early in the Iraq fiasco it was painfully obvious that dad was mortified by his son's strategic idiocies, hence his desperate and unsuccessful deployments of family loyalist James Baker to find a face-saving way out of the mess. But now? Iraq must seem almost the least of the dynasty's disasters. To borrow from one of George H.W.'s quaint sayings, it's now in the deepest of doo-doo.

Within hours of Pearl Harbor George H.W. left college to become the youngest naval pilot in US history. He flew scores of missions and won a heap of medals for quite exceptional courage. And his son? Despite the lowest possible scores in the entrance exams he got to be a pilot and did everything he could to avoid doing his duty or getting in harm's way. Despite all the family's influence, he failed to make the cut at the University of Texas law school. He became an alcoholic and a drunk driver. Whereas dad was a millionaire at 40, the son's career as an oil man was an embarrassment. Until young George was provided with the governorship of Texas, his CV was a disaster.

And dad? House of Reps, ambassador to the UN, chairman of the Republican National Committee, envoy to China, boss of the CIA, Reagan's vice-president etc etc. Though devoid of charisma and little better than his son as an orator he became the 41st president. Like father Prescott, his career was devoted to pushing the barrow of the biggest of big businesses. His oil industry connections to the Saudis certainly influenced his decision to cross Saddam Hussein off the list of favoured dictators and launch Desert Storm. But Bush Sr was infinitely more careful in his foreign policy than his son. George H.W.'s reluctance to push on to Baghdad and do some regime changing was clearly a factor in his son's later recklessness. And George H.W. made his disapproval clear through the high-level manoeuverings of such dynastic disciples as Baker. There seems strength in the quasi-Freudian argument that the world fell victim to difficulties in a father-son relationship.

Even before the great fiscal f..k-up George H.W.'s spectacularly stupid son had blown the US budget by turning the Clinton surplus into an apocalyptic deficit. On his watch there was a 70 per cent increase in the national debt. Gross domestic product was almost flat-lining at 2.5 per cent, real median income hadn't budged, the dollar was looking worse than the zloty and only the rich were having fun. And now? Not even the rich are happy. Despite vast amounts of anti-depressant being pumped into the global system, the world teeters on the edge of the biggest depression since the 1930s. The Republicans will not only lose the White House but Congress, the Senate, and gubernatorial and state elections across the nation. Not even the dazzling political talents of Sarah Palin will save them.

Under Bush Jr, the unprecedented levels of sympathy for the US post 9/11 evaporated. Now the international polls can be read as prayers for a Barack Obama victory. Anti-American feelings? In the Western democracies they were largely anti-Bush. The invasion of Iraq with its death and destruction led to Abu Ghraib and torture and civil war. Guantanamo and rendition unleashed worldwide protest and recruited regiments of terrorists. Domestic politics saw dramatic attacks on the US constitution and on civil liberties. Political scandals were two a penny, such as Alberto Gonzales's mid-term sacking of those US attorneys he deemed insufficiently conservative.

Bush's ongoing denial of climate change was capped by Katrina, where Washington's scandalous inaction led to the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans. Was there a single issue where George Jr got anything right? While the sub-prime mortgage crisis was kindled before Bush's election his administration did nothing to head it off. The USSR may be dead and buried but George Jr has presided over the creation of a new socialist state: the USSA.

George Jr leaves Washington DC as the most unpopular president in history. He leaves the US, the Middle East and the world economy in much worse shape than they were eight years ago. And he leaves the Republican Party in ruins; it will take decades to repair. As for the Bush dynasty? The presidential campaign of Jeb Bush isn't attracting a lot of donors..

from The Australian, Phillip Adams | October 21, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 11:45 AM

1500

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 10:06 AM

The Clinton administration sponsored and pushed through Congress the "Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993" which created a new higher tax rate of 36% on incomes in excess of $140,000 for married people ($115,000 for singles) and a top rate of 39.6% for incomes in excess of $250,000 for all.

Prior to 1993, the top tax rate was 31%. The Bush tax cuts back some of the Clinton tax increases.

The Bush tax cuts only reduced the top rate to 35%, still 4% points higher than the top rate of 31% before the Clinton tax increases."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 10:22 AM

Maureen Dowd wrote the following paragraph in her column today, which deserves to be memorialized if only for the phrase describing the newly elected Bush:

"Even though he watched W. in 2000 make the argument that his lack of foreign policy experience would be offset by the fact that he was surrounded by pros — Powell himself was one of the regents brought in to guide the bumptious Texas dauphin — Powell makes that same argument now for Obama.

"Experience is helpful," he says, "but it is judgment that matters.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 08 - 02:56 PM

RADICAL RIGHT -- LIMBAUGH AND GIULIANI INDIRECTLY BLAME 9/11 ON PRESIDENT CLINTON: Discussing Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) recent comments that the world will "test the mettle" of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with an international crisis if he is elected, right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh and Rudy Giuliani indirectly blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on former President Bill Clinton on Monday. "Every time Clinton was tested, he failed, and that's why they tested Bush on 9/11," said Limbaugh. Giuliani agreed. The fact that Giuliani so easily agreed with Limbaugh is surprising, considering that in 2006 he said it was wrong to "cast blame on Clinton"Â쳌 for 9/11. "I don't think he deserves it," said Giuliani. Though Clinton has freely acknowledged that he "failed" to get Osama bin Laden, his administration aggressively pursued terrorism. For instance, a June 1995 Presidential Decision Directive issued by Clinton emphasized concern about terrorism "as a national security issue" for the first time, instead of just a matter of law enforcement. Clinton's directive declared that the United States saw "terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it." For the last three years of his presidency, Clinton "raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave." In his book, Against All Enemies, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke -- who served under Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton -- described Clinton doing more right than he did wrong in combating terrorism, such as declaring "a war on terror before the term became fashionable."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:55 AM

US turns over control of 12th Iraqi province

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER API

BABYLON, Iraq (AP) — The U.S. relinquished control of a southern province that includes Sunni areas once known as the "triangle of death," handing security responsibility to the Iraqi government on Thursday. In the capital, where insurgent attacks continue nearly daily, a car bomber targeted a government minister's convoy, killing at least 13 people.

Babil is the 12th of 18 Iraqi provinces to be placed under Iraqi control and a sign of the improving security. U.S. forces will remain in the area to assist the Iraqis when needed.

At a transfer ceremony held near the ruins of the ancient city of Babylon, Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, said security gains have been remarkable — with the number of attacks falling about 80 percent from an average of 20 per week a year ago.

But he cautioned that "while the enemies of Iraq are down, they are not necessarily defeated."

With Babil's handover to the Iraqi government, the only province left under U.S. control in southern Iraq is Wasit, a rural desert region that borders Iran and has been a conduit for the smuggling of Iranian-backed Shiite militants and weapons into Iraq.

Wasit will be transferred to Iraqi authorities on Oct. 29, said Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, U.S. commander south of Baghdad.

Other provinces that remain to be handed over are north of the capital, where violence has been slower to decline after insurgents fled security crackdowns in Baghdad and surrounding areas.

Salim al-Musilmawi, Babil's provincial governor, credited tribal leaders and Sunnis who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq in a U.S.-funded revolt with the downturn in violence.

"Today's security handover is the fruit of the victory over al-Qaida," he said at the ceremony, which included a brass band, marching army squadrons and a simulated riot response by an armored police unit....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 11:03 AM

That's good news, Sawz. Maybe we will be able to get the hell out of Sandtown real soon.

I'd like that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 11:11 AM

The quote from Philip Adams in The Australian, posted by Freda, is pretty eloquent and I agree with most of it.

I do have to take issue with one gratuitous sentence, however:

"Bush's ongoing denial of climate change was capped by Katrina, where Washington's scandalous inaction led to the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans."

The Bush administration's destructon of FEMA, turning it into a patronage mill and burying it under the new Department of Homeland Security, cuased a great deal of death and destruction here in my adopted hometown. And it's true that our population has been "cleansed" of many of the poorest of our poor citizens ~ many of the poor folks who were shipped ut of town after that first hoorendous week after the levee breaks have not been shipped back, and still can't afford to travel on their own dime. And some of the public housing complexes where they lived are being bulldozed and replaced with "mixed-income" developments (which may or may not work out as advertised).

But the ethnic composition of our population is still pretty much the same. We're still mostly black. What so many people cannot seem to understand is that there are plenty of middle-class black people, including thousands of New Orleans homeowners struggling to rebuild their properties and their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 08:48 PM

Bush intends to establish U.S. diplomatic outpost in Iran
   
By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers Warren P. Strobel, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Thu Oct 23, 5:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will announce in mid-November, after the presidential election, that it intends to establish the first U.S. diplomatic presence in Iran since the 1979-81 hostage crisis, according to senior Bush administration officials.

The proposal for an "interests section," which falls short of a full U.S. Embassy , has been conveyed in private diplomatic messages to Tehran , and a search is under way to choose the American diplomat who'd head the post, the officials said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the step hasn't been announced and discussions of it have been limited to a small circle of government officials.

It's not known how Iran has responded. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last month that he'd consider the idea, which first surfaced over the summer.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081023/wl_mcclatchy/3080999;_ylt=As._ghDu3kHKSlAHYiLQ6tZxieAA

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 10:56 PM

That's good news, Bruce. No preconditions, huh? Hmmmm. :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 09:01 AM

Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.

Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of "black" programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.

(NYT, endorsing Barack Obama for PResident)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:52 AM

Iraqi forces kill, capture Iranian agents

Iraqi troops continue to encounter Iranian agents in eastern Iraq. One Iranian was killed and another was captured during a clash in Al Kut in Wasit province, an Iraqi Army officer told Voices of Iraq.

"The forces killed and detained the two Iranians during clashes that broke out in Sheikh Saad district in south of Kut," Major Aziz Latief, an officer from the 2nd Quick Reaction Force told the Iraqi newspaper.

The men were armed with four machine guns and hand grenades. The captured Iranian agent admitted "they came from Iran to implement armed operations in Iraq."

Al Kut has been a center of Iranian activity in Iraq's east. The city served as a strategic distribution hub for weapons smuggled into Iraq from across the border in Mehran, Iran. From there, weapons were distributed to tactical locations, where they were employed against Iraqi and Coalition forces as well against Iraqi politicians. The Iraqi Army dislodged the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army from Al Kut during operations during the summer of 2008.

Iraqi forces have captured eight Iranian agents and killed one since Oct. 18. Iraqi police captured three armed Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps officers in Al Kut on Oct. 20. Border guards captured four more in Mandali in Diyala province, which also borders Iran.

All nine Iranians are likely members of Qods Force, the elite special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. Qods Force has established a command to direct operations inside Iraq, and has been working to undermine Iraq's security and political environment.

The recent surge of Iranian operatives killed or captured over the past week indicates Qods Force may be ramping up operations inside Iraq, and that Iraqi intelligence on Iranian activities is improving, a US military officer familiar with Iran's operations in Iraq told The Long War Journal. Qods Force may also be looking to take a more active role in directing operations at the tactical level inside Iraq, the officer said. Prior to this week, only a handful of Iranian operatives, along with a Lebanese Hezbollah leader, have been reported captured inside Iraq.

Iraqi and Coalition forces have maintained the pressure on the Iranian-backed terror groups operating inside Iraq during the month of October. Two Iranian-trained Special Groups fighters have been killed and 76 have been captured during since Oct. 1, according to numbers compiled by The Long War Journal. Fifty-three have been captured since Oct. 13. Fourteen of those captured were members of the Hezbollah Brigades. The Hezbollah Brigades is an Iranian-backed terror group that has been behind multiple roadside bombings and rocket attacks against US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:46 PM

An interesting comparison between the invasion of Sicily by the Athenians (415 BC) and the invasion of Iraq by the US .

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:15 AM

...It was good news when Mr. Paulson finally agreed to funnel capital into the banking system in return for partial ownership. But last week Joe Nocera of The Times pointed out a key weakness in the U.S. Treasury's bank rescue plan: it contains no safeguards against the possibility that banks will simply sit on the money. "Unlike the British government, which is mandating lending requirements in return for capital injections, our government seems afraid to do anything except plead." And sure enough, the banks seem to be hoarding the cash.

There's also bizarre stuff going on with regard to the mortgage market. I thought that the whole point of the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the lending agencies, was to remove fears about their solvency and thereby lower mortgage rates. But top officials have made a point of denying that Fannie and Freddie debt is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government — and as a result, markets are still treating the agencies' debt as a risky asset, driving mortgage rates up at a time when they should be going down.

What's happening, I suspect, is that the Bush administration's anti-government ideology still stands in the way of effective action. Events have forced Mr. Paulson into a partial nationalization of the financial system — but he refuses to use the power that comes with ownership.

Whatever the reasons for the continuing weakness of policy, the situation is manifestly not coming under control. Things continue to fall apart.


(NYT Columnist)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:34 AM

"Today, Somalia is the world's greatest humanitarian disaster, worse even than Darfur or Congo. The crisis has complex roots, and Somali warlords bear primary blame. But Bush administration paranoia about Islamic radicals contributed to the disaster.

Somalia has been in chaos for many years, but in 2006 an umbrella movement called the Islamic Courts Union seemed close to uniting the country. The movement included both moderates and extremists, but it constituted the best hope for putting Somalia together again. Somalis were ecstatic at the prospect of having a functional government again.

Bush administration officials, however, were aghast at the rise of an Islamist movement that they feared would be uncooperative in the war on terror. So they gave Ethiopia, a longtime rival in the region, the green light to invade, and Somalia's best hope for peace collapsed.

"A movement that looked as if it might end this long national nightmare was derailed, in part because of American and Ethiopian actions," said Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert at Davidson College. As a result, Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers.

"There's a level of anti-Americanism in Somalia today like nothing I've seen over the last 20 years," Professor Menkhaus said. "Somalis are furious with us for backing the Ethiopian intervention and occupation, provoking this huge humanitarian crisis."

Patrick Duplat, an expert on Somalia at Refugees International, the Washington-based advocacy group, says that during his last visit to Somalia, earlier this year, a local mosque was calling for jihad against America — something he had never heard when he lived peacefully in Somalia during the rise of the Islamic Courts Union.

"The situation has dramatically taken a turn for the worse," he said. "The U.S. chose a very confrontational route early on. Who knows what would have happened if the U.S. had reached out to moderates? But that might have averted the disaster we're in today."

The greatest catastrophe is the one endured by ordinary Somalis who now must watch their children starve. But America's own strategic interests have also been gravely damaged.

The only winner has been Islamic militancy. That's probably the core reason why Al Qaeda militants prefer a McCain presidency: four more years of blindness to nuance in the Muslim world would be a tragedy for Americans and virtually everyone else, but a boon for radical groups trying to recruit suicide bombers. "...NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 06:02 PM

Inducing terror in the name of Homeland Security, part `97653-A (1) [c] 11

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:01 AM

"President [George W.] Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history." --Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee

[The government's decision to buy shares in the nation's leading banks] "is not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve it." --President George W. Bush, October 14, 2008

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights. . . . We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused." --Jimmy Carter, former American president

"After [this] war [against Iraq] has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe." --Sen. Robert Byrd, (D-W.Va), March 19, 2003

Economically, the Bush-Cheney administration is leaving behind a big financial and economic mess. In fact, this is an administration that has brought misery upon America by its misguided economic policies that have built a mountain of shaky debt and rendered dysfunctional large segments of the American banking industry and large sectors of the U.S. economy, through inappropriate deregulation to enrich greedy special interest characters, wheeler-dealers, corporate con men, professional short-sellers and other scam artists and swindlers. In so doing, it has empowered rich parasitic speculators and turned the financial sector into a giant casino, thus risking the health of the entire economy.

Indeed, and to complete the picture, the Bush-Cheney administration has emptied the public treasury, debased the U.S. currency and fueled deflation, inflation and, in the end, produced stagflation and what can turn out to be a very serious recession.

This is understandable. Over the last eight years, the Bush-Cheney administration has adopted a laissez-faire policy based on a let-them-eat-cake ideology. It has pushed for economic deregulation throughout the government, beginning with the de-fanging of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It has pursued an aggressive policy of deregulation of the large global investment banks, which were basically left to self-regulate themselves and allowed to build up the largest mountain of flimsy backed debt instruments and risky financial derivative products ever seen in history. It did the same thing to other regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, worker safety and transportation agencies.

It is thus no accident that the Bush-Cheney administration has presided over one of the worst financial collapses and credit crises in U.S. history, by packing regulatory agencies with cronies whose mission it was to let rapacious speculators and market manipulators go wild. The result has been the creation of a casino-like speculative economy that is now crashing down before our very eyes.

Under Bush-Cheney, financial markets became manipulated by unscrupulous bankers and by rapacious hedge funds, as public regulation was reduced to a minimum. Millions of Americans lost their homes through foreclosure and many more saw their working and pension incomes eroded and destroyed by inflation and plant closings. And as what could be a protracted recession proceeds, many more will lose their jobs in the coming months, while some older employees may have to postpone their retirement because of the disappearance of their pension money...."

Complete article here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 12:35 PM

Harry Shearer (the voice of many Simpsons characters and a veteran of Saturday Night Live and Leave it to Beaver) has produced a charming DVD called SOngs of the Bushmen, including such all time great tunes as:

1. 935 Lies
2. Smooth Moves
3. Wolf On the Run
4. The Head of Alberto Gonzalez
5. Karen
6. Gym Buds
7. Who Is Yoo?
8. Carrot Soup
9. T**d Blossom Special
10. No Cooler for the Scooter
11. Stuff Happens

The lyrics to all the songs can be found here.

For example, the Karl Rove ditty:

HE CALLED ME THE ARCHITECT,
THEY CALLED ME BUSH'S BRAIN
TWO TIMES WE WENT CAMPAIGNING, TWO TIMES WE DRANK CHAMPAGNE.
I HELPED TO BUILD HIS LEGEND, HE HELPED TO BUILD MY MYTH,
WANT TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH MY FAMILY; JUST NEED to find A FAMILY TO SPEND IT WITH....

oh, the turd blossom special is taking me home.
never more to roam.
till I got a book that i have to promote.
or a special campaign to help black people vote.
I'm free as a bird
won't be deterred...
I'm on the turd blossom special,
til I can buy me a boat...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 10:22 AM

The repudiation of Karl Rove

By JOHN P. AVLON | 11/2/08 7:38 AM EST   

We don't know yet who will win or by what margin, but we know one thing for certain: This election represents the repudiation of Karl Rove and his play-to-the-base strategy.

There was always something dicey about stoking the fires of hyperpartisanship as a campaign and governing strategy, treating 51-49 victories as ideological mandates instead of an obligation to form broader and more durable coalitions.

Now we have the data to judge the results: a president who tried to unite his party at the expense of uniting the nation and failed to do both, repudiated by both candidates running to succeed him. Even John McCain admits to visitors at his Web site homepage, "the last eight years haven't worked very well, have they?"

It's an unprecedented condemnation of the president's politics as well as the effectiveness of his governance.

(Click on title for full text)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:54 AM

So Little Time, So Much Damage

While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here's a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he's not wasting a minute.

President Bush's aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush's case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage.

Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush's recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come.

CIVIL LIBERTIES We don't know all of the ways that the administration has violated Americans' rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Agents will be allowed to use informants to infiltrate lawful groups, engage in prolonged physical surveillance and lie about their identity while questioning a subject's neighbors, relatives, co-workers and friends. The changes also give the F.B.I. — which has a long history of spying on civil rights groups and others — expanded latitude to use these techniques on people identified by racial, ethnic and religious background.

The administration showed further disdain for Americans' privacy rights and for Congress's power by making clear that it will ignore a provision in the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. The law requires the department's privacy officer to account annually for any activity that could affect Americans' privacy — and clearly stipulates that the report cannot be edited by any other officials at the department or the White House.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has now released a memo asserting that the law "does not prohibit" officials from homeland security or the White House from reviewing the report. The memo then argues that since the law allows the officials to review the report, it would be unconstitutional to stop them from changing it. George Orwell couldn't have done better.

THE ENVIRONMENT The administration has been especially busy weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species.

Mr. Bush, or more to the point, Vice President Dick Cheney, came to office determined to dismantle Bill Clinton's environmental legacy, undo decades of environmental law and keep their friends in industry happy. They have had less success than we feared, but only because of the determined opposition of environmental groups, courageous members of Congress and protests from citizens. But the White House keeps trying.

Mr. Bush's secretary of the interior, Dirk Kempthorne, has recently carved out significant exceptions to regulations requiring expert scientific review of any federal project that might harm endangered or threatened species (one consequence will be to relieve the agency of the need to assess the impact of global warming on at-risk species). The department also is rushing to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list — again. The wolves were re-listed after a federal judge ruled the government had not lived up to its own recovery plan.

In coming weeks, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. The agency is also expected to issue a final rule that would make it easier for coal-fired power plants to locate near national parks in defiance of longstanding Congressional mandates to protect air quality in areas of special natural or recreational value.

Interior also is awaiting E.P.A.'s concurrence on a proposal that would make it easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.

(Click on headline for full NYT article)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 10:38 AM

I will put this quote aside until after the election- and see if it still applies if Obama wins with 51-49 of the popular vote.




"There was always something dicey about stoking the fires of hyperpartisanship as a campaign and governing strategy, treating 51-49 victories as ideological mandates instead of an obligation to form broader and more durable coalitions. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 11:34 AM

Your efforts might better be spent getting your own party to face up to its past sins and reform.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 04:47 PM

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the "al Ameriki tribe," or "tribe America."

I've seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats-rely on.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:05 PM

Very positive news, Sawz. For July of last year!! No, not last July. July of 2007.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:41 PM

Bush Job approval
RCP Average        10/30 - 11/02        27.8

Congress Job approval
RCP Average        10/23 - 11/02        17.3

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 01:21 PM

In celebration of the revitalization of the national spirit brought about as a result of the election on November 4, 2008, I am pleased to report I am removign this thread from my bookmarks, and relegating it to the sad dustbin of the scarring, bruised, malodorous years of the two W administrations. I am pleased to be able to look forward to a saner, more substantive, less treacherous period in American history.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 03:12 PM

I will put this quote aside until after the election- and see if it still applies if Obama wins with 51-49 of the popular vote.




>>"There was always something dicey about stoking the fires of hyperpartisanship as a campaign and governing strategy, treating 51-49 victories as ideological mandates instead of an obligation to form broader and more durable coalitions. "

Let's see: Popular vote difference about 7.2 million.

Obama: 63,112,190
McCain: 55,867,094


Not sure when those figures were grabbed. OBama won 53% to 46%,

Now that N Carolina has been decided for Obama the Electoral tilt is a historic 379 to 163--an electoral and planetary landslide...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 02:35 AM

The highest number of electoral votes (525) went to Ronald Reagan during his reelection in 1984

That was inarguably an intergalactic tectonic hee haw mojo mondo snedgerific trifurcated multi talented subterraneanation of the cootie laden bilge filth encrusted garbage scow piloting bungalow hopping insect rejected untermensch that had the audacity, the unmitigated gall and obstreperousness to embark on such a ubiquitous Quixotic non-denominational fwr reaching monodirectional excursion into eternal oblivion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 02:38 AM

HEy, cool off a bit, there, Sawz--you'll set your thesaurus on fire.....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 04:46 PM

The Decency of George W. Bush

By Michael Gerson
Friday, November 7, 2008; Page A19

Election Day 2008 must have been filled with rueful paradoxes for the sitting president. Iraq -- the issue that dominated George W. Bush's presidency for 5 1/2 bitter, controversial years -- is on the verge of a miraculous peace. And yet this accomplishment did little to revive Bush's political standing -- or to prevent his party from relegating him to a silent role.

The achievement is historic. In 2006, Iraq had descended into a sectarian killing spree that seemed likely to stop only when the supply of victims was exhausted. Showing Truman-like stubbornness, Bush pushed to escalate a war that most Americans -- and some at the Pentagon -- had already mentally abandoned.

The result? A Sunni tribal revolt against their al-Qaeda oppressors, an effective campaign against Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra, and the flight of jihadists from Iraq to less deadly battlefields. In a more stable atmosphere, Iraq's politicians have made dramatic political progress. Iraqi military and police forces have grown in size and effectiveness and now fully control 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces. And in the month before Election Day, American combat deaths matched the lowest monthly total of the entire war.

For years, critics of the Iraq war asked the mocking question: "What would victory look like?" If progress continues, it might look something like what we've seen.

But Air Force One -- normally seen swooping into battleground states for rallies during presidential elections -- was mainly parked during this campaign. President Bush appeared with John McCain in public a total of three times -- and appeared in McCain's rhetoric as a foil far more often than that.

This seems to be Bush's current fate: Even success brings no praise. And the reasons probably concern Iraq. The absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of the war was a massive blow. The early conduct of the Iraq occupation was terribly ineffective. Hopes that the war had turned a corner -- repeatedly raised by Iraqis voting with purple fingers and approving a constitution -- were dashed too many times, until many Americans became unwilling to believe anymore.

Initial failures in Iraq acted like a solar eclipse, blocking the light on every other achievement. But those achievements, with the eclipse finally passing, are considerable by the measure of any presidency. Because of the passage of Medicare Part D, nearly 10 million low-income seniors are receiving prescription drugs at little or no cost. No Child Left Behind education reform has helped raise the average reading scores of fourth-graders to their highest level in 15 years and narrowed the achievement gap between white and African American children. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has helped provide treatment for more than 1.7 million people and compassionate care for at least 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And the decision to pursue the surge in Iraq will be studied as a model of presidential leadership.

These achievements, it is true, have limited constituencies to praise them. Many conservatives view Medicare, education reform and foreign assistance as heresies. Many liberals refuse to concede Bush's humanity, much less his achievements.

But that humanity is precisely what I will remember. I have seen President Bush show more loyalty than he has been given, more generosity than he has received. I have seen his buoyancy under the weight of malice and his forgiveness of faithless friends. Again and again, I have seen the natural tug of his pride swiftly overcome by a deeper decency -- a decency that is privately engaging and publicly consequential.

Before the Group of Eight summit in 2005, the White House senior staff overwhelmingly opposed a new initiative to fight malaria in Africa for reasons of cost and ideology -- a measure designed to save hundreds of thousands of lives, mainly of children under 5. In the crucial policy meeting, one person supported it: the president of the United States, shutting off debate with a moral certitude that others have criticized. I saw how this moral framework led him to an immediate identification with the dying African child, the Chinese dissident, the Sudanese former slave, the Burmese women's advocate. It is one reason I will never be cynical about government -- or about President Bush.

For some, this image of Bush is so detached from their own conception that it must be rejected. That is, perhaps, understandable. But it means little to me. Because I have seen the decency of George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 09:13 PM

It's nice to see a counterpoint in competent prose that is not manifestly antagonistic or manipulative.

Thanks, Bruce.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM

Bush Rolls Back Regulations


Having promised to "sprint to the finish" of his second term and "to remain focused on the goals ahead," President Bush is "working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules" aimed at protecting workers, consumers and the environment, the Washington Post reports. "The administration wants to leave a legacy," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, "but across the board it means less protection for the public." Indeed, the Bush administration is implementing over 90 new regulations which "would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo." The wide array of new regulations includes proposals to undercut outpatient Medicaid services, weaken the Endangered Species Act, and allow increased emissions from older power plants. In some instances, the administration has allowed federal agencies to circumvent public feedback methods by limiting the period for public comment, "not allowing e-mailed or faxed comments or scheduling public hearings." Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama, meanwhile, "have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies." The kind of regulations they are looking at are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. 

CUTTING BACK MEDICAID: On Friday, the very same day that the Department of Labor announced that the U.S. unemployment rate is at a 14-year high of 6.5 percent, Bush "narrowed the scope of services that can be provided to poor people under Medicaid's outpatient hospital benefit." The new regulation arrives at a time when states are considering limiting Medicaid eligibility and Americans are losing their jobs -- and by extension, employer health benefits. According to the Kaiser Foundation, a 1 percent increase in unemployment results in 1 million more people enrolling in Medicaid and the State's Children's Health Insurance Program, and another 1.1 million more people becoming uninsured. Public hospitals and state officials immediately protested Bush's proposed action, saying it would "reduce Medicaid payments to many hospitals at a time of growing need," the New York Times reports. Ann Clemency Kohler, the executive director of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, said that "the new rule is a pretty sweeping change from longtime Medicaid policy. Since the beginning of the program, states have been allowed to define hospital outpatient services. We have to question why the rule is being issued now, three days after the election, with a new administration coming in."

GUTTING ENDANGERED SPECIES: In what would be the biggest change to Endangered Species Act since 1998, the Bush administration wants to allow federal agencies "to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants." Currently, federal agencies are required to consult with an independent agency -- the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service -- to determine whether a project would harm an endangered species. As Sharon Guynup of the Baltimore Sun points out, "[T]aking wildlife experts out of the equation eliminates the checks and balances that have kept the [Chesapeake] bay's bald eagles, shortnose sturgeon, Delmarva fox squirrels, piping plovers and other rare creatures from disappearing" and would only encourage agencies to "revert to pre-Endangered Species Act tactics of cutting big projects into a series of small ones that fall under the radar." The draft rules also would also "bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats," the AP reports. 

INCREASING POLLUTION: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on regulations that would allow increased emissions from older power plants while also rolling back existing air quality regulations for national parks and wilderness areas. While "the Clean Air Act requires older plants that have their lives extended with new equipment to install pollution-control technology if their emissions increase," Bush's proposed rule would "allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than their total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require additional pollution controls," McClatchy reports. The industry-friendly rule -- which the administration tried to implement in 2003, before it "was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in July"-- is now being opposed by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and Robert Meyers, the assistant administrator in charge of air issues. According to McClatchy, "the EPA official said that concerns in the agency were that the analysis justifying the rule change was weak and the administration didn't plan to make the analysis public for a comment period, as is customary." Three computer models, released by the EPA, have also shown that the proposed rule "would increase carbon dioxide emissions by 74 million tons annually," "roughly equivalent to the total annual CO2 emissions of about 14 average coal-fired power plants."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 11:29 AM

The Most Popular View of the Bush Administration:   no mystery:   it's the rear view of the Bush administration as it fades away, never to be seen again.

Hope that's not too subtle for Bush supporters to grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 11:49 AM

From my last post it appears the Decency posting was a bit premature.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:16 PM

I'm sorry, but calling Bush a success for what has happened in Iraq is like calling someone who starts a fire in an apartment building a success if he is able to put most of the fire out when there's still a little bit if the building still standing, and some of the residents haven't been killed.

Medicare Part D is a boondogle that benefits the pharmaceutical industry more than it does seniors, and No Child Left Behind has been an unmitigated disaster. The reason fewer students are failing under that program is because the number of students dropping out has increased. And Bush withdrew badly needed funding for any African clinics that give any information about abortion to their clients.

Bush has no decency whatever. He has destroyed Iraq, and he has come very close to destroying the United States for one thing and one thing only - the enrichment of his cronies and the war profiteers, and to consolidate and strengthen his hold on power.

Bush doesn't deserve credit. He deserves to be in jail as a war criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:43 PM

Caro:

OK!! Enough darn pussyfooting around. How do your eally feel about him???



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 03:12 PM

Don't get me started...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:37 PM

I resonate with your desire not to be gotten started on that particular subject!!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:48 PM

I phrased that wrong. The popular view of the Bush Administation is actually seeing it fade away in the rear view mirror, as we leave it behind in the dust.

And "decency" and "Bush" in the same sentence?   A severe disconnect.

Anybody who started an unnecessary war by choice--with all the death, destruction and waste of resources that has resulted-- and now wants us to be happy with the situation-- is the perfect Nowhere Man--just sees what he wants to see.

And it looks like the Iraqis are not in fact happy with the situation either:
WSJ: 11 Nov 2008: "Iraq said US changes to a security pact aren't enough to win Parliament's approval".

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:18 PM

Clearly he has always been out of his depth in the job, and left to fall back on wallowing, equivocation, or dramatization of one or another ill-conceived fixed idea.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 08 - 09:24 PM

President Bush's 'Coalition of the Willing'
— or Orwell Comes to Iraq
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Bush administration has long since lost its ability to shock. But it is still worth noting how attentively it seems to be doctoring the history of its tenure in office and the calamitous war in Iraq.

Our colleague, Thom Shanker, reported this week how administration officials have altered the record of allies who joined the United States in its "coalition of the willing."

Although American forces always made up the overwhelming number of troops in Iraq, it was strongly in the administration's interest to make the list of troop-contributing nations as long as possible. The more countries with boots on the ground, the more it seemed President Bush's adventurism in Iraq was embraced by the rest of the world.

The White House has changed the roster of troop-contributing countries featured on three official lists on its website. There were 45 coalition members on the eve of the Iraq invasion. But revisions to critical documents made it seem as if there were 49, according to researchers from the Cline Center for Democracy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The researchers give the administration the benefit of the doubt saying the changes may have been made "by design or neglect."

We're not inclined to be so charitable knowing how diligently Mr. Bush and his team has fought to keep information secret from the American people and to favorably spin their own successes and failures.

It's notable that what the Bush administration appears to have doctored is not something about the war right now, but rather about how many nations backed the United States when the war began.

George Orwell would not have been surprised by this sort of revisionism. It was, after all, Orwell, who observed: "He who controls the past controls the future."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 08 - 10:45 AM

< ahref=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/11/21/BL2008112101582.html>Another Falsehood Exposed WaPo


When and if the curtain is fully pulled back on President Bush's "war on terror," how much of what he said will turn out to be true, and how much of it will turn out to be fantasy and lies?

The more we learn, the more it seems the appeals to fear that Bush used to rally the nation behind him were unfounded.

The latest example came yesterday in a federal courtroom in Washington, where a Bush-appointed judge ordered the release of five Algerian men who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for almost seven years.



The president showcased the men in his seminal, bellicose 2002 State of the Union speech as part of a litany of alleged threats -- some averted, some not -- facing the nation. "Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy," Bush said at the time.

But once detainees were given the right to challenge their detention, the government dropped the embassy allegation.

This was presumably because there was even less evidence to support it than the remaining charges -- which the judge yesterday disclosed consisted of one unsubstantiated allegation by an unnamed source of undetermined credibility.

The Coverage

William Glaberson writes in the New York Times: "A federal judge issued the Bush administration a sharp setback on Thursday, ruling that five Algerian men have been held unlawfully at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for nearly seven years and ordering their release.

"It was the first hearing on the government's evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, said the government's secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as 'a classified document from an unnamed source' for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.

"'To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court's obligation,' Judge Leon said."

The men were "among a group of Guantánamo inmates who won a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling in June that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek their release in federal court. The decision said a 2006 law unconstitutionally stripped them of their right to contest their imprisonment in habeas corpus lawsuits. . . .

"Robert C. Kirsch, one of the six detainees' lawyers from the law firm Wilmer Hale, said the case showed 'the human cost of what can happen when mistakes are made at the highest levels of our government, and no one has the courage to acknowledge those mistakes.' . . .

"'The decision by Judge Leon lays bare the scandalous basis on which Guantánamo has been based -- slim evidence of dubious quality,' said Zachary Katznelson, legal director at Reprieve, a British legal group that represents detainees."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 03:36 PM

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush ducked two shoes thrown at him by an unidentified man during a press conference in the Iraqi prime minister's office to mark the signing of a security agreement.

Bush wasn't hit by the shoes, which both sailed over his head after they were thrown one after the other. The president shrugged and said "I'm OK" after the incident in Baghdad today. "All I can report is it is a size 10," Bush said afterwards.

In Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. The man shouted an Arabic phrase, which an Iraqi present translated as "this is a farewell kiss, dog."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 07:33 PM

When given the opportunity to be "naughty or nice" this holiday season, Bush has clearly opted to go down as one of the naughtiest, most sinister presidents in our nation's history. We've created a satirical spin on the famous poem, 'Twas the Night Before Christmas, in order to show President Bush crafting his last-minute agenda for health care, the environment, civil liberties, and labor practices -- rules that will affect everyone and will be difficult for the next administration to overturn. We are using humor here in the hopes that it both commands people's attention and enables us to shine a light on these all-too-serious midnight regulations.

Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4y5sZKdI4

After you've enjoyed this video, send it to friends and family and don't forget to digg it. Let them know the harm President Bush's midnight regulations will bring. And stress the fact that there are far too many Congressional representatives who have remained silent while Bush pushes midnight regulations that will wreak havoc on the lives of their constituents and local communities. We must call the tacit approval of these representatives into question.

Keep in mind that it's not just voters in blue states who will be affected -- these midnight regulations will hurt people in the states and districts of Bush's enablers in Congress. And remember that these last-minute policies are the outcome of Congressional Republicans' loyal support for the Bush agenda over the past eight years. We should hold them accountable for the huge lump of coal Bush is handing over to the nation this Christmas.

Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New Films team

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 04:36 PM

Why we must prosecute Bush and his administration for war crimes

By Mike Ferner
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 16, 2008, 00:20

" During the rush to get the Nuremberg Tribunals underway, the Soviet delegation wanted the tribunal's historic decisions to have legitimacy only for the Nazis. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, serving as the chief prosecutor for the Allies, strong-armed the Soviets until the very beginning of the tribunal before changing their mind.

In his opening statement Jackson very purposely stipulated, " . . . Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment."

Can there be a better reason for prosecuting George W. Bush and his administration for war crimes than those words from the chief prosecutor of the Nazis, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, with the full support of the U.S. government? Robert Jackson's words and the values this nation claims to stand for provide sufficient moral basis for putting Bush and Cheney, their underlings who implemented their policies and the perverted legal minds who justified them all in the dock. If those are not sufficient reasons, there is a long list of binding law and treaties -- written in black and white in surprisingly plain English.

Bush imagined, and his attorneys advised, that he could simply wave aside these laws with "they don't apply." Imagine how a judge would treat even a simple traffic court defendant who brazenly stated the law was only a quaint notion, just "words on paper?"

Masses of people and an embarrassingly small number of their elected representatives in this country read the law for themselves and demanded otherwise, only to be silenced by the Guardians of Reality in the corporate news media.

But it's all there, where it has been for 220 years, the Constitution's "supremacy clause," Article II, section 4, and in the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18USC §2441). They provide the authority to make additional treaties legally binding -- no matter how much former White House lawyers David Addington and John Yoo may object.

Those additional treaties include among others, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg rulings, the Laws and Customs of War on Land and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. To give just a snapshot of how serious these laws are, consider this portion of 18 USC 2441 which defines a war crime as " . . . a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party . . ." The guilty can be " . . . fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

Here, Justice Jackson answers another question about war crimes -- who bears the greater responsibility: those who committed barbaric acts in the field or those who created the conditions for barbarism?

The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war.

And yet it is not just because Bush violated the Constitution and federal law that he and his lieutenants must be prosecuted.

At Nuremberg, the foremost crime identified was starting a "war of aggression," later codified by U.N. Resolution 3314, Art. 5, as "a crime against international peace." Launching a war of aggression, as Hitler did against Poland, is considered so monstrous that the nation responsible can then be charged with "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity," spelled out in detail in the Geneva Conventions. As Tom Paine said long before the U.N. formalized the definition of aggression, "He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of Hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death."

A small sampling of the contagion of Hell let loose by Bush includes illegally invading a sovereign state, using banned weapons such as white phosphorous and napalm, bombing hospitals and civilian infrastructure, withholding aid and medical supplies, terrorizing and knowingly killing civilians, torturing prisoners, killing a million people and displacing 4 million more in Iraq alone.

Following World War II, humanity resolved that wars do more than spark a series of loathsome, individual crimes. Leaders responsible for a war actually commit crimes against the entirety of humanity. They inflict harm on every human being, something that must be put right before humanity can be restored.

There is a final reason why we must prosecute Bush and Co. It is not what some argue, although they point to a serious danger: that Bush trashed the law and usurped powers, encouraging future presidents to expand where he left off. Such reasons are about George W. Bush and those who hold the office after him, but in the final analysis this is about us.

We are complicit in the horrors of this administration. We can claim neither ignorance nor innocence. We are complicit by the very fact that we are citizens of the United States, more so because we paid for the war, and even more so for this reason. Listen to a village sheik I met in Iraq describe it better than I ever could.

I met this man in a small farming village one afternoon in early 2004. He described how he and a dozen others were swept up in a raid by the U.S. Army and detained on a bare patch of ground surrounded by concertina wire. They had no shelter and but six blankets. They dug a hole with their hands for a toilet. They had to beg for water until one time it rained for three days straight and they remained on that open ground. He somehow found the graciousness to say he understood there was a difference between the American people and our government. Then through his tears he added, "But you say you live in a democracy. How can this be happening to us?"

Do we? Whether or not we bring our own government officials to justice for their crimes will determine the answer".

Ferner is a writer from Ohio and author of "Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq."


(Online Journal)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Dec 08 - 10:38 PM

Obama praises Bush for auto action

CHICAGO, Dec. 19 (UPI)

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama praised President George Bush's decision Friday to provide a bridge loan package to two ailing U.S. automakers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 12:53 PM

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."
-- George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 08 - 01:22 PM

"...The contempt for workers over this long period has hardly been hidden. Until Mr. Bush was forced by circumstances to tap the TARP program for the auto industry loans (small potatoes compared with the gargantuan Wall Street bailouts), the administration had gone out of its way to keep the program's hundreds of billions of dollars reserved for the elites of the financial services industry and their associates.

These elites, of course, were the geniuses who ruined the most powerful economy on earth. When Citigroup went into yet another swoon last month, the rush to rescue it was breathtaking. Posses don't come more elegant: the outgoing treasury secretary, Hank Paulson; the incoming treasury secretary (and president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Timothy Geithner; and a former treasury secretary (not to mention Citigroup board member), Robert Rubin.

They materialized magnificently, armed with hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailout cash.

Leo Gerard, president of the steelworkers union, summed up the government's attitude nicely when he said: "Washington will bail out those who shower before work, but not those who shower afterwards."

Working people have been treated like enemies, a class to be preyed upon. Labor unions were ferociously attacked. Jobs were shipped overseas by the millions. People were hired as temps or consultants so benefits could be denied.

All of this may finally be changing. It remains to be seen how strong a voice Ms. Solis will have in the Obama administration, but she is pro-worker to her core, a politician who actually knows what it's like to walk a picket line.

And there have been other promising developments. More than 200 laid-off workers staged a successful six-day sit-in at a factory in Chicago this month, demanding and eventually getting severance pay and benefits that they were owed by law.

A more substantial victory occurred in Tar Heel, N.C., last week when workers, after a brutal 15-year struggle, succeeded in organizing the notorious Smithfield Packing slaughterhouse, the largest hog-killing and processing plant in the world.

These are shaky steps in the overall scheme of things, to be sure. But at long last, they are steps in the right direction.." (Herbert, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:07 AM

By the use of strikes Labor Unions have bullied US industry into contracts that are no longer viable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:12 AM

Obama:

"I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease and my administration will continue this critical work to address the crisis around the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 03:00 PM

September 15, 2005

To ABC's Surprise, Katrina Victims Praise Bush and Blame Nagin

ABC News producers probably didn't hear what they expected when they sent Dean Reynolds to the Houston Astrodome's parking lot to get reaction to President Bush's speech from black evacuees from New Orleans. Instead of denouncing Bush and blaming him for their plight, they praised Bush and blamed local officials. Reynolds asked Connie London: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" She rejected the premise: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in." She pointed out: "They had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people."

Not one of the six people interviewed on camera had a bad word for Bush -- despite Reynolds' best efforts. Reynolds goaded: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Brenda Marshall answered, "No, I didn't," prompting Reynolds to marvel to anchor Ted Koppel: "Very little skepticism here."

Reynolds pressed another woman: "Did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?" She affirmed: "Yes, he was." Reynolds soon wondered who they held culpable for the levee breaks. Unlike the national media, London did not blame supposed Bush-mandated budget cuts: "They've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do."

Immediately after Bush finished his speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans, at about 8:26pm local CDT, Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC's hour-long coverage, went to Dean Reynolds who was outside in a parking lot with a group of black people from New Orleans who are living at the Reliant Center next to the Astrodome.

(No names were provided on-screen for those interviewed, so I only have first names for two, and no name for one, of the six.)

    Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: "I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?"

    Connie London: "Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-"

    Reynolds: "Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans?"

    London: "Yes, I did. I did."

    Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?"

    London: "No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs."

    http://newsbusters.org/node/1201

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 08:42 AM

Rice: People will soon thank Bush for what he's done


Story Highlights
Condoleezza Rice says Bush's policies will "stand the test of time"

Rice says she's not bothered by criticism; says she's "here to make tough choices"

Secretary of state says historians criticizing Bush "aren't very good historians"

Rice says she plans to write a book about foreign policy



   
(CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite President Bush's low approval ratings, people will soon "start to thank this president for what he's done."


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says "there is no greater honor than to serve this country,"

"So we can sit here and talk about the long record, but what I would say to you is that this president has faced tougher circumstances than perhaps at any time since the end of World War II, and he has delivered policies that are going to stand the test of time," Rice said in an interview that aired on CBS' "Sunday Morning."

The secretary of state brushed off reports that suggest the United States' image is suffering abroad. She praised the administration's ability to change the conversation in the Middle East.

"This isn't a popularity contest. I'm sorry, it isn't. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run -- not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment," she said.

"And I am quite certain that when the final chapters are written and it's clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gone in favor of an Iraq that is favorable to the future of the Middle East; when the history is written of a U.S.-China relationship that is better than it's ever been; an India relationship that is deeper and better than it's ever been; a relationship with Brazil and other countries of the left of Latin America, better than it's ever been ...

"When one looks at what we've been able to do in terms of changing the conversation in the Middle East about democracy and values, this administration will be judged well, and I'll wait for history's judgment and not today's headlines."

Asked by CBS' Rita Braver why some former diplomats say Americans are disliked around the world, Rice said that's "just not true."
"I know what U.S. policy has achieved. And so I don't know what diplomats you're talking to, but look at the record," she said.

Rice said she wasn't bothered by criticism about her or the administration's polices, saying if a person in her business is not being criticized, "you're not doing something right."

"I'm here to make tough choices, and this president is here to make tough choices, and we have. And yes, I -- there are some things that I would do very differently if I had it to do over again. You don't have that luxury. You have to make the choices and take the positions that you do at the time," she said.

Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians."

"If you're making historical judgments before an administration is already out -- even out of office, and if you're trying to make historical judgments when the nature of the Middle East is still to be determined, and when one cannot yet judge the effects of decisions that this President has taken on what the Middle East will become -- I mean, for goodness' sakes, good historians are still writing books about George Washington. Good historians are certainly still writing books about Harry Truman," she said.

Rice, 54, said she has enjoyed working in the Bush administration during the last eight years, first as national security adviser, then as secretary of state.

"There is no greater honor than to serve this country," she said, adding that there is also no greater challenge.

Rice said when the new administration takes over, she plans to return to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and write two books -- one on foreign policy and one about her parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 08 - 02:48 PM

Sawz:

Yer gonna have to do better than three and a half years in the past.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 07:27 AM

"...When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don't think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he's done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool's gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

Exploiting the public's understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: "We cannot wait," he said, "for the final proof — the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

And then there's the Bush economy, another disaster, a trapdoor through which middle-class Americans can plunge toward the bracing experiences normally reserved for the poor and the destitute.

Mr. Bush traveled the country in the early days of his presidency, promoting his tax cut plans as hugely beneficial to small-business people and families of modest means. This was more deceit. The tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to the very rich.

The president would give the wealthy and the powerful virtually everything they wanted. He would throw sand into the regulatory apparatus and help foster the most extreme income disparities since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Once again he was lighting a fire. This time the flames would engulf the economy and, as with Iraq, bring catastrophe.

If the U.S. were a product line, it would be seen now as deeply damaged goods, subject to recall.

There seemed to be no end to Mr. Bush's talent for destruction. He tried to hand the piggy bank known as Social Security over to the marauders of the financial sector, but saner heads prevailed.

In New Orleans, the president failed to intervene swiftly and decisively to aid the tens of thousands of poor people who were very publicly suffering and, in many cases, dying. He then compounded this colossal failure of leadership by traveling to New Orleans and promising, in a dramatic, floodlit appearance, to spare no effort in rebuilding the flood-torn region and the wrecked lives of the victims.

He went further, vowing to confront the issue of poverty in America "with bold action."

It was all nonsense, of course. He did nothing of the kind.

The catalog of his transgressions against the nation's interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don't hold your breath. He's hardly the contrite sort.

He told ABC's Charlie Gibson: "I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it."

The president chuckled, thinking — as he did when he made his jokes about the missing weapons of mass destruction — that there was something funny going on.
"

NYTs 12-30-08

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:27 AM

"I don't have any idea."
-- Dick Cheney, on why he has such low approval ratings

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:35 AM

the way I see it...

When it comes to any prosecution of high crimes and misdemeaners of the people in the Bush administration including George himself, we will find that what can be done and what will be done are polar opposites.

What can be done within the law could shine a light on the greater good and punish our own evil doers. What will be done however, will be done behind closed doors by a commission that will expereince every delay known to goverment until every statute of limitations have past.

The sad outcome will allow very illegal act that goes unprosecuted to become a legal precedent to do it all again.

For Obama to encourage any prosecution of rich Republican Banking families, the Government officals they "hire", the mobs of criminal financial wizards and the think tanks who are their conciallari would invite certain murder.

Obama faces the same circumstances as Ceasar Augustus aka Octavian.
The wealthy Republicans of Rome were highly concerned that a populist Ceasar like Augustus, who claimed he was a man of the people, would threaten their wealth and ill gotten gains. Rome had been divided by real and virtual civil wars between the Republicans and the people. Augustus had to walk a middle road for Rome and himself to survive. So will Obama.

Augustus survived by posing a a very humble man who would not touch the Republican wealth. Augustus slowly cemented power over decades and avoided assasination until he died at 72.

DH

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:17 PM

Does anyone know where George W. Bush is?




You don't hear much from him anymore. The last image most of us remember is of the president ducking a pair of size 10s that were hurled at him in Baghdad.

We're still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza. And the U.S. economy is about as vibrant as the 0-16 Detroit Lions.

But hardly a peep have we heard from George, the 43rd.

When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don't think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he's done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool's gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

Exploiting the public's understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: "We cannot wait," he said, "for the final proof — the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

And then there's the Bush economy, another disaster, a trapdoor through which middle-class Americans can plunge toward the bracing experiences normally reserved for the poor and the destitute.

Mr. Bush traveled the country in the early days of his presidency, promoting his tax cut plans as hugely beneficial to small-business people and families of modest means. This was more deceit. The tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to the very rich.

The president would give the wealthy and the powerful virtually everything they wanted. He would throw sand into the regulatory apparatus and help foster the most extreme income disparities since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Once again he was lighting a fire. This time the flames would engulf the economy and, as with Iraq, bring catastrophe.

If the U.S. were a product line, it would be seen now as deeply damaged goods, subject to recall.

There seemed to be no end to Mr. Bush's talent for destruction. He tried to hand the piggy bank known as Social Security over to the marauders of the financial sector, but saner heads prevailed.

In New Orleans, the president failed to intervene swiftly and decisively to aid the tens of thousands of poor people who were very publicly suffering and, in many cases, dying. He then compounded this colossal failure of leadership by traveling to New Orleans and promising, in a dramatic, floodlit appearance, to spare no effort in rebuilding the flood-torn region and the wrecked lives of the victims.

He went further, vowing to confront the issue of poverty in America "with bold action."

It was all nonsense, of course. He did nothing of the kind.

The catalog of his transgressions against the nation's interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don't hold your breath. He's hardly the contrite sort. ... (Bob Herbert, NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:57 PM

He's down here in Crawford, TX, if you want a physical location. "Where he's at" in a metaphysical sense is more complex. "In deep shit" would be nice, but I doubt it will happen. :)

I haven't read this thread much, though I am reassured that it is here for occasionally dipping into, or venting.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:14 AM

"...But the brazenness of Bush's alternative-reality history is itself revelatory. The audacity of its hype helps clear up the mystery of how someone so slight could inflict so much damage. So do his many print and television exit interviews.

The man who emerges is a narcissist with no self-awareness whatsoever. It's that arrogance that allowed him to tune out even the most calamitous of realities, freeing him to compound them without missing a step. The president who famously couldn't name a single mistake of his presidency at a press conference in 2004 still can't.

He can, however, blame everyone else. Asked (by Charles Gibson) if he feels any responsibility for the economic meltdown, Bush says, "People will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived." Asked if the 2008 election was a repudiation of his administration, he says "it was a repudiation of Republicans."


Forgotten but not Gone (New York Times)
"The attacks of September the 11th came out of nowhere," he said in another interview, as if he hadn't ignored frantic intelligence warnings that summer of a Qaeda attack. But it was an "intelligence failure," not his relentless invocation of patently fictitious "mushroom clouds," that sped us into Iraq. Did he take too long to change course in Iraq? "What seems like an eternity today," he says, "may seem like a moment tomorrow." Try telling that to the families of the thousands killed and maimed during that multiyear "moment" as Bush stubbornly stayed his disastrous course.

The crowning personality tic revealed by Bush's final propaganda push is his bottomless capacity for self-pity. "I was a wartime president, and war is very exhausting," he told C-Span. "The president ends up carrying a lot of people's grief in his soul," he told Gibson. And so when he visits military hospitals, "it's always been a healing experience," he told The Wall Street Journal. But, incredibly enough, it's his own healing he is concerned about, not that of the grievously wounded men and women he sent to war on false pretenses. It's "the comforter in chief" who "gets comforted," he explained, by "the character of the American people." The American people are surely relieved to hear it.

With this level of self-regard, it's no wonder that Bush could remain undeterred as he drove the country off a cliff. The smugness is reinforced not just by his history as the entitled scion of one of America's aristocratic dynasties but also by his conviction that his every action is blessed from on high. Asked last month by an interviewer what he has learned from his time in office, he replied: "I've learned that God is good. All the time."

Once again he is shifting the blame. This presidency was not about Him. Bush failed because in the end it was all about him."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:25 AM

"...Exit, Stonewalling


Published: January 3, 2009 (NYT)

True to its mania for secrecy, the Bush administration is leaving behind vast gaps in the most sensitive White House e-mail records, and with lawyers and public interest groups in hot pursuit of information that deserves to be part of the permanent historical record.

E-mail messages that have gone suspiciously missing are estimated to number in the millions. These could illuminate some of the administration's darker moments, including the lead-up to the Iraq war, when intelligence was distorted, the destruction of videotapes of C.I.A. torture interrogations, and the vindictive outing of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

The deep-sixed history also includes improper business conducted by more than 50 White House appointees via e-mail at the Republican Party headquarters. Historians and archivists are suing the administration. We should be grateful for their efforts. Entire days of e-mail records have turned up conveniently blank at the offices of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Mr. Cheney, of course, retreats from sunshine with the wariness of Alucard; he is fighting to the last the transfer of his records to the National Archives, as required by law. He recently argued in court that he "alone may determine what constitutes vice presidential records or personal records." As in: L'etat c'est Dick.

Modern administrations from Ronald Reagan's to Bill Clinton's typically tried to evade at least some disclosure obligations under the public archives law. But the Bush team, from day one, has flouted the requirement to preserve a truthful record, ignoring repeated warnings from the National Archives. In government agencies, the public's freedom-of-information rights have been maliciously hobbled.

The National Archives is further burdened by the steady and inevitable growth in digital records — a mass 50 times larger than that left eight years ago by the Clinton administration. It will take years to ingest before historians can truly get a handle on what is missing.

History is truly the poorer for the Bush administration. President-elect Barack Obama must quickly undo the damage by ordering that records be shielded from political interference, by repairing the freedom-of-information process, and by ending the abuse of the classification process to cloak the truths of the presidency."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 11:40 AM

"Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real "real America," a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM

Time Magazine Jan 2 2009:

Gilberto Coker OBREGON, MEXICO:

Once he takes office, what's the first thing Barack Obama should do regarding foreign policy?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

I hope the next Administration will continue what the Bush Administration has been doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 05:48 PM

That's pretty senseless taken out of context and trimmed to a minimum, Sawz.

But I don't have time to do your legwork for ya. At least learn to make a link to your sources.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM

The Bush Legacy Propaganda


President Bush repeatedly argues that neither he nor his contemporaries are yet able to fully assess his legacy. Rather, he and his advisers say -- again and again and again -- that "history will judge" whether he was an effective president. Despite this oft-repeated claim, the President seems disinclined to leave any of his legacy to chance. In recent weeks, he and his advisers have offered assessments of the Bush era that are increasingly at odds with reality. Condoleezza Rice, for example, argued that Bush engaged the United Nations more than any other president. And just yesterday, Bush told a crowd that Donald Rumsfeld did an "outstanding job" as Secretary of Defense. In a similar vein, the White House recently released a report entitled, "Highlights of Accomplishments and Results of the Administration of George W. Bush" that featured a list of "100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record." As Frank Rich wrote for the New York Times, "This document is the literary correlative to 'Mission Accomplished.'" As Rich notes, much of the legacy report's claims about the Bush administration's economic, social, and international accomplishments are only true under very narrow conditions, suggesting that the President hopes that Americans would blind themselves to the broader failures of his presidency.

TOLL ON ECONOMY: The Bush legacy document declares that Bush "instituted pro-growth policies" that produced "six years of uninterrupted economic growth and an unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job creation" and asks, "Did you know the President's tax relief helped fuel growth that led to the largest three year increase in revenues in 26 years?" In reality, the President's "pro-growth policies" served to weaken the economy by nearly doubling the federal debt, championing deregulation on Wall Street, and increasing the income gap. While Bush claims that his tax cuts provided needed economic stimulus and pulled the economy out of recession in 2001, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained simply, "None of this is true." A recent Los Angeles Times poll found that 75 percent of Americans feel that Bush economic policies were responsible for the current weakened state of the U.S. economy. Further, Americans see the error of Bush's reckless economic deregulation, with 62 percent calling for more aggressive regulation on Wall Street. Bush, however, has not learned his lesson. Yesterday, he told the conservative publication Human Events, "I will continue to argue for low taxes, less regulation."

TOLL ON SOCIETY: In his legacy document, Bush claims credit for promoting a "culture of life" by banning the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research and instituting regulations allowing health care professionals to refuse to participate in medical procedures that violate their personal beliefs. His ban on federal funding for stem cell research "set research back five to six to seven years in this country," delaying potential treatments for a number of degenerative and life threatening diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Similarly, the President's regulatory change allowing health care providers to abstain from procedures they deem unethical allows virtually anyone in the health care sector -- including janitors, receptionists, and volunteers -- to refuse to assist patients with obtaining birth control, abortion, fertility treatments, sterilization, or even referrals to those who would provide such services. As family health insurance premiums nearly doubled, employers became less likely to offer coverage, and the total number of Americans without health insurance grew by 7 million individuals, Bush failed to meaningfully address the nation's health care crisis. In fact, he vetoed expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, denying 10 million low-income childrenaccess to health care. Thankfully, in failing to pass his unpopular Social Security privatization plan, the Bush presidency was not as damaging as it could have been. Had he been successful in the drive, retirees would have suffered massive losses as a result of the current financial crisis that he had a hand in creating.

TOLL ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: The legacy document also tells a story of how Bush "kept America safe and promoted liberty abroad." But this ignores the obvious fact that the attacks of 9/11 happened on his watch, not to mention the roughly 4,000 troops who have died in his wars. Further, while the President claims credit for expanding and strengthening the nation's counterterrorism tools, the U.S. military is weaker now than it was five years ago, the State Department is suffering from staffing shortages and low morale, and Bush's approval of illegal interrogation techniques harmed the CIA's intelligence-gathering initiatives and threatened troops abroad. The President's cowboy diplomacy and his disastrous invasion of Iraq led to unprecedented levels of U.S. unpopularity around the world. But Bush remains untroubled, saying recently, "I think I'll be remembered as a guy who was dealt some pretty tough issues and I dealt with them head-on and I didn't try to shy away."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:19 PM

"That's pretty senseless taken out of context and trimmed to a minimum,"

'spose you put it context mr. word wizard.

And while you are at it tell us if Bush has caused America's oil supply to be cut off.

I keep asking but you don't seem to be willing to do your own legwork.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:58 PM

Oh, horse manure, Sawz. Learn to make links, why don't you? Why are you asking me that question, anyway? Ask Big Dick Cheney. He knows the oil business real well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:24 AM

Everytime Obama opens his mouth, Bush looks better!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:32 AM

Obama- four more years of the Bush Administration- Just like I said before the election.


Obama is smart: He will act as he sees is in the best interest of the U.S.. So Obama will continue most if not all of the policies that Bush was promoting.


Sorry, Bobert and Amos. That is MY opinion, and so far is being borne out by what is happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:03 PM

Acting in the best interest of the United States means different things to different people.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:40 PM

"Learn to make links" Show me yours Mr Wizard.

"Why are you asking me that question, anyway?" Why not? Why do you avoid answering it? Chicken? You are constantly berating people for doing the same things you do.

I can't figure out if Obama I will be Carter II or Clinton III or Bush III.

So far all I see is the same warmed over appointees. The continuation of the same policies. This is change?

I want the guy to do good. I am not hoping for him to fail but I am afraid that before the end of his term, people will be at his throat.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:09 AM

Wake up Sawz. You question was answered hours ago on the other thread in which you make these mindless sarcasms.

If you wish Barack Obama well, I'm sure he will reciprocate.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 10:05 AM

In any event, he certainly has his work cut out for him!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 11:37 AM

the book 100 things you didn't know about GWB is released.
\This should establish a long lasting legacy with facts such as saving civilization and that George knows all the lyrics to American Pie.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 04:05 PM

Bush's Achievements
Ten things the president got right.
by Fred Barnes
01/19/2009, Volume 014, Issue 17


The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 01:29 PM

"Ideological considerations permeated the hiring process at the Justice Department's civil rights division, where a politically appointed official sought to hire "real Americans" and Republicans for career posts and prominent case assignments, according to a long awaited report released this morning by the department's inspector general.

The extensive study of hiring practices between 2001 and 2007 concluded that a former department official improperly weeded out candidates based on their perceived ties to liberal organizations. Two other senior managers failed to oversee the process, authorities said.

The key official, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman, favored employees who shared his political views and derided others as "libs" and "pinkos," the report said.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett said they would refer their findings to legal disciplinary authorities.
ad_icon

"The Department must be vigilant to ensure that such egregious misconduct does not occur in the future," Fine said in a statement.

The report marks the last in a series of inquiries by internal watchdogs into hiring lapses at the Justice Department during the Bush administration, a scandal that prompted the resignations of more than a dozen senior officials.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the findings "confirmed some of our worst fears about the Bush Administration's corruption of the Justice Department."

"Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government," Leahy added.

The report's release was delayed by more than six months after inspector general agents referred the case for possible prosecution by authorities in the District. But prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office declined to pursue the matter last week, according to lawyers involved in the case. ..." (WAPo)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM

"Bush's 'Ultimate Exit Interview'

Yesterday, President Bush appeared before the White House press corps for his 47th -- and last -- full-scale press conference, taking questions in what he called "the ultimate exit interview." Though the White House had high expectations for Bush's farewell meeting with the media, telling reporters that it would be "standing room only," the last two rows in the seven-row briefing room were empty. Subsequently, a press aide had to tell White House interns to fill the seats. Despite job approval ratings around or below 30 percent since February 2007, Bush "seemed largely in good spirits" as he pontificated on his years in office. Bush "was by turns impassioned and defiant, reflective and light-hearted, even as he conceded that some things 'didn't go according to plan,'" notes the New York Times. "Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," said Bush. "Running the Social Security idea right after the '04 elections was a mistake." Bush continued his administration's efforts to paint his legacy in a positive light, declaring that he had "a good, strong record." Unfortunately for Bush, the American public believes his administration "will be remembered more for its failures than its accomplishments."

BUSH DEFENDS KATRINA RESPONSE: Asked if he "made any mistakes" while in office, Bush said he had "thought long and hard about Katrina" and admitted that "things [could] have been done better." However, he denied any problem with the federal response to the disaster, insisting, "Don't tell me the federal response was slow." The fact is that the federal response was disastrously slow. As the White House itself acknowledged in a February 2006 report, "the response to Hurricane Katrina revealed a lack of familiarity with incident management, planning discipline, and field-level crisis leadership." A 2006 report compiled by House Republicans slammed what it called "a failure of leadership," saying that the federal government's "blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina's horror." The report specifically blamed Bush, noting that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because the President alone could have cut through bureaucratic resistance. In fact, despite a FEMA official's eyewitness accounts of New Orleans's levees being breached starting at 7 p.m. on Aug. 29, the Bush administration "did not consider them confirmed" until 11 hours later. FEMA did not order the evacuation of New Orleans until 1:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, two full days after Katrina made landfall. Bush even praised the rescue efforts as a "pretty good response."

BUSH DEFENDS U.S. STANDING IN THE WORLD: Asked about President-elect Obama's desire to restore "America's moral standing in the world," Bush bristled at the idea, saying, "I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged." "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope." But it isn't just "the elite" who question the negative effect that Bush's presidency has had on America's standing in the world. As a Gallup fact-check of Bush's comments points out, 69 percent of Americans believe that the "U.S. position in the world" lost ground under Bush. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, "positive views of the United States declined in 26 of the 33 countries where the question was posed in both 2002 and 2007." "Mounting discontent with U.S. foreign policy over the last eight years has translated into a concern about American power. In the view of much of the world, the United States has played the role of bully in the school yard, throwing its weight around with little regard for others' interests," according to Pew.

BUSH DEFENDS HIS ECONOMIC RECORD: Asked to give his "closing message" to the American people about his economic policies, Bush acknowledged that "obviously these are very difficult economic times" while deflecting much responsibility for the economy's troubles. "This problem started before my presidency, it obviously took place during my presidency," said Bush. He also vigorously defended his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, adding that he "will defend them after my presidency as the right course of action." "There's a fundamental philosophical debate about tax cuts," said Bush. "Who best can spend your money, the government or you? I've always sided with the people on that issue." But as the Washington Post noted yesterday, Bush "has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades." The federal government "had a modest budget surplus when Bush took office," but his administration ran up deficits "even as the economy was growing at a healthy pace." When Bush took office, it was projected that the federal government would run a $710 billion budget surplus in 2009. Now, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated that Bush's tax cuts accounted for 42 percent of the fiscal deterioration between 2001 and 2008. Though Bush claims he "sided with the people" through his economic policies, he really just squandered their money.


...

ADMINISTRATION -- REPORT: BUSH'S EX-CABINET MEMBERS 'MADE A MINT ON THE BACKS OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS': According to a new report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), 17 of 24 former Bush Cabinet members have taken positions with at least 119 companies, including 65 firms that lobby the government and 40 that lobby those officials' former agencies. These include former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, who "accepted director's fees and consulting work from several firms seeking contracts with his old agency," and former energy secretary Spencer Abraham, who took a post as a director of Occidental Petroleum, "which soon became the first firm in 20 years to ship oil to the U.S. from Libya." Melanie Sloan, CREW's Executive Director, said the report "has shown that most of these former Bush administration officials have cannily leveraged their time spent in the public sector." "By using their government positions as springboards to new lucrative opportunities, [these officials] have successfully made a mint on the backs of American taxpayers," Sloan said. "It may be legal, but it is certainly not honorable."

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- AFTER RECEIVING PHONE CALL FROM OLMERT, BUSH ORDERED RICE TO ABSTAIN FROM GAZA CEASEFIRE VOTE: Last week, the United States notably abstained from a voting on a U.N. Gaza ceasefire resolution, "an apparent reversal of earlier promises to Arab states." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, despite voicing support for the resolution, raised concerns about "Egyptian mediation efforts" in explaining the abstention. But in reality, Rice was essentially ready to support the resolution -- until a last-minute intervention from President Bush on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "I said 'get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert recalled in a recent speech. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour." Rice had worked extensively on the resolution with Arab, British, and French foreign ministers. "She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert boasted. The State Department disputed Olmert's account today. "Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along," an aide said. ..."

The Progress Report

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 07:21 AM

ROURKE: 'BUSH WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME'

Monday January 12,2009

Actor MICKEY ROURKE sympathises with U.S. President GEORGE W. BUSH - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York.

The Hollywood tough-guy spoke out about his political views in a candid interview with Britain's GQ magazine, and admits he doesn't understand why so many people blame Bush for a string of world issues - including Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the West.

And the actor, who claims he didn't follow last year's (08) historic U.S. election battle between Barack Obama and John McCain, urges the public to consider the tremendous pressure the controversial president was under following the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 10:19 AM

In the litany of violations of public trust and accountability by the Bush administration, a last round of restrictions on access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, hardly ranks with, say, warrantless wiretapping. But it is sadly characteristic of an administration that has insulated itself from scrutiny at every opportunity.

A recent report by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism Review identified a host of ways in which the administration is making it harder for the public to access records heretofore more readily within reach. The Department of Energy wants to eliminate a rule that allowed it to release documents if it concluded that they would serve the public interest. The Department of Education has expanded its authority to refuse release of materials even after they are redacted to remove students' names and identifying information. Other agencies are raising fees for processing and copying. The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to charge $70 an hour for processing some requests -- not that anyone would want to study the efficacy of regulation and enforcement in the stock market.


From its first months, the Bush administration has encouraged bureaucrats to search for reasons to deny requests for information, directly reversing former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno's order to government workers during the Clinton years to opt for release whenever permitted by the FOIA. So the latest actions are best seen not as an epiphany by this administration but rather as mop-up after a long, determined effort to shut the public out of government....(LAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:28 AM

Amos:

The most telling development recently is the government's admission that they have indeed committed war crimes, at the very least, torture. Notable here is that al-Qahtani was the alleged "20th hijacker" (or at least one of them; there have been several, just as there have been myriad "#2 in al Qaeda"s) ... and the torture has poisoned any possibility of a fair trial on this charge.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 08:26 AM

Whatever Bush did, Obama has many more important things to do than to try to go after Bush, Cheney, and others for what will probably never be proven. It would be the same kind of witch hunt we saw when Ken Starr went after Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:45 AM

"When I look at those double-page New York Times spreads of all the individual pictures of people who have been killed [in Iraq], I got to think, 'Maybe there wouldn't have been a war if I hadn't gone to Miami-Dade. Maybe there wouldn't have been, in my view, an unjustified war if Bush hadn't become president.' It's very disturbing to me."


-- Roger Stone, the GOP consultant who led the "Brooks Brothers Riot" against the Miami-Dade County election board during the 2000 Florida recount

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:31 AM

An interesting series of comments on prosecuting the Bush Administration, or not. NYT Letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:06 AM

The larger problem, the way I see it, is if you go after public officials for what they did in office, the folks who follow them will be reluctant to do anything, anywhere. That would seem to be worse--or could be.

                         I do agree with the guy who thinks they should pardon the enlisted people who were courtmartialed for torture. It should be pretty apparent by now that they were just following orders. What were they supposed to do about it, tell some Major to stick it up his ass?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:18 PM

"While campaigning for president, George W. Bush often repeated that he would seek to change the negative and partisan tone in Washington, D.C. "I'm a uniter, not a divider," Bush would say. "I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another." Similarly, during his campaign for president, Barack Obama stated his desire to end the bitter partisanship of American politics, often saying he would be president, not of "blue" or "red" America, but the United States of America. Indeed, since Nov. 4, President-elect Obama appears to be living up to that promise by reaching out to conservatives and signaling that he is open to conservative ideas. "The monopoly on good ideas does not belong to a single party," Obama said recently. "If it's a good idea, we will consider it." But Obama will arguably have a tougher time uniting the country, toning down partisanship, and creating a more bipartisan atmosphere than Bush did in January 2001. A recent CNN poll found that a whopping 82 percent of Americans believe that Bush did not unite the country. In fact, Bush himself just recently admitted that he had not lived up to his "uniter, not a divider" rhetoric, saying last month that he "didn't do a very good job of it" (though he later blamed others for "needless name-calling"). But over the last eight years, "pitting one group against another" is exactly the kind of politics Bush played. He and his allies exploited national issues, ruthlessly attacked progressives for political gain, and politicized the federal government to serve the interests of the Republican party.

POLITICIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan recently admonished his former boss, saying that the White House took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing.  In 2003,  Bush's political guru Karl Rove or his top aide, Ken Mehlman, "visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action." Rove also led an unprecedented campaign to politicize the federal government to serve the interests of the Republican Party. Earlier this year, a Department of Justice report found that agency officials "violated both federal law and Department policy" by hiring, firing and promoting of some Department applicants and officials for political reasons. Another DOJ report released in September found that the firing process of nine U.S. attorneys was "fundamentally flawed" and in some cases governed by politics. For example, Bush appointee and former DOJ official Monica Goodling refused to hire an experienced counterterror official because his wife was a Democrat, and she rejected a DOJ attorney's promotion because of an "inappropriate" gay relationship. But Justice was not the only department tainted by politics under Bush. A DOJ inspector general released a report just this week finding that Bradley Schlozman, a former Justice official "entrusted with enforcing civil rights laws," had refused to hire lawyers whom he labeled as "commies" and transferred another attorney for allegedly writing in "ebonics" and benefiting from "an affirmative action thing." The White House also routinely favored politics over science regarding climate change by muzzling NASA's chief global warming scientist James Hansen's climate change findings, censoring scientific evidence on global warming in an EPA report, and editing all government scientists' testimony to fit its political aims. The Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the General Services Administration, the Interior Department, the Defense Department, Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy were also not spared of politics during the Bush years. 

DIVIDING ON SOCIAL ISSUES: Shortly after taking office, Rove convinced Bush to issue an executive order that effectively ended federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Despite evidence showing the enormous scientific benefits to such research, Rove's move sought to appease the GOP base, rather than promote sound policy.  In the run-up to the 2004 election, Rove orchestrated a campaign to significantly boost turnout of the GOP base by placing measures to ban gay marriage on the ballot in numerous battleground states. Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans -- the GOP's largest gay group -- said at the time that Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was part of a calculation by Rove that "4 million evangelicals stayed home in 2000. As a result, the 2004 campaign has focused on energizing the far right while ignoring mainstream Republicans." 
"

(Excerpted from the Progreess Report

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:54 AM

Yes, Bush did all of those things, but we have to play the hand we're dealt. We don't have time to go after Bush and Rove and the rest of those buffoons. We have serious problems to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:06 PM

(01-15) 13:30 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The direct income President George W. Bush receives from taxpayers will be cut in half when he leaves the White House next week. Still, he'll receive a pension of almost $200,000 to tide him over in his first year of retirement in his new home in Dallas.

MORE NEWS
Gaza truce takes hold, Israel troops begin leaving 01.18.09
Obama pauses to honor US war dead at Arlington 01.18.09
Armstrong makes pro cycling comeback in Australia 01.18.09
Vice President Dick Cheney also will be able to survive a prolonged recession with a pension starting at about $132,000, according to the National Taxpayers Union, a taxpayer advocacy group that follows pension issues.

The president's pension is set by the 1958 Former Presidents Act. Bush, who receives a $400,000 annual salary as president, will get an almost identical pension in 2009 — factoring in the 20 days in January he was still president — the same as Jimmy Carter, his father George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Their pension for the year is $196,700, a figure that will grow to $203,600 next year and $210,700 in 2011. The NTU estimates that if Bush, now 62, reaches his current life expectancy of 83.5 years, he will receive pension payments of $5,564,800, compared to the $3.2 million he earned serving in the White House.

The 1958 act also provides a former president with office space and office staff, a travel fund and mailing privileges. A presidential widow can get a lifetime annual stipend of $20,000. In fiscal year 2008, the General Services Administration provided total allowances of more than $1 million for Clinton, and almost $800,000 for George H.W. Bush, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Former presidents up through Clinton could, if they so chose, receive lifetime Secret Service protection. Congress changed that in 1997 with an act limiting protection for future ex-presidents and their families to 10 years, barring exceptions for specific threats.

The NTU's Pete Sepp said the "pension champion" was former President Gerald Ford, who served less than 2 1/2 years in the White House but also spent 24 years in the House. He was receiving more than $300,000 a year when he died in 2006 at age 93. Presidents receive the same pension regardless of how long they are in the White House.

Cheney, who also serves as president of the Senate, is on the same pension plan as members of Congress. The NTU estimated his initial benefit of $132,451 based on his more than 29 years of government service, including eight as vice president, 10 as a member of the House and more than 10 in executive positions such as White House chief of staff in the Ford administration and defense secretary in the first Bush administration.

Members of Congress, who can also contribute to 401(k) type programs, are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service or at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service.

The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the average annual pension currently received by retired members was $36,732 in 2007. The NTU estimated that Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who was defeated for re-election last November after serving four decades in the Senate, is eligible for an annual pension of about $122,000.

Sepp said a married member of Congress retiring at age 62 after eight years in office would get an initial pension of a little more than $20,000. Rank-and-file lawmakers in 2009 will receive salaries of $169,300. (SF Chronicle)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:19 PM

ea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."

President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.

"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he told ABC News a week ago. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." ...(FOX)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM

Conyers will do everything in his power to bring charges against Bush, Cheney, Rove and others. Conyers is one member of Congress who has earned the respect of the American people and I think he is right in trying. Still, I don't think it would be productive for the country to indict and prosecute these folks.
                On the other hand, I think Ford was right to pardon Nixon, so...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 09:42 PM

CIVIL LIBERTIES -- DEPARTMENTS STILL HAVE NOT INSTITUTED CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTECTIONS: According to federal reports, the "departments of Defense, State, and Health and Human Services have not met legal requirements meant to protect Americans' civil liberties, and a board that's supposed to enforce the mandates has been dormant since 2007," USA Today reports. All three departments failed to comply with a 2007 law requiring them to "appoint civil liberties protection officers and report regularly to Congress on the safeguards they use." The oversight board was originally set up by the Bush White House in 2004, but in 2007, Congress ordered that it be recreated as an independent agency by January 2008. The agency sat vacant. In fact, President Bush didn't nominate a single member until August, eight months after the agency was set up. None were confirmed before Bush's term ended. In the meantime, the Bush White House worked diligently to undermine the board. In May 2007, Lanny Davis, the sole Democrat on the board, resigned in protest after the administration "made more than 200 revisions" to the panel's first report to Congress. President Obama has vowed to give the agency subpoena power, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that departments not following the law will be held accountable.  ..."(The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 07:31 AM

Why did my knees start shaking when I discovered that the fate of my civil liberties were going to be place in the hands of Joe Lieberman?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:38 AM

Early-onset Alzheimer's? I dunno.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:52 PM

Thanks for putting up with the yelling, Karzai tells Bush

ABC News

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has thanked United States President George W Bush for freeing his country from the Taliban, improving the quality of life and for weathering bouts of yelling.

"I have yelled at times, I've been angry at times, but you've always been smiling and generous and that's so nice of you," Mr Karzai told his host at the White House, thanking him for "your patience with me and some of our habits."

Mr Bush, who laughed in response, said "no question it's difficult" to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, but emphasized that he saw much "progress and promise and hope" for the strife-torn country.

Mr Karzai noted that Mr Bush leaves office in January, and told him that Afghanistan is grateful for the 2001 US-led toppling of the Taliban Islamist regime.

Mr Karzai says he will be remembered fondly.

"My trip this time to Washington, as I insisted to be here with you, is for one reason alone, and that is to thank you - and through you the American people - for all that you have done for Afghanistan," he said.

"I would like you to remember, as you leave office, that Afghanistan will remember you tremendously nicely, with affection," he added.

"Come and visit us so we can show it to you in a manner that we do traditionally in Afghanistan."

The two leaders, surrounded by top military and diplomatic aides, spoke after a secure videoconference with US commanders, regional governors, and "provincial reconstruction teams" in Afghanistan.

"This is a central part of a counter-insurgency strategy which combines economic development, education, infrastructure, with security, all aimed to help this young democracy not only survive but to thrive, so it never becomes a safe haven for those who would do us harm again," Mr Bush said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:40 PM

It is so nice how those two boys get along.


The rest of the country, perhaps not so much. In any case, if we ever get the head of Al Qeda holed up at oa Bora again, you can bet we won't be so darned nice next time!!






A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:51 PM

On the "Clinton budget surplus" that GWB reversed:

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic advisers, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure. "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that rocked America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:02 PM

Stiglitz:

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated investment banking from commercial banking, recognized the conflicts of interest that can arise when the two are conflated. But concerns about keeping them separate were put aside after the arrival at the Treasury Department of Robert Rubin, in 1995. The big banks saw getting rid of Glass-Steagall as an opportunity to become even bigger. Treasury argued that scrapping the law was of no consequence, because banks had learned how to circumvent it anyway. (If this had been so, the appropriate response would, obviously, have been to try to limit the circumvention.) Treasury also argued that it could address the conflicts of interest (which it admitted) by constructing barriers between the banks' partsâ€""Chinese walls," they were called. Of course, if such measures had worked, that would have undermined the most cogent argument for eliminating the formal separation in the first place. One cannot simultaneously claim that it is important that banks be integrated, to take advantage of what economists call economies of scope (the benefits that businesses can reap by working in many different areas), and also that it is important for the parts of a bank to be compartmentalized, to avoid any conflicts of interest. In retrospect it is clear that Chinese walls did not workâ€"or did not work well enough to prevent serious problems from arising. For example, banks continued to lend to Enron even as its problems began to surface; the profits the banks made (they got fees for Enron's deals) more than compensated them for the risk in lending.

But Sawzaw, It was the Bush's administration that eased the regulations and caused all this trouble, not Bubba's, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:35 PM

During a short verbal exchange Wednesday at the Ben-Gurion Airport Terminal, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger thanked President George W. Bush for the US's military intervention in Iraq.
Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger.

"I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq," Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi's spokesman.

Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi's words "warmed his heart."

Metzger's stand on the Iraqi war, while reflecting the Israeli majority and Orthodox Jewry, is not shared with most US Jews. The American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, published last year, found that 70 percent of US Jews disapprove of the Iraq war, with 28% backing it.

In a related story, Metzger was chosen as one of the 12 most influential religious figures in the world for a CBS documentary called In God's Name that appeared at the end of December.

Newsweek also devoted a story to the documentary complete with pictures of Metzger and the other religious leaders.

Metzger was chosen along with figures such as the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and heads of the Sikh and Muslim religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:41 PM

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has sent a congratulatory letter to outgoing United States President George W. Bush and thanked him for maintaining close ties with the Philippines, Malacañang said.

Bush will relinquish his post to president-elect Barrack Obama on January 20, after eight years in office over which he increasingly came under fire for the US-led invasion of Iraq and a recession that has spread globally.

"President Arroyo has sent a letter of congratulations to President Bush for the very good relationship we had. Among others, it was mentioned, the support of the US government is providing the Philippines, in the economy, as well as in security," Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said.

Ermita expressed hopes the ties between Manila and Wahsington would remain strong under Obama.

"It has been our experience that the US government is very supportive [of the Philippines] as allies," Ermita said.

Arroyo has supported the US-led war against terrorism, and US forces continue to undertake joint exercises with Filipino troops under her administration.

In a radio interview from Maguindanao province in the south, the President stressed the importance of the joint training and the assistance of US troops in community building projects.

"We've had a long partnership with the Americans, especially on counter-terrorism, especially on training, sharing of intelligence, military exchange, and most importantly, in civic works," she said.

"Together, we build schools, roads, and infrastructure needed to isolate the terrorists," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM

Sawz, please note that the last administration abolished the uptick rule which used to limit short selling by the equal amount of higher trades. Short seling is unbound. Short selling made many CDS and bond insurance bets come true for the investor by ruining a particular business via short sales and rumor.

Look for re establishing the uptick rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM

I have to say that all these warm and fuzzy "thanks so much, loved working with you" propositions from world leaders are, in my opinion, scarcely creditable as actual evidence. They would say the same thing as though they meant it if they were dancing with delight to see the backside for him. This are professional politicians, not known for evidentiary rectitude.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:19 AM

I see.

World leaders are not credible But the babbling you post here from Pinkola Estes and some old bastard that thinks America's oil supply has been cut off and some one horse town in Vermont decides is credible.

And you say I am in the dark. I think you must have been implanted with "various misleading data"

---

"the last administration abolished the uptick rule"

If the uptick rule is so essential, why hasn't the new administration restored it?

On September 18, 2008, Republican presidential candidate and Senator John McCain said that the SEC allowed short-selling to turn "our markets into a casino." Sen. McCain criticized the SEC and its Chairman for eliminating the uptick rule.

    September 19, 2008 CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Republican John McCain, buffeted by criticism about his response to Wall Street's financial problems, said yesterday he would fire the SEC chairman and create a special trust to help strengthen weak institutions.

In all but calling for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, McCain turned on a fellow Republican and former 17-year House member who served on committees overseeing investor protection and U.S. capital markets.

Speaking at a rally in an airplane hangar in Cedar Rapids, McCain said the SEC, the primary regulator of Wall Street, had let "speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino."

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president and, in my view, has betrayed the public trust," McCain said. "If I were president today, I would fire him."

It's not the first time the head of the SEC has drawn McCain's fire. Six years ago McCain called for the firing of Harvey Pitt, Bush's first SEC chairman, after accounting scandals at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. Pitt announced his resignation four months later. Yesterday, Pitt called McCain's remarks "a lot of sound and fury."


So where is the great fixer Obama on this?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:39 AM

Looks like Pitt has been reading Faulkner!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:41 AM

Now he's gone, let's admit Bush did some good

By David Quinn Friday January 23 2009 independent.ie
Poor old George W Bush. Yes, I mean that. We have castigated him as stupid, wicked and incompetent, but he was also unlucky. In fact, one might even be tempted to suggest that his presidency was cursed right from the outset.

Three events in particular blighted his presidency and were outside his control. The first was the circumstance of his election in 2000. It was so incredibly close that whether he or Al Gore finally won the Battle of Florida over those dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads, there was going to be a huge question mark over their legitimacy because both sides accused the other of foul play in the recount.

But Bush won it and, therefore, he began his presidency under a massive cloud which never left him. If Florida hadn't happened, Bush would have begun his term of office with the normal amount of goodwill a new president is accorded by non-partisans. He never received that. Instead, from day one, the left vented its hatred on him, including at his first inauguration. This was the start of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The second event was September 11, which was gestated during the Clinton era. We can criticize Bush till the cows come home about water-boarding and Guantanamo Bay and the invasion of Iraq. Some of these criticisms are justified and the most justified is the criticism of how the occupation of Iraq was conducted. But 9/11 itself wasn't his fault. If it hadn't happened, would he be quite so reviled today?

The third event was Hurricane Katrina. Again, we can criticize him about his handling of the disaster, but the hurricane was an act of God. The chances that it would hit New Orleans and burst the levees were vanishingly remote, but it happened. It was to the start of his second term what Florida was to the start of his first term.

How many presidents can you think of who were hit first by a bitterly contested election result, then by the first attack on American soil since 1941, and, finally, by a natural disaster that wiped out half a city?

If these events hadn't happened, there is a fair chance Bush would have shuffled off the stage of history remembered as a mediocre president, mildly disparaged by many, hated only by the left, but with his own support base more or less intact. There is even a possibility, God forbid, that the stage would not have been set for the election of Barack Obama as the Anti-Bush.

Did Bush do any good at all? Well, yes, actually, he did.

The most uncontroversial action was the huge increase in aid to Africa that occurred under his watch. Even Bono and Bob Geldof acknowledged this. Billions have been poured into treatment programmes for HIV/Aids and millions of lives have been saved.

He was excellent on abortion, whereas Obama is a disaster. Obama is opposed to any restrictions on abortion, including the requirement to notify parents if their teenage daughter is considering an abortion.

He made two excellent appointments to the Supreme Court. He opposed federal funding of embryo stem-cell research, although he allowed research funding on existing embryo stem-cell lines and on adult stem cells. He was accused of being anti-science but the science has since moved his way. Adult stem-cell research has shown itself to be far more promising than embryo stem-cell research.

His war on terror did yield some dividends. First and foremost, there have been no further attacks on America. That is no mean feat. Libya gave up its nuclear programme. Pakistan gave up the scientist who was selling nuclear secrets to countries like North Korea. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for al-Qa'ida. Saddam Hussein is no more, although the debate continues as to whether the war in Iraq was worth this.

The surge worked, and he was one of the very few who supported it. Barack Obama opposed it. John McCain, to his credit, also supported it.

People who worked closely with Bush spoke of his essential decency. Some of his former colleagues questioned his competence and intellect, although often for self-serving reasons. But few questioned his decency. We all know the black marks against him. They have been repeated ad nauseam these eight long years. But he wasn't all bad. He did some good. And if you're not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome yourself, you might even agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 11:43 AM

I doubt it. For one thing all these things thwe writer says he was "excellent" at are pure opinion, and I am pretty sure there is no standing to those opinions except witht hose already agreeing with them.

I don't think he was excellent on abortion, or any scientific issue, for example.

I think he was a disaster.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Feb 09 - 08:48 AM

The US is going to be crippled with his Supeme Court appointment for generations. We're expected to think that's a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 09 - 10:10 PM

Via CNN:

"A huge sculpture of the footwear hurled at President Bush in December during a trip to Iraq has been unveiled in a ceremony at the Tikrit Orphanage complex.

Assisted by children at the home, sculptor Laith al-Amiri erected a brown replica of one of the shoes hurled at Bush and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by journalist Muntadhir al-Zaidi during a press conference in Baghdad.

Still awaiting his trial, Al-Zaidi's protest and the sculpture it inspired have marked what could be seen as the perfect symbolic closure to the United States' invasion of Iraq. What began with the toppling of an enormous likeness of Saddam Hussein--and its subsequent shoe drubbing--ended with a sculpture of the shoe aimed at the head of the man who largely responsible for leveling Hussein's bronze.

(Photo: A Journalist's Outburst

Evan Vucci, AP8 photos   
Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi hurls a shoe at President George W. Bush during a news conference Dec. 14 in Baghdad. He has been in custody since then, and a lawyer who claims to represent al-Zeidi said Monday the reporter will seek political asylum in Switzerland because "he is in danger" in Iraq.)

But why are these Iraqis so ungrateful to our former president given that the tyrant who led them, Saddam Hussein, has been deposed and executed? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that 5.1 million Iraqis were displaced by the war and the sectarian violence that ensued. According to the International Organization for Migration, that figure represents the largest human relocation in modern times.

Consider, too, the mind-boggling number of orphans caused by the war. The Iraqi Government estimates that the conflict has left 5 million children without parents.

Given these hard realities, perhaps a shoe-sculpture can be viewed as a civilized reaction to the legacy of Mr. Bush."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: soulkat9
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:19 AM

Yeah I miss seeing that confused look on his face

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:43 PM

Amos would prefer another statue of Saddam in front of another Saddam castle. The shoe is a symbol of the democracy that has taken hold.

Dear President Bush:   
    Thank you for all you have done to protect me from terrorism. It has been seven years since I was attacked and some of my friends were killed. I am truly grateful for the way you have handled one of the most profound crises my country has ever faced. As commander-in-chief, I could not have felt more secure with anyone other than you at the helm. Thank you for being a man of integrity and an inspirational leader. May God bless you.

Signed
1 Catherine Emanuele
2 Theresa A. DeChiaro
3 Enrico DeChiaro
4 Rich Mueller
5 Chrissy Leonard
6 Steven Tacopino
7 Peter Major
8 Jessica Iannotta
9 Barbara Major
10 M Serviss
11 Tom Z
12 Tom D
13 Dana Major
14 Kristin DeChiaro
15 alyssa
16 Chris Decker
17 Jessica Newman
18 Anne Arundel Community College
19 Anonymous
20 Taylor Eversole
21 Crystal Sutton
22 David Wadzinski .........

6088 Shirley Loose Thank You Mr. President for a job well done.         
6089 Jeannine & Vince Summers         We admire your courage to always stand strong no matter how you were ridiculed for the way you led our country. You made us proud to be american citizens. We wish we could have you for eight more years!         
6090 Felix M Chmiel         Thank you. You did what all great leaders would do in times like these.         
6091 LORRAINE PASSALACQUA         THANK YOU FOR YOUR EIGHT YEARS OF CONTINUED UNYIELDING SERVICE AND WONDERFUL LEADERSHIP.   GOD BLESS YOU AND MRS. BUSH         
6092 Connie Agree         THANK YOU for serving our nation and keeping us safe. I will always keep you in my prayers; you were a good man & president!         
6093 Desmond van Eyssen         Thank you for being a man of God. I thank the Lord for your integrity and leadership.         
6094 Tim         Mr. President         
6095 Ursulla Carter         God bless you!! Thank you for everything!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:49 PM

Sigh.

Your insults are just as off the mark as your reports, Sawz.

Take up the study of logic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 10:32 AM

Good Work, No Pay
By Kathleen Parker
Friday, February 6, 2009; 12:00 AM

So many MBAs, so few jobs.

Despite daily reports of laid-off executives, all is not dark -- if you're the patient sort of investor.

There is, in fact, a lot of work for MBAs. It just doesn't pay very well. Actually, it doesn't pay at all, but that's a minor detail in the grand scheme. Job requirements are as follows: professional business experience, valid passport, commitment to volunteerism, adventurous spirit, flexibility and ... a sense of humor.

If you're thinking you might find yourself in some remote hollow of, say, South Sudan or Kyrgyzstan, you might be right. But you'd be helping save the world, so hang tight.

At this moment, volunteer MBAs are deployed in 15 countries, putting their skills to work helping small and medium-sized businesses get up and running. They're all part of the MBA Enterprise Corps, a division of the Citizens Development Corps (CDC), a quietly efficient operation begun 19 years ago by the first President George Bush.

The Berlin Wall had come down, European communism was dead, and Americans wanted to help. So many were calling the White House offering their services that Bush 41 decided to create a mechanism for funneling all that helpful American energy. Voila: The CDC was born.


What began as a vehicle for volunteers aimed at economic development has evolved into a highly successful economic development entity that uses volunteers.

The CDC has had programs in 50 countries on four continents, from Angola to Ukraine. With an annual budget of $6 million and a database of 7,500 volunteers, the CDC trains local businessmen and women and then brokers employment and consulting contracts between locals and multinational corporations.

It's one of those rare win-win-win arrangements: Corporations get local contracts that are faster and less costly than outside services would be; locals get training and jobs; friendships and mutual respect build bridges across cultures and nations.

A round of applause would be appropriate here.

Or, how about a Nobel Peace Prize to the United States for helping achieve the success story that is Central Europe? That's the modest proposal of Michael Levett, president and CEO of the citizen corps and an unlikely champion of anyone with the surname Bush.

A self-described liberal Democrat, Levett came to the CDC in 1994, intending to stay for just one year. Sitting in his K Street office today, he is surrounded by movie posters -- "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Return of the Jedi" and "Dune" -- from an earlier incarnation as vice president of Lucasfilm and Dino DeLaurentiis Corp. He sports a beard he grew to help blend in while in Baghdad and doesn't mind that he can pass for a local when work takes him to some of the world's dicier neighborhoods.

Levett says his longevity on the job is owing to one thing: Gratifying work. The allure of helping build democracies and growing free markets during a time of historic transformation can't be overrated.

Most who enter the MBA Enterprise Corps don't just stumble upon it, but choose the volunteer path early in their studies as a way to gain experience and build a resume. Even so, getting selected isn't easy.

Vetting includes an assessment of motivation, commitment and the ability to adapt to challenging living and business environments. Previous volunteers have included Goldman Sachs analysts in South Sudan, Bank of America employees in Ghana, and McKinsey consultants in India.

A list of accomplishments would be too long for this space, but herewith a few highlights:

-- IBM, with 400,000 employees worldwide, recently selected the CDC to implement a volunteer program.

-- South Sudan tapped three MBAs deployed there to develop that area's first census.

-- MBAs from the CDC provided training to the Bank of China.

-- In Angola, a CDC-trained company captured a $35 million contract with a multinational oil company.

I hear ya. What about us? Indeed.

As our government bails out banks, insurance companies and car manufacturers -- while the proposed stimulus package promises a trillion-plus more debt -- it's hard to applaud outsourcing our talents to countries that in some cases have already consumed our jobs.

That is the short view.

The longer view suggests that our own economic recovery depends in part on the financial success of emerging nations. While we await our own bounce, it can't hurt to help others. It also might not hurt to send some of those MBAs to aid our own ailing towns and cities.

Detroit, anyone? Applicants must be flexible. Sense of humor absolutely necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

Thank You, President Bush

As the sun sets on the Bush presidency, it is important to honor the man who answered the call to public service, provided us leadership in a time of great consequence, and held his office with dignity and courage. The Heritage Foundation sometimes disagreed with President George W. Bush on policy, but never on our love for our nation. President Bush strove for innovative solutions to America's dilemmas, just as we do. He looked across this nation and saw the answers to most problems were in the hearts of great Americans, not the heart of the national government.
When President Bush spoke at Heritage on Nov. 1, 2007, he said: "The lessons of the past have taught us that liberty is transformative. And I believe 50 years from now an American President will be speaking to Heritage and say, `Thank God that generation that wrote the first chapter in the 21st century understood the power of freedom to bring the peace we want.' "
President Bush put a large stake in the freedom and liberty of others. He ultimately will be judged at the lofty level of how many people were granted these eternal rights, and how many seized the opportunities he afforded them.
Today, we simply ask that blessings abound for President and Mrs. Bush in the next chapter of their lives together. As he leaves office, our homeland is secure, Americans are inspired and the greatness of our country once again is on display to the world. Thank you.
   
January 16, 2009 Ron Lewis, Maj. USAF Ret., Manning, SC writes:
Thank you for staying the course and allowing us to fight the fight.

January 16, 2009 The Garvin Family, Ventura, CA writes:
We do thank you soooo much President Bush for all you've done for our great and GOD-given freedoms and country. You were way more moderate than we were hoping for and you didn't seem to get that even your best democrat "friends" would do all they could to destroy you as a Republican president; but we know you truly love America and did your best. Please learn from this experience and realize you don't have any democrat "friends" and your choice to try to set a "new tone" with them had no way of succeeding. We pray for GOD's blessings on you and yours.

January 16, 2009 martha siegfried, hudson, wi writes:
President Bush does indeed deserve our thanks! He has endured unprecedented media bias (this coming from a Communcation undergrad. and Communication Disorders M.A.)in doing what he knew to be right for this country. He went with the best information at the time and formulated an appropriate response to 9/11 and all other aggression from that region that previously had been left unanswered. His strong defense of America has been the greatest factor in us remaining safe since 9/11. His efforts to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were thwarted by Democrats primarily but show that he knew of, and tried to avert the financial abyss we now find ourselves in. Thank you, President Bush!

January 16, 2009 MORRILL SWAN/SACO, MAINE writes:
THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH FOR PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY. THANK YOU FOR THE TAX CUTS. THANK YYOU FOR YOUR HONESTY AND INTEGRATY. WE WISH YOU THE BEST OF EVERYTHING.

January 16, 2009 Lucia B. Caetano, MA writes:
Thank you President Bush for keeping us safe. Thank you for being strong in face of so much negative press, here and abroad. I wish you and yours the best that life has to offer.
The same goes to the Vice President and his family.
Lucia Caetano

January 16, 2009 Terry R Beard Ft Myers Fla writes:
Thank You Mr President for all you have done for our Country. My family and I will miss you very much and as always you and your family will be in our prayers.
The only thing I can say now, I feel as I am in the battlefield without a Commander. I am sorry to say that I can not recognize this man as our Commander-in-Chief. As a patriot ,(which I consider myself to be) I recognize The Holy Bible, The Constitution, & the UCMJ. Best of luck to you and your family and stay safe.
Thanks again for the last eight years.
Sincerely,TR Beard..........Part of 668 thank yous

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 02:02 PM

Shame how the KoolAid market has fallen since the Inauguration, Sawz.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 09 - 11:06 PM

The George W.  Bush Presidential Library is now in the
planning stages and accepting donations.
The Library will include:
 The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which has not yet been located.
The National Debt Room, which is the largest room and has no ceiling.
The Tax Cut Room, with entry only to the wealthy.
The Economy Room, which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room.  After you complete your  first visit, visitors are sent back for a second, third,
fourth, and sometimes fifth visits. 
The Dick Cheney Room, in an undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.
The Environmental Conservation Room which is completely empty.
The Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The Decider Room, complete with the presidential dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
The library will feature a high powered electron microscope to help you locate and view the President's
accomplishments.
 
The library will also include many famous quotes by George W.  Bush including:
'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'
'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of  failure.'
'Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.'
'No senior citizen should ever have to choose between prescription drugs and medicine.'
' I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy but that could
change.'
'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to
be prepared'.'
' Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.'
' I have made good judgments in the past.  I have made good judgments in the future.'
' The future will be better tomorrow.'
' We're have the best educated American people in the world.'
' One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.'
'  Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.'
'  We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'
'  It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the impurities in our air and
water that are doing it.'
 '  I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'
 
PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY!
 
Sincerely, Jack Abramoff,
 Co-Chair G.W. Bush Library Board of Directors

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Feb 09 - 03:13 PM

Amos:

Strangely, while looking through this list of the G.W. Bush Library Board of Directors, I don't see Jack's name.

Could this be more of the "truth" That you are bringing to us?

Brent Scowcroft II
James W. Cicconi
Terri Lacy
Thomas Ludlow Ashley
Jeb Bush
Andrew H. Card, Jr.
Lodwrick M. Cook
Robert B. Holt
John H. Lindsey
Frederick D. McClure

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Feb 09 - 11:17 AM

Bush denied clemency for some high-profile figures
Cunningham, Milken, Lindh among those whose petitions were rejected

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush, on his last full day in office, formally struck down the petitions for clemency of some high-profile politicians and businessmen, including convicted lawmakers Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Edwin Edwards and Mario Biaggi, and "junk bond" financier Michael Milken, the Justice Department said today.The chief of the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney, Ronald Rodgers confirmed the denials through a spokeswoman, in response to queries from the Tribune Washington Bureau.

The Justice Department said Bush also denied petitions for clemency for two men who became highly polarizing symbols of their eras. One of them was John Walker Lindh, the young American serving 20 years in prison for aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan at a time when it was fighting U.S. military forces just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.Bush also denied one of the longest-standing petitions for clemency, for Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murder of two FBI agents during a 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. His application had been under consideration since 1993, current and former Justice Department officials said.

Such denials can be a serious setback for those intent on clemency. After a denial, a petitioner must wait two years to reapply for a pardon and one year for a commutation of a prison sentence, although they can also circumvent the Justice Department and appeal directly to the White House whenever they want. In some cases, a presidential denial can be a setback in other ways, as well, and make it harder politically for the next administration to approve it, according to several current and former administration officials involved in the pardon process.Bush, who has not spoken publicly about the denials, did not make formal rulings on some other well-known figures, leaving their petitions alive. That long list includes former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, then-Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, U.S. Navy spy for Israel Jonathan Pollard, media mogul Conrad Black and telecommunications executives Bernard Ebbers and John Rigas.

Bush also denied clemency last Dec. 23 for Justin Volpe, the New York City police officer convicted of sodomizing Haiti immigrant Abner Louima with a broomstick, Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said today. Many advocates for those denied clemency had forcefully lobbied the Justice Department and White House, arguing that their prison sentences -- and the underlying charges -- were unfair in comparison to others accused of similar wrongdoings, especially when various forms of good behavior were factored in. Some said those seeking clemency were victims of political scapegoating. Bush historically has been stingy in his issuing of pardons and prison commutations, issuing far fewer than many other presidents in recent history. During the Bush administration, 2,498 pardon and 8,573 commutation applications were submitted, Rodgers said today. Bush granted 189 pardons and 11 commutations, and denied 1,729 pardon applications and 7,498 commutation applications. Additionally, 464 pardon applications and 2,222 commutation applications were closed administratively without presidential action, Rodgers said.

For the most part, Bush granted pardons and commutations to obscure federal offenders and not high-profile, politically connected applicants, as was the case with President Bill Clinton and some other previous presidents. He did shorten the sentences of two former U.S. border patrol guards involved in a controversial shooting of a drug smuggler coming across the Mexican border. "He seems to go out of his way to deny the high rollers, the prominent people," one U.S. official familiar with the pardon denial list said of Bush. Clinton created a storm of controversy over some clemency grants that continues to this day, in part because Attorney General-nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. played a role in some as deputy attorney general. Bush's formal denial of clemency for the high-profile applicants raised questions about why he didn't simply pass them along to the Obama administration as he did with so many others, some current and former Justice Department officials said.

Many past presidents also have simply passed along such political hot potatoes on their way out of office, leaving the potentially controversial petitions for their successors to grapple with. The Justice Department declined to comment on any details of the cases. The White House had no comment, before the inauguration, on who might be granted clemency, or why. After Bush issued a pardon to Isaac R. Toussie, a 36-year-old New York developer who pleaded guilty in 2001 to making false statements in a Long Island mortgage fraud case, critics said he did so because Toussie was represented by former associate White House counsel Bradford Berenson. After information surfaced that Toussie's application bypassed the Justice Department and that his father was a major donor to Republican causes, Bush took the unprecedented step of trying to revoke the pardon.

But Bush said he was "very proud" of not issuing pardons to the politically well-connected, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's Larry King. "He said people who have gotten pardons are usually people who have influence or know friends in high places," a route that is "not available to ordinary people," Pelosi said, recounting an Inauguration Day conversation with the president. "He thought that there was more access for some than others and he was not going to do any." The pardon power was created to allow the president to redress injustices that the judicial system is unable to remedy or for other reasons, such as Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters in an effort to restore domestic tranquility. Read More