 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 04 - 08:05 PM And me, Big Guy... 751... And Happy New Year to both of you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 31 Dec 04 - 08:32 PM Hangin' in. Happy New Year to all three of you! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 06:59 PM Miracles Are Unlikely in Bush's Middle East Gospel by Charles V. Peña Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. A week after the U.S. presidential election, Secretary of State Colin Powell - often considered the moderate and realist in the Bush administration's first term - defended President George W. Bush's foreign policy record and said he "is not going to ... trim his sails or pull back. It's going to be a continuation of his principles, his policies, his beliefs." At the beginning of December, in Canada, Bush declared that the election was an endorsement of his foreign policy, especially the doctrine of preemption against gathering threats. He also reiterated his vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East. So what should we expect there during the next four years? In Iraq, more than 18 months have passed since Bush declared "mission accomplished," but the conflict is still unfinished business. Re-taking Fallujah in November was more about real estate than realizing military or political-strategic objectives. Public enemy number one in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was not captured or killed. And it would seem that the vast majority of the 5,000-6,000 insurgents alleged to be in Fallujah simply ran away to fight another day. Indeed, even as victory was being declared, insurgents struck in Mosul and Samarra. More recently, there were back-to-back suicide bombings inside Baghdad's Green Zone. Iraq has come to resemble the arcade game Whack-A-Mole, where every time you hit a mole as it pops out of a hole another one pops up out of a different hole. Despite the inability of the American military to put down the insurgency, the Iraqi elections in January are still likely to take place. In fact, the U.S. has almost no choice but to hold elections - even if many Sunnis boycott them and if some segments of the population are unable to vote because of the violence. If elections are not held as promised, the majority Shiites will have every reason to more actively oppose the U.S. occupation and the interim Iraqi government, this time also using violence. Of course, elections are no guarantee of peace and stability either. Excerpted from The Cato Institute. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 07:09 PM Some commentary on the Administration from -- of all papers -- the Quad City Times: Bush administration creates its own reality and leaves ours behind |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 07:15 PM Predictions for George Bush's Second Term (Excerpted from One Thousand Reasons) Predictions are rarely accurate, but sometimes history gives us such a clear indication of the future that predictions rise to the level of fate. Such is the case with the second term of George Bush. Now that he claims all that "political capital," he will surely try to spend it, and this is where we expect him to shop: Social Security. He tipped his hand on this one as soon as the election was over, so this is not even a prediction. Bush will do his best to dismantle it, taking away the guaranteed payments most of us have worked a lifetime for, substituting a gambler's nightmare called privatization. Given the choice, he would simply do away with Social Security -- as part of the New Deal, it represents the kind of government hard-core (and hard-right) conservatives loathe -- but his thin "mandate" failed to deliver enough "capital" for a complete dismantling. He and his kind will take what they can get, which means extra profits for investment bankers, insurance executives, and Wall Street, while the rest of us hand over a portion of our paycheck to be entrusted to private investments. War: We don't expect him to start another one, but the sound of his saber will be heard worldwide. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan continues at a slow boil, and Iraq is spinning out of control, not toward democracy, but toward chaos. Bush will likely send more troops, construct more bases, spend tens of billions more than he claimed, and continue the occupation while claiming that Iraq is now "free." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 07:22 PM S simple but sincere web-site editor named Huck whose website is called "What the Huck", offers some thoughts on the two waves of death we have recently endured: "A Tsunami hit Asia like George Bush on steroids. The Tsunami killed over 52,000 in one swoop. The George Bush Tsunami of lies has resulted in 1,326 American deaths. Which Tsunami is worse? The George Bush Tsunami that was a cold calculated lie for political and economical gains. Or the Tsunami which hits without warning that is a random act of nature. When you take a look at George Bush and what he did regarding Iraq as it relates to the Tsunami of life. Maybe George Bush is just a destructive Tsunami of life that we can't control as it causes great destruction to anything or anyone that crosses his path. As we approach the New Year I can't stop thinking of those Americans that continue to die in Iraq for the lies of George W. Bush. As we approach the New Year I can't help but think how hard these holidays have to be on the families that lost their loved ones because of the Tsunami like lies, political agendas, and economic reasons George W. Bush used to initiate this war in Iraq. I literally grind my teeth when I see an image of George Bush as I remember the lies he told that have resulted in families losing people they cared about. It seems the more I think about it, the more frustrated I become. Every day that another American life is reported lost I reflect on what resulted in their life being lost. It always comes back to one person, George W. Bush. Yes, one Tsunami was an act of nature that killed over 52,000 people with our warning. But the Tsunami-like act of George W. Bush who intentionally lied about the facts that resulted in the avoidable deaths of 1,326 Americans is far worse. Click here for your " Ask Huck " comments or questions. Current Number of Americans Killed or Wounded In Iraq. Number of Dead is 1,326. Number of Wounded is 9,981. I know that talking about this is not going to bring back the 1,326 American Lives lost to date. I know complaining about this won't change the election or anything else George Bush has done to date. Worst of all I now realize that no matter what you or I say, as Americans, is not going to prevent George Bush from doing what ever he pleases regardless of the consequences or continued loss of American lives. The reason is, George W. Bush doesn't care about anyone except George Bush, and the rich that his entire presidency and agenda has been based upon. The truth of the matter is you and I don't matter to George Bush. The only things that matter to George W. Bush are those that none of us will ever relate to. Yes President Bush is like an out of control Tsunami. For the next four years we can only sit back and wait for the next Bush Tsunami to rise up, hit, and destroy more of the fabric this country was built upon. With every day that passes. With every American Life that is lost in Iraq. I look at George Bush and ask why. Why would anyone who really cared about this country do everything they could to destroy it. Why would George Bush allow any American to be killed based on the lies he told you and the world. How can half of this country still sit back and support a man that, if you're going to be honest with yourself, lied to you for the sole benefit of a very small group of his friends and family. It's not lost on me what this was all about from the very beginning. I remember back when the polls showed that approximately 10% of you were against going to war in Iraq. That meant that 90% of America supported going to war in Iraq based on the lies of George W. Bush. Now a couple of years later it's fewer than 50% of America that supports this war in Iraq. But at the same time the lies and manipulation by George Bush and the Bush Administration of the American People continues. At what point do you admit that George Bush is wrong, he lied, and those dying in Iraq needs to stop today. Is it going to take someone in each and every one of your families to be killed in Iraq before you can relate to the needless and senseless deaths of Americans as a result of George Bush's actions? Is it because for most of you that continue to support this war the dead are nothing but numbers you read in the papers and don't have any affect on you. What would your opinion be of this war if it was your son, daughter, mother, or father who wasn't there to pick up your call next time because they were killed in Iraq as the result of a war based on lies? It's always easy to go with the flow and not question the answers in life. Less friction results in limited resistance. At what point to you stop taking the "me" approach, and start taking the "we" as a country approach. Do you need to wait until it's too late and someone you care about is among the dead? I personally refuse to let George Bush or anyone else intimidate me into supporting what I know is wrong. This doesn't begin or end with the war in Iraq either. The problem with George Bush goes well beyond that. It has to do with the environment, Social Security, tax cuts, healthcare, and a host of other issues that directly affect you. I hope if nothing else you learn from your mistakes. I hope you learned that George Bush is not the person to trust and that he doesn't care for you beyond your vote. I hope you realize that things are going to have to change in this country before it's too late, otherwise your next home might have four cardboard walls and flaps on each end. Learn from history. Learn from our mistakes. But most of all take a hard look at what your life has deteriorated into since George W. Bush has become president. Now you tell me how Americans died needlessly in wars based on lies before President Bush took office. Was your life and economic standing better before 2000 or after? Do you really see anything positive happening for you in the next four years? Don't you think it's time to start caring again? You know you really can make a difference if you try. But if you don't try, then George Bush and his rich friends will win. And in the end that means you lose. It starts in 2006 when YOU vote Republican control of the House and Senate out. If not, it won't be getting any better for you. That's not a Tsunami like George Bush lie. That's the truth. Ask Huck Ask Huck can be found on the s5000 home page next to the What The Huck article. If you have any questions or comments about s5000 just click on the Ask Huck link and fill out the form. Ask Huck questions and comments will be responded to in upcoming What The Huck articles. s5000 provides the What The Huck articles as part of its many features. So if you have any Ask Huck questions or comments go to the s5000 homepage and click on the link next to What the Huck. s5000 will also publish photos of interest in the What The Huck article that you can upload through the Ask Huck link. By using the Ask Huck link on the s5000 home page you can have your responses featured in a future What The Huck article. Iraq No additional American lives were reported lost as of Tuesday. The number of reported wounded soldiers has remained the same. We wish that every day in Iraq ended with no additional losses or wounded. The current total dead Americans killed in Iraq remained at 1,326. The total number of wounded reported remained at 9,981. Why have so many died for the Bush lies? Don't just make a difference, Be The Difference. ~ Huck" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 07:53 PM Price of Bush Inauguration Party Is Too Rich for Some By GLEN JUSTICE Published: December 31, 2004 in the New York Times WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 - Planners for President Bush's inauguration next month have scheduled a full lineup of exclusive parties and receptions for top Republican fund-raisers. But some of those V.I.P.'s say the perks come with a price tag they cannot afford. Attending the entire slate of events during the three days of inauguration festivities could easily top $10,000 in tickets and other expenses for a fund-raiser bringing a spouse or guest. Some who helped bankroll the president's campaign, particularly young fund-raisers or those participating for the first time, are looking for ways to economize or are just planning to skip official events entirely. ...The inauguration package being offered to top Bush and Republican Party fund-raisers asks for up to $2,500 per person, though both the fee and the events vary depending on how much people raised, according to a Web page run by LogiCom Project Management, the company handling the events and travel arrangements. The money covers admission to the Jan. 20 swearing-in, the parade, a black-tie ball and special events in Washington landmarks like the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, the Willard InterContinental Hotel and the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Another $2,500 per person is required for admission to one of three candlelight dinners at which the president and vice president will appear the evening before the inauguration. And, of course, there are airfare, hotel and other travel expenses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 07:59 PM From the Politics1 Weblog: "Contrast these two news stories: (1) The US has pledged $35 million in cash relief for the tsunami ravaged nations. (2) The AP reported this item. "Planned are nine official [inaugural] balls, a youth concert, a parade, a fireworks display and, of course, Bush's second swearing-in ceremony at noon on Jan. 20. The cost will be between $30 million and $40 million, an amount that does not include expenses for security." Do the math: $35 million for humanitarian assistance to a catastrophe that killed over 130,000 people and left over one million people homeless ... and $40 million for a party for rich folks in DC. Good thing to see we've got our priorities right as a "compassionate conservative" nation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 08:12 PM From the New York Review of Books, discussing the writing of Stephen Flynn in America the Vulnerable, Harper Collins, 234 pp In America the Vulnerable, it is not just the movements of American commercial goods that are vulnerable; the Bush administration has failed to safeguard the democratic system, which is its most precious and fragile charge. On one hand, it jiggers with the color-coded alert system, rigs cities with spy cameras, and speaks darkly of secret intelligence that more often than not turns out to have been no real intelligence at all. On the other, it assures us that we are safe in its hands, and that, in Flynn's words, "our marching orders as citizens are to keep shopping and traveling." Government is most to be feared when it treats its people as babies, the way the administration does now. Flynn is no alarmist. His writing is even-toned to a fault, his manner still that of the unflappable captain on the bridge of the Coast Guard patrol ship, but his warning is explicit: if the war on terror continues to be waged in its present form, it's likely to put democracy itself in peril. The secretive, top-down, us-versus-them culture that is pervasive in government security circles must give way to more inclusive processes.... Rather than working assiduously to keep the details of terrorism and our vulnerabilities out of the public domain, the federal government should adopt a new imperative that recognizes that Americans have to be far better informed about the dangers that they face.... How much security is enough? We have done enough when the American people can conclude that a future attack on US soil will be an exceptional event that does not require wholesale changes to how we go about our lives.... We must continue to remind the world that it is not military might that is the source of our strength but our belief that mankind can govern itself in such a way as to secure the blessings of liberty. These are temperate, wise, and practical thoughts. What is potentially to be feared more, even, than the prospect of another major attack of 9/11 proportions or worse is that, in the second Bush administration now beginning, voices like Flynn's will go unheard, while those of such intemperate terror warriors as Podhoretz and Pipes will be listened to with a respectful attention they in no way deserve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 08:36 PM Excerpted from an editorial in the Los Angeles Time entitled Washington Outlook |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 05 - 08:43 PM On 9/11 Bush had a choice to make. Protrect America or protect the priviledged... Everything he has done we later see has done nuthing but take resources from the working class and divert them to the rich... That's why 9/11 looks so fishy to me... Especially the invasion of Iraq... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 08:51 PM Rep Henry Waxman maintains a website providing some oversight of the state of science under the current administration. Here's a link: Politics and Science. A rather unsettling post appeared there today: Saturday, January 1, 2005 HHS Restricts Communications between U.S. Scientists and WHO Officials A new HHS policy requires the World Health Organization to submit all requests for expert scientific advice to political officials at HHS who pick which federal scientists will be permitted to respond. The new policy and two recent Administration decisions to withdraw federal scientists from major international health conferences are part of a disturbing pattern of political interference in global health issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 09:33 PM On Native Ground A DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN CREATED THE SOCIAL SECURITY 'CRISIS' by Randolph T. Holhut American Reporter Correspondent Dummerston, Vt. DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- I look at how the Bush administration is trying to manufacture a Social Security "crisis," and it looks much like what was done to manufacture the rationale for invading Iraq. Certainly the steps are the same. Invent a crisis where none currently exists. State only the information (real or not) that benefits your argument, and repeat it often. Ignore all information that might undermine your argument and attack anyone who might disagree. Then, after convincing everyone that there is a crisis and marginalizing your opponents, you come up with the solution to the crisis you manufactured. Through constant repetition and taking full advantage of the limitations of journalism's objectivity fetish, the Bush administration can bend reality to fit its policy schemes. As journalism is now practiced, to state the facts is considered an act of bias. In the case of the Iraq war, even though there was abundant evidence that the Bush administration was overstating its case at best and flat-out lying at worst, the cult of objectivity required giving the Bush administration's lies as much weight (and often times, more weight) as the opposing views. Pointing out discrepancies between the facts and the spin is sacrificed in the name of balance. The Social Security debate has followed the same path. News reports dutifully repeat the claim that the program will go bankrupt in 2042. The reality is that, if nothing is done, Social Security will be taking in more revenue than it pays out until 2018. After 2018, current obligations can be met until 2042. After 2042, there would still be enough money to pay at least 73 percent of benefits. These figures aren't wishful thinking from a liberal think tank, they are the government's own calculations. Excerpted from The American Reporter. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 09:55 PM From the same magazine: On Native Ground HOW FUNDAMENTALISM FAILS AMERICA by Randolph T. Holhut American Reporter Correspondent Dummerston, Vt. DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Can a country where more people believe in the Devil than in evolution maintain its leadership in the sciences? That's a question that David Baltimore, Nobel laureate and president of the California Institute of Technology, asked in a recent op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. Baltimore believes that "Asia has the potential to blow us out of the water" because their scientists and engineers "are as good as ours, as imaginative as ours - they work longer hours and are more dedicated." The numbers bear him out. India's colleges and universities are turning out more than 40,000 computer science graduates each year, and the enrollments in those programs are rising while U.S. colleges struggle to fill their science programs. And China produces more 325,000 engineers each year, or five times more than the United States. By contrast, Baltimore wrote that our nation has a "lack of federal leadership in funding schooling that emphasizes math and science" with a "fragmented educational system that leaves much to local control" and an attitude of "general anti-intellectualism." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM Two stories from Bush Watch for January BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT: BUSH PLANS TO LEAVE WOMEN BEHIND BY ELIMINATING THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS TO ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS "Colleges and universities would be allowed to limit the number of scholarships awarded to female athletes without regard to enrollment under the most controversial recommendation being considered by a national commission studying reform of Title IX, the landmark law that bans sex discrimination in collegiate sports....The proposals, obtained by The Washington Post, are the first indication of the Bush administration's plans for changing Title IX, which is widely credited with increasing female participation in collegiate sports over the past three decades. " 01.24.03 wp | related stories WAG THE BUSH Someone went to great lengths to ensure the backdrop for President Bush's sales pitch Wednesday on his economic stimulus plan sent all the right messages -- and none of the wrong. Bush delivered his remarks from a warehouse floor at JS Logistics, a trucking, courier and warehouse business that provided a visual image for his argument that his proposal carries economy-boosting benefits for small businesses. The audience was flanked on all sides by piles of cardboard boxes -- with additional piles in front of and behind his podium. Each one of the hundreds of boxes had a piece of paper obscuring its "Made in China" label....A backdrop made-to-order for the White House filled the space directly behind Bush, which is most likely to show up on TV news clips of the event. Blaring a logo of "Strengthening America's Economy," it exactly mimicked the real-life box piles, down to perfectly aligned shelves. Except the boxes on the backdrop were labeled, "Made in the USA." --AP, 01.22.03 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 05 - 10:35 PM Coal Position Bush admin isn't putting money where its mouth is on "clean coal" By Amanda Griscom Little writing in GRIST magazine When pressed on climate change, the Bush administration is fond of citing "clean coal" technology as the wave of the energy future. Even some enviros are starting to grudgingly acknowledge the technology's potential for good. Coal: Can you dig it? But all Bush's talk doesn't appear to be translating into the funding needed to really get clean coal rolling. Given that coal accounts for a whopping 50 percent of U.S. electricity production, it can't realistically be phased out overnight -- or even in the next half-century -- which means that transition technologies are critical. Such technologies are in development, and they could make coal-powered generation almost completely smog-free and easily conducive to capturing and storing carbon-dioxide emissions. The business community, for its part, is atwitter with excitement over clean-coal developments, particularly given the rising prices of oil and natural gas. Last month, The New York Times published a cover story in its business section titled "Fuel of the Future? Some Say Coal," reporting a huge increase in coal-generation investments. Likewise, a leading business newsletter, Platts, published a report last week on the ballooning demand for clean-coal facilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 05 - 10:58 AM Could some kind clone close the HREF container in the above post right after the word "magazine"?? Thanks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: DougR Date: 03 Jan 05 - 12:18 AM Alright Mudcatters, time to fess up. Is anyone actually reading all the crap Amos is posting on this thread? Be truthful now, or your nose will begin growing! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Metchosin Date: 03 Jan 05 - 12:31 AM yes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Ellenpoly Date: 03 Jan 05 - 05:32 AM I read this all the time. I also copy and send a lot of it to friends. It is a GREAT thread, and I only hope that nothing and NO ONE ever puts off Amos from continuing it. Happy New Year, Amos. ..xx..e |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 08:13 AM Perhaps you are out of touch, Doug R! Thanks, EllenP!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 05 - 08:33 AM Okay, maybe not all of it... But I scan it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: DougR Date: 03 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM Perhaps I am Amos. It appears you have one avid reader, and one scanner. Impressive. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Metchosin Date: 03 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM TWO avid readers, one scanner and one who doesn't even have the ability to scan a thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 03 Jan 05 - 01:46 PM I read it, or at least scan it. I don't post to it hardly because I look on it as an information source and I imagine others do too. Amos always gives his sources. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 05:46 PM Bush administration unveils 2005 pay raise By Tanya N. Ballard tballard@govexec.com President Bush issued an executive order Thursday evening formally implementing a 3.5 percent average pay raise in 2005 for General Schedule employees. The pay increase, which will take effect on Jan. 9, will be divided between a 2.5 percent base pay increase for all employees and an average 1 percent locality pay adjustment that varies according to where employees work. From http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1204/123004t1.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 05 - 06:28 PM In defense of this thread, Bushites. Would you rather have one place for them our have 15 or 20 threads going at any given time about yet another Bush administaration screw up? Count your blessings... Amos oughtta take a Bush screw up a day and throw it out there... Heck, that alone would keep him busy for a life time... Like I said, count yer blessing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 03 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM Definitely. I'm doing pretty much what Ellen is doing (read, copy, send to friends, etc), so it's not just the people checking in here who are reading this. It's getting around. I think that's Amos's point. Amos is providing a service, for which I thank him wholeheartedly. Mid-term elections in 2006, and 2008 is not that far off. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 09:36 PM I appreciate the occasional support, guys -- it is just what I need. If you get too bewildered to sleep over what the right-wing dialogue sounds like, here is a vivid representation of mass-think being born and blossoming large. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 05 - 09:43 PM Brownshirts.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Once Famous Date: 03 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM Once there was a guy name Amos Who thought he knew enough politics To make him famous But no one was there to read or to care So he went back to picking his anus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 03 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM C-... Nah, make that a solid D+... "Amos" to "anus" is a stretch... Come on, Martin, you can do better... Sorry, pal, we was jus' starting to get along... But, hey, it's gotta a nice little rythum thing going... Meanwhile, what do ya get when ya cross a possum with George Bush? Opps, sorry, but we couldn't find any possums willing to have sex with the guy... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM Jeeze, Martin....if you're gonna dedicate limericks to me, at least make them scan and rhyme!! This is insulting in its poetic ineptitude!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:31 PM House G.O.P. Voids Rule It Adopted Shielding Leader By CARL HULSE Published: January 4, 2005 WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Stung by criticism that they were lowering ethical standards, House Republicans on Monday night reversed a rule change that would have allowed a party leader to retain his position even if indicted. Lawmakers and House officials said Republicans, meeting behind the closed doors of the House chamber, acted at the request of the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, who had been the intended beneficiary of the rule change. Advertisement Free IQ Test When they adopted the change in their party rules in November, Republicans said they feared that Mr. DeLay could be subjected to a politically motivated indictment as part of a campaign finance investigation in Texas that has resulted in charges against three of his associates. The decision, coupled with other Republican proposals to rewrite the ethics rules, drew fierce criticism from Democrats and watchdogs outside the government, who said the Republican majority was subverting ethics enforcement. Those attending the Republican meeting, which was held on the eve of the opening of the 109th Congress, said Republicans unanimously agreed to restore the old rule after Mr. DeLay told them that the move would clear the air and deny Democrats a potent political issue. In the past year, he has been admonished by the ethics panel three times: for his tactics in trying to persuade a colleague to support the Medicare drug bill, for appearing to link political donations to support for legislation and for involving a federal agency in a political matter in Texas. Some Republicans who originally opposed the rules change greeted the decision not to go through with it enthusiastically. "It allows the Republicans to focus on the issues, the agenda that is before us and not to have Tom DeLay be the issue," Representative Zach Wamp, Republican of Tennessee, said. "I feel like we have just taken a shower." Excerpted from the NY Times:http://nytimes.com/2005/01/04/politics/04cong.html?hp&ex=1104814800&en=8190025ec1760a93&ei=5094&partner=homepage Of course, to really notice that you have taken a shower, you have to have been carrying some heavy dirt around beforehand... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM Lieberman says he won't join Bush administration From CongressDaily via http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010305cdpm3.htm Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday that he is not interested in becoming President Bush's national intelligence director or Homeland Security secretary -- saying he feels he can be more effective staying in the Senate. Asked on ABC's This Week whether he is interested in a Cabinet post, Lieberman responded: " I'm not. I appreciate the floating. It's a quadrennial game here in Washington when a new administration takes shape." The possibility of Lieberman -- a centrist who was his party's 2000 vice-presidential nominee -- leaving the Senate has turned into something of a political parlor game in his home state in recent weeks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM From MSNBC: Social Security formula weighed Bush plan would cut promised benefits By Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen Updated: 11:11 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2005 The Bush administration has signaled that it will propose changing the formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades, according to several Republicans close to the White House. advertisement Click Here! Under the proposal, the first-year benefits for retirees would be calculated using inflation rates rather than the rise in wages over a worker's lifetime. Because wages tend to rise considerably faster than inflation, the new formula would stunt the growth of benefits, slowly at first but more quickly by the middle of the century. The White House hopes that some, if not all, of those benefit cuts would be made up by gains in newly created personal investment accounts that would harness returns on stocks and bonds. But by embracing "price indexing," the president would for the first time detail the painful costs involved in closing the gap between the Social Security benefits promised to future retirees and the taxes available to fund them. In late February or March, the administration plans to produce its proposed overhaul of the system, including creation of personal investment accounts and the new benefit calculation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Jan 05 - 11:51 PM The Guantanamo Gulag by Mike Whitney Excerpted from The Progressive Trail "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." Winston Churchill "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." U.N. Convention Against Torture; Article 2, Section 2 The prison facility at Guantanamo Bay is the brightest star in the Bush firmament. It towers over the political landscape like a monument to human cruelty. That's why the administration chose to slap it up in full view of the world. It's their way of announcing that the fundamental rules of the game have changed. There's no need for Guantanamo. The United States has plenty of experience concealing political prisoners from the public. The CIA has been transporting enemy suspects to hidden locations since its inception. Certainly, an increase of 600 prisoners or so wouldn't have caused much of a stir if they were tucked away in some remote corner of the earth. But, that's not the purpose of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is intended to send a message that the internationally accepted norms of justice have been rescinded. From now on, all law proceeds from Washington. The world seems oddly bewildered by this development. Individuals have protested the particularly heinous aspects of the new system, like the use of torture, or detention without charges. But, these are just the trimmings and don't get to the heart of the matter. Guantanamo is a deliberate effort to overturn every legal protection that safeguards the individual from the arbitrary actions of the state. Simply put, it is the end of the law. What is it that we fail to grasp about Guantanamo? Are we so blinded by the assuring narrative of democracy and personal freedom that we don't recognize the symbols of tyranny when we see them? The reality of Guantanamo is quite stark; a dull-gray world of cinder-block and wire situated beyond the reach of any law or regulation. Is their some doubt about what this really means? Just yesterday the Washington Post reported that the "Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." Isn't this conspicuous power grab by the president enough to awaken even the most blasé observer? Remember, these prisoners have never been charged with a crime and, yet, the administration is paving the way for permanent incarceration. The Washington Post report comes on the heels of last week's article by the ACLU which confirmed that "President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq." So, now there's a paper trail connecting the President directly to the torture that was "systematically" conducted at Guantanamo. Torture? Permanent imprisonment without charges? These are the most fundamental violations of the law. How can we continue to ignore the gravity of this situation?(...) By the way, do you recall how strange and alien the concept of a "gulag" was when you first read about it? Was it Nabokov's writing, or some other amazed observation by an American reporter, perhaps, who was incredulous at ther bestiality and feudalism embraced by those thick-skulled Commies. Remember? That was so different than the way we handled things in our proud country, where we had principles.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:04 AM A short protest from the New Tork Times Editorial Page: EDITORIAL Leave No Sales Pitch Behind Published: January 4, 2005 The fine print in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is slowly dawning on the parents of high school students across the country as the war in Iraq drags on: military recruiters can blitz youngsters with uninvited phone calls to their homes and on-campus pitches replete with video war games. This is all possible under a little noted part of the law that requires schools to provide the names, addresses (campus addresses, too) and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal aid. The law provides an option to block the hard-sell recruitment - but only if parents demand in writing that the school deny this information to the military. Hard-pressed recruiters have stepped up the sales pitch to meet wartime manpower shortages. One sergeant filmed by the NewsHour on PBS recently sounded like a salesman from David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross as he exhorted a campus group: "I mean, where else can you get paid to jump out of airplanes, shoot cool guns, blow stuff up and travel, seeing all kinds of different countries?" The Pentagon insists that it enjoys the same entree to high school students as college and corporate recruiters. But clearly, No Child Left Behind has given the military a thumb on the scale with the threat of lost money. Some students on the cusp of adulthood describe the recruiters as merely offering another option in life; others complain of outright pestering. Recruiters have learned to focus on the most promising markets - typically lower-middle-class schools. No one can complain of unfairness in a draft-free society where many have found fine careers in the military, with recruitment part of the process. But it is objectionable when the government tucks a decided advantage for its wartime armies' salesmanship into a law invoked in the name of children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:11 AM This is part of another essay uncovering an important mathematical distortion in Bushies' mathematics. The Social Security Fear Factor Published: January 3, 2005 If you've lent even one ear to the administration's recent comments on Social Security, you have no doubt heard President Bush and his aides asserting that a $10 trillion shortfall threatens the retirement system - and the economy itself. That $10 trillion hole is the basis of the president's claim last month that "the [Social Security] crisis is now." It's also the basis of the administration's claim that the cost of doing nothing to reform the system would be far greater than the cost of acting now. Well, the $10 trillion figure is the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air. Make that the ether. Starting last year, as the groundwork was being set for the emerging debate, the Social Security trustees took the liberty of projecting the system's solvency over infinity, rather than sticking to the traditional 75-year time horizon. That world-without-end assumption generates the scary $10 trillion estimate, and with it, Mr. Bush's putative rationale for dismantling Social Security in favor of a system centered on private savings accounts. The American Academy of Actuaries, the profession's premier trade association, objected to the change. In a letter to the trustees, the actuaries wrote that infinite projections provide "little if any useful information about the program's long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead any [nonexpert] into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated." As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency. Over a 75-year time frame, Social Security's shortfall is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion and by the Social Security trustees at $3.7 trillion, a manageable sliver of the economy in each case. If the shortfall is on the low side, Social Security will be in the black until 2052, when it will be able to pay out 80 percent of the promised benefits. If it is on the high side, the system will pay full benefits until 2042, when it will cover 70 percent. Contrary to Mr. Bush's frequent assertion that Social Security is constantly imperiled by political meddling, it has in fact been preserved and improved by political intervention throughout its 70-year history, most significantly in 1983. The system could - and should - be strengthened again by a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases phased in over decades. Instead, the administration wants workers to divert some of the payroll taxes that currently pay for Social Security into private investment accounts, in exchange for a much-reduced government benefit. To replace the taxes it would otherwise have collected - money it needs to pay benefits to current and near retirees - the government would borrow an estimated $2 trillion over the next 10 years or so and even more thereafter. In effect, the administration's plan would get rid of the financial burden of Social Security by getting rid of Social Security. The plan shifts the financial risk of growing old onto each individual and off of the government - where it is dispersed among a very large population, as with any sensible insurance policy. In a privatized system, you may do fine, but your fellow retirees may not, or vice versa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Metchosin Date: 04 Jan 05 - 12:17 AM It is my belief that US law was built upon the fundamentals of the Magna Carta and as such The Guantanamo Gulag is in violation of the very basis of law as we understand it and "the good sense of mankind". The Magna Carta and American Law |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 07:36 AM Gonzales Nomination Draws Military Criticism Retired Officers Cite His Role in Shaping Policies on Torture By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 4, 2005; Page A02 A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post. ... Although the GOP-controlled Senate is expected to confirm Gonzales to succeed Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, some Democrats have vowed to question him aggressively amid continuing revelations of abuses of military detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The letter signed by the retired officers, compiled by the group Human Rights First and sent to the committee's leadership last night, criticizes Gonzales for his role in reviewing and approving a series of memorandums arguing, among other things, that the United States could lawfully ignore portions of the Geneva Conventions and that some forms of torture "may be justified" in the war on terror. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 05:56 PM MARGINS OF VICTORY Republican Presidents Reelected During the Last Hundred Years President Popular Vote Electoral Vote 1904 Theodore Roosevelt 17% 196 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower 16% 384 1972 Richard M. Nixon 23% 503 1984 Ronald Reagan 18% 512 2004 George Bush 2% 34 Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17690 This article in the New York Review of Books is an interesting study on the ebb and flow of beliefs behind Bushie's re-election. I recommend it as a good read. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 06:00 PM Dad, Don't Go to Work for the Bush Administration by Hal Cranmer http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/cranmer1.html My father called me a couple of nights ago with an announcement. The US government has asked him to go to Iraq for six months to manage their oil sector. He has an extensive background in the oil industry, having worked as an executive for a major multinational oil company for approximately 30 years. He seemed excited about the position, for reasons that I just cannot understand. So I am writing this article to try to convince him to turn down the position.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 06:03 PM The Chief Justice Speaks Published: January 4, 2005 Fighting thyroid cancer, Chief Justice William Rehnquist used the occasion last week of his 19th, and potentially final, report on the state of the federal courts to extend his proud record of defending the independence of the federal judiciary against intrusive attacks by politicians. Without naming names, Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke of a troubling "new turn" in recent years that has seen some conservative Republicans in Congress cross the line from ordinary criticism of judicial decisions they do not like to trying to intimidate individual judges. In the process, they show disrespect to the constitutional separation of powers and threaten the essential role of an independent judiciary in protecting American rights. Without singling out the House majority leader Tom DeLay and others, Chief Justice Rehnquist expressed appropriate concern over recent calls by some members of the last Congress for laws limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to decide constitutional challenges on matters like the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He was also duly critical of threats to impeach so-called "activist" judges for their interpretations of the Constitution. "A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment," the chief justice, author of a 1992 book on this theme, stated in a timely reminder to the reconvening Congress. "Any other rule would destroy judicial independence. Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them." This is a message that Chief Justice Rehnquist, much to his credit, has delivered time and again as head of the nation's court system, even at the risk of offending fellow conservatives. But given current political tensions over the future direction of the federal courts, it has special resonance right now. (See link for rest of this NYT article.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 06:46 PM Stopping the Bum's Rush The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush. If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government. In the next few weeks, I'll explain why privatization will fatally undermine Social Security, and suggest steps to strengthen the program. I'll also talk about the much more urgent fiscal problems the administration hopes you won't notice while it scares you about Social Security. Today let's focus on one piece of those scare tactics: the claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis. That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, The Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning." Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund. (Paul Krugman in the NY Times) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM Iraq Vs. Tsunami: The Duplicity Of The Media By Mike Whitney Jan 2, 2005, 11:47 The American media has descended on the Asian tsunami with all the fervor of feral animals in a meat locker. The newspapers and TV's are plastered with bodies drifting out to sea, battered carcasses strewn along the beach and bloated babies lying in rows. Every aspect of the suffering is being scrutinized with microscopic intensity by the predatory lens of the media. This is where the western press really excels: in the celebratory atmosphere of human catastrophe. Their penchant for misery is only surpassed by their appetite for profits. Where was this "free press" in Iraq when the death toll was skyrocketing towards 100,000? So far, we've seen nothing of the devastation in Falluja where more than 6,000 were killed and where corpses were lined along the city's streets for weeks on end. Is death less photogenic in Iraq? Or, are there political motives behind the coverage? Wasn't Ted Koppel commenting just days ago, that the media was restricting its coverage of Iraq to show sensitivity for the squeamishness of its audience? He reiterated the mantra that filming dead Iraqis was "in bad taste" and that his American audience would be repelled by such images? How many times have we heard the same rubbish from Brokaw, Jennings and the rest of their ilk? Well, it looks like Koppel and the others have quickly switched directions. The tsunami has turned into a 24 hour-a-day media frenzy of carnage and ruin, exploring every facet of human misery in agonizing detail. The festival of bloodshed is chugging ahead at full-throttle and it's bumping up ratings in the process. Corporate media never fails to astound even the most jaded viewer. Just when it appears that they've hit rock-bottom, they manage to slip even deeper into the morass of sensationalism. The manipulation of calamity is particularly disturbing, especially when disaster is translated into a revenue windfall. Koppel may disparage "bad taste", but his boardroom bosses are more focused on the bottom line. Simply put, tragedy is good for business. When it comes to Iraq, however, the whole paradigm shifts to the right. The dead and maimed are faithfully hidden from view. No station would dare show a dead Marine or even an Iraqi national mutilated by an errant American bomb. That might undermine the patriotic objectives of our mission: to democratize the natives and enter them into the global economic system. Besides, if Iraq was covered like the tsunami, public support would erode extremely quickly, and Americans would have to buy their oil rather than extracting it at gunpoint. What good would that do? Looks like the media's got it right: carnage IS different in Iraq than Thailand, Indonesia or India. The Iraqi butchery is part of a much grander scheme: a plan for conquest, subjugation and the theft of vital resources, the foundation blocks for maintaining white privilege into the next century. (....). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 05 - 07:37 PM The crime of war: from Nuremberg to Fallujah By Nicolas J S Davies Jan 3, 2005, 22:16 A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression, and its implications for U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law [1]. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere? The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests. For the benefit of readers in the U.S., I therefore feel obliged to preface a review of war crime in Iraq with a look at the actual legal status of international law, both in international terms and in terms of our own national framework of constitutional law. When the president of the United States signs a treaty and it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, our country is making a solemn undertaking. The seriousness of such commitments is exemplified by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and subsequent international trials, in which individual national leaders have been held criminally responsible for treaty violations and, when convicted, have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even death by hanging. In our own constitutional system, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause," grants international treaties the same "supreme" status as federal law and the Constitution itself. It reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The balance of this article can be found here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Leadfingers Date: 04 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM Isnt 'Bush' 'Administration' a contradiction in terms ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Leadfingers Date: 04 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM Or even an Oxy moron ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Leadfingers Date: 04 Jan 05 - 10:30 PM Oh - By The Way - Eight Hundred ! |