BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

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."