 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:39 PM October 9, 1998 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'..... .....By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition. Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy. Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved. Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.' I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM From the Salt Lake Trib: "Bush the abuser Public Forum Letter Article Last Updated: 08/01/2008 07:52:22 PM MDT How great it is to read about a politician who will stand up and call out President Bush on the abuses he has bestowed upon the office of president and the American people ("Ex-SLC mayor to Congress: Impeach Bush," Tribune, July 26). It amazes me that the two candidates for president have not been more adamant about the dictator-like manner in which this president has behaved while in office. Bush's unrestrained power and total disregard for the opinion of the people is disgraceful and embarrassing. It is sad to think of the lives that could have been saved, both American and innocent Iraqi, as well as money, if only someone had stood up and said, "No, Mr. Bush, you cannot do whatever you please." How much different our economy might be if so much had not gone for a an unwarranted and unnecessary war. Remember, Mr. President, you work for us! Mary Anne Hyde Salt Lake City " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:12 AM The perfidious Justice Department. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:37 AM Dear Amos: "Bush's 27% is the lowest of any President in history" ____ TRUE? ____ FALSE? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM No, Sawz, you are right. 27% is not the lowest approval rating in history, I was mistaken. Congratulations--your man is not the most disapproved of in history, at 27%. In some respects, though, his approval rating has been as low as 18%. Ya jknow, though, even when he was highly thought of he was commitng impeachable offenses, so I don't really see the linkage you posit between is culpability and his approval rating. A lot of people like Pretty Boy Floyd, Billie Bonnie, and Robin Hood, too. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM Amos: You are the one who brought up the approval rating so it must be you who thinks it is linked to his culpability. Mother Joness Smart Fearless Journalisim " Worth noting that the American Research Group may not be the bellweather for accurate polling. A little digging shows that the group is backed by New Hampshire pollster Lafell Bennett, and that ARG was widely off the mark in New Hampshire in 2004 when it called a victory for Bush, only to see John McCain take the state by an 18-point margin. Also, turns out ARG doesn't believe in including cell phone numbers in its random draws, which of course lops off a chunk of Obama supporters. He defended his rationale telling the New Hampshire Business Review that he omits cell phones because mostly young people "don't vote." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM Sawz: Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced byu this post: "#3 Congress has an approval rating of 9% while GWB is 27%. #4 Why don't you condemn Congress for the war and the spending? " which appeared under your name. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:29 AM " Book: White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Intelligence |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:00 PM Suskind's new book reveals that the documents that supported an alledged Iraq - AlQuada connection was not only a forgery, but it was ordered by the White House. MY friend Tucker Carlson was the moderator of a low budget pbs segment that used these documents to justify an invasion of Iraq. It stunk then and it stinks now. Public justice is needed if the justice department will not act. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Donuel Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM God bless America and damn its enemies traitors and dissenters. On 9-11 the pretender pretended surprise with total failure. When the pretender commits murder They say who cares? It doesn't matter. After Katrina The pretender's feet of clay washed away On his knees an amputatee pretender yells "none shall pass" Now buried to his neck the pretender forges one last letter God bless America, adios. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM Amos: Actually, I believe this spurious link to approval ratings was introduced by you in these posts: -------------------------------------------------- From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM From Salon on-line, an essay by Garrison Keillor: Daddy issues Our president is resolving unconscious Oedipal obsessions by lashing out at foreign countries -- and it's time his father stepped in. By Garrison Keillor Jan. 3, 2007 | As the new Congress convenes this week and Speaker Pelosi .... and then he doggedly stuck by them until his approval ratings sank into the swamp.Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration ---------------------------------------------------- From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:38 PM The Australian "theage.com.au" opines: " Bush's popularity hits new low US President George Bush's popularity fell to a new low following his state of the nation speech this week, Newsweek has reported in its latest poll. With two years left in the White House, only 30 per cent of the 1003 people polled said they approved of Bush's job performance, down from a high of 83 per cent approval at the beginning of 2002. ------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:26 AM Paul Krugman has an interesting essay on why Bush is the extension of the spirit of Reagan's administration in today's Times. An excerpt: "Why is there such a strong ............... to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:16 PM The WSJ reports: "Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq. The story, broken yesterday by the Journal's Gina Chon, marks the latest of serial defeats for Mr. Sadr, beginning in February 2007 when he was forced underground (reportedly to Iran) in anticipation of the surge of U.S. troops. More recently, the Mahdi Army was defeated and evicted from Basra and other southern strongholds by an Iraqi-led military offensive. The Mahdi Army capitulated without a fight from its Baghdad enclave of Sadr City. Now the young cleric will focus his group's efforts on politics and social work, perhaps while he pursues theological studies in Iran. He wouldn't be the first grad student in history with a tendency toward rabble-rousing. " If true, this is a serious piece of good news for Western interests. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:18 PM "Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties. In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq. There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies. But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde. While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio. If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government. ..." Hillary Clinton, writing for the Wall Street Journal today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:32 PM "allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government" This was invented by Al Gore who praised Halliburton during the Clinton Administration. "To understand why contractor fraud keeps happening over and over again, it's worth thinking about why some folks thought contracting out for services was such a good idea in the first place. Think back to the 1990s, when Bill Clinton and Al Gore talked proudly about "reinventing government"—tapping into the supposed efficiencies of the private sector, cutting out the supposed inefficiencies of the public bureaucracy (Clinton and Gore eliminated 426,200 federal civilian workforce jobs)." This is another legacy handed to the Bush Administration by the previous administration. You keep taking things out of context while you complain about others taking things out of context. "So his certainty about something that went so wrong is not ancient history. It's context." One standard for Amos. A different standard for those that disagree. I guess any crutch will do when you don't have a leg to stand on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 08 - 08:31 PM Given your general history of inaccuracy, I think your claim that "this" was invented by Al Gore deserves to be substantiated. The profiteering from government contracts Grand Prize of all time goes to Haliburton over the last eight years--I'd bet money on it. Care to provide any references to your windy claim? "Oh HEEE started it", is not an excuse outside of kindergarten, pal, especially without evidence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:13 AM ANother streak of dirt on the nation's face, compliments of the Administration: "It is impossible, in any case, to judge the evidence against Mr. Hamdan because of the deeply flawed nature of this trial — the blueprint for which was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, one of the worst bits of lawmaking in American history. At these trials, hearsay and secret documents are admissible. Mr. Hamdan's defense was actually required to began its case in a secret session. The witness was a camp psychologist, presumably called to back Mr. Hamdan's account of being abused by his interrogators. Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor in Guantánamo, put the trial in a disturbing light. He testified that he was informed by his superiors that only guilty verdicts would be tolerated. He also said that he was told to bring high-profile cases quickly to help Republicans score a pre-election public relations coup. Colonel Davis gave up his position on Oct. 4, 2007. That, he wrote in The Los Angeles Times in December, was "the day I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system." In his article, Colonel Davis described a highly politicized system in which people who were supposed to be neutral decision-makers were allied with the prosecutors. According to Colonel Davis, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed out a fair-minded "convening authority" — the official who decides which cases go to trial, which charges will be heard and who serves on the jury. That straight-shooting administrator was replaced by Susan Crawford who, Colonel Davis said, assessed evidence before charges were filed, directed the prosecution's preparation and even drafted charges. This "intermingling" of "convening authority and prosecutor roles," Colonel Davis argued, "perpetuates the perception of a rigged process." Colonel Davis said the final straw for him was when he was placed under the command of William J. Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel. Colonel Davis had instructed prosecutors not to offer evidence obtained through the torture technique known as waterboarding. Mr. Haynes helped draft the orders permitting acts, like waterboarding, that violate American laws and the Geneva Conventions. We are not arguing that the United States should condone terrorism or those who support it, or that the guilty should not be punished severely. But in a democracy, trials must be governed by fair rules, and judges must be guided by the law and the evidence, not pressure from the government. The military commission system, which falls far short of these standards, is a stain on the United States." NYT A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 02:16 PM Mark Morford offers a path of amends for those who voted for that no-good sumbitch in the White House: "Vote for Bush? Pay up Did you help put America's worst prez into power? Time to make amends By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, August 6, 2008 Sure, you could start with an open-palmed apology, a profoundly contrite on-your-knees sort of thing, maybe an open letter in your local paper or a heartfelt speech at your next dinner party whereby you stumble though some sort of "I don't know what the hell I was thinking" or "I must've been blind" or "Wow, that mescaline sure was potent" type of defense for your unfortunate and reprehensible choices. But the fact is, that's not really gonna cut it. Of course, you could do the obvious thing and cast your vote in November for Barack Obama, but even I know that's probably asking too much — and besides, all signs indicate a potential landslide for Obama anyway, given the unprecedented worldwide rush of positive energy, the tremendous cosmic craving for intelligent and new and ingenuous, coupled with a deep undercurrent of karmic revulsion toward the wonky, bloodthirsty agenda of grandpa McCain. So then, what can you do, all you increasingly humiliated, disillusioned, deeply mistaken Bush voters? How can you, having hopefully realized by now the violent error of your ways, take steps both small and large to try and make amends for shoving Dubya down the throat of the world, for your tiny but oh so poisonous contribution to the worst and most demeaning eight years in modern American politics? First, let's be clear: As tempting as it is, I do not suggest some grand humiliating gesture, some sweetly demeaning spectacle whereby you must dye your hair blue and run naked through the streets of rural Alabama waving a rainbow flag and carrying a bottle of fresh stem cells as you suddenly claim to care deeply about blue fin tuna and Brazilian rain forests and honest sex ed for teens. Unless you really want to. Nor do I suggest, say, an immediate "Bush tax," whereby everything you ever purchase from now until you die will cost 10 percent more than it does for liberals, and every cent of it will go to the arts, and schools, and women's rights, and alternative fuels, and GLAAD, et al and so on. Don't get me wrong, it's a damn fine idea, just a bit unrealistic. Let's keep it simple. The next time, say, gay marriage comes up in conversation, perhaps you say, well, you know, I don't really get the gay thing at all and certainly my anxiety about it is rooted somewhere too deep and sad to explore right now, but I've been doing a bit of actual homework (!), and it turns out that homosexuality is simply all over the animal kingdom, across all sorts of species, and animals seem to enjoy it for both survival and pleasure. Who knew? In other words, nature seems to approve. And isn't nature merely God in a nice grass suit? As your baffled pals pick their jaws up off the floor, you can add: Hell, science is pretty much proving homosexuality is biological anyway, not a "lifestyle" choice at all. And gays in the military? Hell, if the badass Israeli army can handle it, the United States sure as hell can, am I right? Now, pass me a stogie and let's go blast some canned pheasant with a shotgun. See? It doesn't have to all be liberal tofu gobbledygook. I know that waking up to the contemptible wrongheadedness that was your support of the BushCo neocon agenda must be painful. Baby steps, honey. Baby steps. Speaking of the military, maybe it's time you openly acknowledge that you actually can support our troops, enjoy your righteous sense of patriotism, think America is the world's greatest kick-ass whateveryoulike, and yet not think it's OK that a secretive and bloodthirsty cadre of inept leaders has wasted trillions of dollars and thousands of young American lives in a failed grab for power and petroleum and megalomania. You think? Which brings up another point: It's also perfectly OK to make whatever you do sound like something you thought up, all by yourself. Yes, progressives have been urging you to raise your awareness of things humane and open-minded for eons. No matter. You can take all the credit. We're generous that way. Let's say you do something as simple as trade in your massive American gas hog for a Mini Cooper. And now you find you really love your little German-engineered wonder, its handling and efficiency and joyous kick. Perfectly fine to hide your newfound refinement and tell your macho friends that you did it because you hate giving all that oil dough to those greedy Saudi sheiks — and what's more, now you can take corners at 50 mph without rolling over and bursting into flame. Cool, no? While you're at it, mention to your buds that the steaks they're eating are actually locally raised and grass-fed, not because you give a good goddamn about humane animal treatment or toxic industrial feedlots (though you really should), but because the meat tastes better and costs less and you wanna save some dough to, you know, buy more guns and porn. Hey, whatever works. But don't stop there. Might as well tell your homies to throw their food scraps in your new compost bin, too, not because you care about garbage, but because you learned how to cultivate some great topsoil in which to grow your heirloom tomatoes for your famous spaghetti sauce for NASCAR night. Look at you! Actually caring about the health and the environment, but pretending not to! Hey, it's a start. How about secretly beginning to note the overarching brilliance of, say, Dan Savage as well as the nauseating rancidity of Ann Coulter? Or stick a Cabela's catalog cover over an issue of Mother Jones or the Nation, and read it with an open mind and a bottle of premium chilled sake? Or realize, with increasing sense of shame, that across just about every social and environmental issue, the hippies were pretty much right about everything, no matter what you thought of the clothes and the music and the hair? Now you're getting it. Don't forget the money. Feel free to make a series of large, anonymous donations to the Sierra Club, or a local battered women's shelter, or even Planned Parenthood. Trust me when I say, the odds are shockingly good your own daughter/son/wife will be incredibly grateful for their wise and informed counsel someday soon, if she or he hasn't been already. You get the idea? Really, compared with the disgusting levels of damage wrought by your support of the dark armies of Bush, these suggestions are nothing. You actually owe quite a bit more. OK, a lot more. Incalculable, really. But for now, let's be reasonable. After all, the sooner you realize that the world is, in fact, not America's bitch, that it's actually a living, humming organism, interconnected and interdependent in ways and on levels no organized religion or fear-based neocon political agenda can possibly comprehend, much less bomb into submission, well, the sooner we can get our collective s— together and move the human experiment forward once again. And after what you've put us all through, it's the very least you could do." (SF Gate) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 07 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM WAPO: "When the Vice President began this Administration's bold journey on the road to reinventing government eight years ago," said National Partnership for Reinventing Government Director Morley Winograd, "he thought it was the career front-line employees who knew what needed fixing and who were in the best place to create real and lasting change." http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/history2.html From the NYT and WAPO: The riff was laid down by Dennis Kucinich, but now all the candidates are playing along. Howard Dean says the Halliburton contracts show that the Bush administration ''has sold this country down the river.'' John Kerry says the administration has broken faith with the American people with its no-bid contracts with Halliburton. In the parade of Democratic bogeymen, the word ''Halliburton'' elicits almost as many hisses as the chart-topping ''Ashcroft.'' The problem with the story is that it's almost entirely untrue. As Daniel Drezner recently established in Slate, there is no statistically significant correlation between the companies that made big campaign contributions and the companies that have won reconstruction contracts. The most persuasive rebuttals have come from people who actually know something about the government procurement process. For example, Steven Kelman was an administrator in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Bill Clinton and now is a professor of public management at Harvard. Last week, Kelman wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post on the alleged links between contributions and reconstruction contracts. ''One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,'' he observed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 07 Aug 08 - 04:58 PM Democrat Attacks On Contractors; Supposed "reforms" of the Clinton-Gore era instead created a flawed federal-contracting system that shuts out innovative businesses Insight on the News, Feb 16, 2004 It was in this new era that Halliburton's controversial contracts developed. In the 1990s the Army created its Logistic Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which designs multiyear ID/IQ contracts, the initial process being competitive. Companies submit proposals and bids, but after a bid is taken the Army can buy a number of services, such as electricity and food preparation, from the winning company for a specified number of years without going through another bid process. And these winning contractors are on call to the Army anywhere in the world. In 1997, Halliburton lost out on a bid for the LOGCAP contract to the Reston, Va.-based DynCorp, a company that derived almost its entire income from government contracts. But the Army still gave Halliburton a no-bid contract to set up some bases in the Balkans. And Halliburton so impressed government leaders that Gore gave it a "Hammer" award for efficiency. Meanwhile DynCorp, as Insight's Kelly Patricia O'Meara has reported [see "DynCorp Disgrace," Feb. 4, 2002], became mired in scandal after some of its employees were accused of raping Bosnian girls as young as 14. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:07 PM At the risk of pointing out that you are making another dumb argument... Even if Al Gore did give the first no-bid contract to Halliburton, it doesn't excuse all the money that this government has thrown down that rat hole. Its not like they were in any way Obligated to follow Al Gore's lead. If they can say no to Kyoto, they can say no to Halliburton. Out of curiosity.. Are you coming to these conclusions by yourself? Or is someone else leading you down these rabbit holes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:25 PM Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:37 PM 1. "Some work in the Balkans" is a few hundred thousand dollars, most probably. The Bush Administration has seived billions of dollars to Haliburton and its subsidiaries, and one of the senior agents of the Bush Administration is a major stockholder in Haliburton and subsidiaries. How naive do you want to be? 2. The topic here is whether the offenses of the Bush Administration and particularly the President and Vice-President are grounds for their impeachment. Against the law. Constituting mismanagement of the nation, sufficient to be classed as dereliction of duty, misdemeanors, crimes or high crimes against the country. I think yes, you think no. We've already established that. Leave Calvin Coolidge's precedents out of it and stop trying to blame Bush's pathological aberration on Clinton. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:41 PM >>>Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions.<<< So what if that is true. So what? If Bill Clinton jumped of a bridge would George Bush have to jump too? (Oh what a lovely day that would be.) But seriously, you try to make the strangest points. How does Clinton awarding the no bid contract excuse Cheney awarding dozens? If its wrong for Clinton/Gore its wrong for Bush/Gore. Right? What am I missing here? Does it have anything to do with trees? :-) (Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:09 PM A new Center for American Progress report released today --ÊUnderstanding Bushonomics: How We Got Into This Mess In the First Place -- documents "the extraordinary transfer of wealth that took place between ordinary households and the extremely well-to-do and the effort by this administration to address the consequences of that problem without addressing the root cause." Senior Fellow Scott Lilly argues that while the "economy did in fact grow at a reasonably strong pace through most of the Bush presidency" and "the hourly productivity of American workers" increased by "more than 19 percent," average Americans did not reap the benefits of economic expansion. Instead, President Bush's economic policies redistributed wealth to the richest Americans and left the majority with stagnating wages and declining household incomes. The transfer "drained the American consumer of the resources needed to keep the economy humming" and led the administration to stimulate the economy by expanding credit -- an action that only weakened "our long term capacity for growth," heÊ concludes. WEALTH GOES TO THE RICH: The Bush administration directed its economic policies and the benefits of economic growth towards a narrow segment of the population, the wealthiest Americans. Looking at the effects of the first three Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded thatÊ"the percentage by which the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for those in the middle of the income spectrum." Meanwhile, the administration's failure to raise the minimum wage coupled with its poor enforcement of federal wage and hour laws, trade agreements, and union rights further undermined the economic security of middle and lower-income Americans. Consequently, between 2000 and 2006, "those among the top 10 percent of all households on average increased their income by about 2 percent, while those in the bottom 90 percent lost more than 4 percent." The "biggest beneficiaries of U.S. economic growth that occurred between 2000 and 2006 were U.S. corporations," the report concludes. While corporate profits grew "at a little less than two-thirds the growth rate of the gross domestic product" during the second half of the 20th century, between 2000 and 2006, "corporate profits grew nearly four times as fast as GDP," increasing by an estimated 66 percent. NO TRICKLE DOWN: The newfound prosperity of the top 10 percent of families, "which accounted for 95.3 percent of the nation's income growth between 2002 and 2006," did not trickle down the economic spectrum, and left most Americans incapable of absorbing the rising output of consumer products. Recognizing the precarious condition of the U.S. consumer, corporations retained their extra profits, invested little in new commercial structuresÊsuch as factories and office buildings, bought back their own stock, and "increased dividends rather than expand capacity." High-income individuals absorbed some of the extra output by consuming luxury items, but most of their "increased income went to savings rather than consumption," Lilly writes. Ê (See graph on actual effects of Bush tax cuts. COmplete report is in thisPDF file. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:14 PM "Tax policy An analysis in 2004 on the effects of the first three Bush administration tax cuts by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the average tax cut received by the top 1 percent of households (families with an average income of $1.2 million) equaled more than $83,000 while that of middle-income households (families with an average income of $51,600) was less than $1,000Ñeven after excluding the Òbonus depreciationÓ business tax cut and the phase-out of the federal estate tax. The percentage by which the effective tax rate was cut for high-income families was nearly twice the rate cut for those in the middle of the income spectrum. Minimum wage The Bush economic team was also anxious to assist the Òsupply sideÓ of the economy in ways that extended beyond tax cuts. One involved the cost of labor. The most immediate issue was whether the minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation. At $5.15, it had been not been adjusted in three-and-a-half years, and had already fallen in real terms by 8 percent. Compared to the $5 per day or $.063 per hour minimum that Henry Ford offered his employees in 1914 the federal minimum wage in 2001 amounted to about $0.30 an hour in 1914 dollars. The Bush administration was careful not to directly oppose an adjustment in the minimum wage, but threatened to veto the measure if it were not accompanied by further large business tax cuts. These it was argued were necessary to offset the negative effects on businesses that were forced to pay higher wages. The result of the administrationÕs position was that the minimum wage was stuck at $5.15 for a total of 10 years, the longest period without adjustment since it was instituted in 1938. In inflation-adjusted dollars it reached its lowest value in over 50 years, dropping by 29 percent before the new law was adopted in 2007. (Excerpts from above PDF link) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:18 PM The budget deficit for fiscal year 2008 will be "around $400 billion," according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate. CBO's prediction is "slightly higher than the White House's deficit estimate of $389 billion," both of which "approach the record-breaking deficit suffered in fiscal 2004 of $412.7 billion." Last month, the White House predicted the deficit could reach nearly $490 billion in fiscal year 2009. (The Progress Report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:48 PM Paydirt Amos. Ain't ya finally proud of your country like Michelle? WASHINGTON (AP) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a chilling string of other terror plots during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon. "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, which was held last Saturday. The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks. In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing. Using his own words, the extraordinary transcript connects Mohammed to dozens of the worst terror plots attempted or carried out in the last 15 years—and to others that have not occurred. All told, thousands have died in operations he directed. His words draw al-Qaida closer to plots of the early 1990s than the group has previously been connected to, including the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing. Six people with links to global terror networks were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison. It also makes clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans- Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation. Mohammed said he was involved in planning the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two Bali nightclubs were bombed. Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London—none of which happened. He said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton, attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants and suspension bridges in New York, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia, attacks on American naval vessels and oil tankers around the world, and an attempt to "destroy" an oil company he said was owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Sumatra, Indonesia. He also claimed he shared responsibility for assassination attempts against Pope John Paul II and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 28 attacks and assisting in three others. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which blacked out some of his remarks. Mohammed also claimed he was tortured by the CIA after his capture in according to an exchange he had with the unidentified military colonel who heads the three-member panel that heard his case. "Is any statement that you made, was it because of this treatment, to use your word, you claim torture," the colonel asked. "Do you make any statements because of that?" Portions of Mohammed's response were deleted from the transcript, and his immediate answer was unclear. He later said his confession read at the hearing to the long list of attacks was given without any pressure, threats or duress. The colonel said Mohammed's torture allegations would be "reported for any investigation that may be appropriate" and also would be taken into account in consideration of his enemy combatant status. In one rambling remark apparently spoken through a translator, Mohammed appeared to express some regret for some of the casualties of 9/11. "When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids," the transcript said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:26 AM Well, Sawz, the logic of your post escapes me, but I am getting used to that. It was pretty well-established sometime back that this guy, and a few of his colleagues under Osama bin Laden, were behind these actions. Why is this a "popular view of the Bush Administration"? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 08 - 08:27 AM "So the G.O.P. has found its issue for the 2008 election. For the next three months the party plans to keep chanting: ÒDrill here! Drill now! Drill here! Drill now! Four legs good, two legs bad!Ó O.K., I added that last part. And the debate on energy policy has helped me find the words for something IÕve been thinking about for a while. Republicans, once hailed as the Òparty of ideas,Ó have become the party of stupid. Now, I donÕt mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly donÕt mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives. What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism Ñ the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that thereÕs something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise Ñ has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The partyÕs de facto slogan has become: ÒReal men donÕt think things through.Ó In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: ÒThe market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,Ó said Representative John Shadegg. What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be ÒinsignificantÓ? Presumably theyÕre just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats. And the Democrats, as Representative Michele Bachmann assures us, Òwant Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, take light rail to their government jobs.Ó Is this political pitch too dumb to succeed? DonÕt count on it. Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, ÒThey attacked us, and weÕre going to strike backÓ Ñ and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama werenÕt the same person was an effete snob who hated America, and probably looked French. LetÕs also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him as a real-world Forrest Gump, a simple man who prevails through his gut instincts and moral superiority. ÒMr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man,Ó declared Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal in 2004. ÒHeÕs not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.Ó It wasnÕt until Hurricane Katrina Ñ when the heckuva job done by the man of whom Ms. Noonan said, Òif thereÕs a fire on the block, heÕll run out and helpÓ revealed the true costs of obliviousness Ñ that the cult began to fade. WhatÕs more, the politics of stupidity didnÕt just appeal to the poorly informed. Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter. Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly Ñ that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy. All this is in the past. But the state of the energy debate shows that Republicans, despite Mr. BushÕs plunge into record unpopularity and their defeat in 2006, still think that know-nothing politics works. And they may be right. Sad to say, the current drill-and-burn campaign is getting some political traction. According to one recent poll, 69 percent of Americans now favor expanded offshore drilling Ñ and 51 percent of them believe that removing restrictions on drilling would reduce gas prices within a year. The headway Republicans are making on this issue wonÕt prevent Democrats from expanding their majority in Congress, but it might limit their gains Ñ and could conceivably swing the presidential election, where the polls show a much closer race. In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the countryÕs problems. ItÕs not going to happen Ñ not as long as one of AmericaÕs two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy."(NYT) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM Honest, Sawz, your disjointed, non-sequitur, dedicatedly ad hominem posts are getting wearisome. 1. The "dark armies" phrase, as you can plainly see, was part of a quote from a columnist for the SF Chronicle/SFGate, not my choice of phrasing; but I don't find it inaccurate. In case you missed third grade that day, the word "dark" has several meanings related neither to Sci Fi not to race, such as "connotating evil or immoral spiritual qualities". 2. The truth, as far as I can see, is that the last eight years have been grotesque examples of gross management blunders, compromised ethical standards and illegal manipulations by the Bush Administration and its cronies, one after another after another. 3. You keep trying to say that these towering incompetencies and disservices are really Bill Clinton's fault. This is like trying to blame the Son of Sam attacks on Jack the Ripper, or trying to say that the Great Depression was really the fault of the Founding Fathers or Andrew Jackson. The argument doesn't really hold much water. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jayto Date: 08 Aug 08 - 01:18 PM I think the most popular view of Bush for me will occurr in January. When I view his back while he is walking out of the oval office end term. I'm just scared I will be seeing McCain's frontside as he is walking into the oval office starting term yuck. Bad thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Aug 08 - 04:41 PM Sawzaw's argument appears to be"Bush did a bunch of bad things, but that's OK because Clinton did them once or twice before Bush did and that;s the reason you should vote against Obama. Its better than the argument the GOP was using in 2004, "All the problems are Clinton's fault, Bush is trying to clear things up so give him four more years. Besides, Kerry speaks French and he probably only deserves 3 war medals of the five he got, so we should let the politically connected draft dodgers continue the war they blundered us into." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 08 - 07:36 PM In truth, Iraqis have had little incentive to spend their own money given the willingness of the United States Congress to keep writing blank checks for President BushÕs disastrous adventure there. Congress has appropriated $48 billion for rebuilding in Iraq since 2003 and committed all but $6 billion of that amount, mostly for oil, electricity, water and security projects. By contrast, between 2005 and 2007, when all that oil revenue was piling up, only $3.9 billion of IraqÕs budget went to reconstruction. An even tinier amount went to maintaining United States and Iraqi-financed projects like roads, bridges, buildings, water and electrical installations. That raises serious questions about the wisdom of making those capital investments in the first place if they are not going to be properly tended. One of the Bush administrationÕs most damaging postinvasion decisions is at the heart of this problem. In its ill-considered dismissal of everybody who had any connection to Saddam HusseinÕs Baath Party, American overseers depleted the ranks of Iraqi bureaucrats who had the skills and experience to run an oil-producing country of about 27 million people. As the Congressional investigators found, Iraq now lacks the trained professionals to prepare and execute budgets and to solicit, award and oversee capital projects. The United States must redouble its efforts to help Iraq build this capacity, including bringing back skilled Iraqis who have fled the country. Congress is finally losing patience with the indefensible image of Americans paying historic high gasoline prices while Iraq pockets huge profits and Americans underwrite IraqÕs rebuilding. Like Democrat Carl Levin and Republican John Warner, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we question the PentagonÕs decision to spend $33 million from an emergency fund on an economic zone at Baghdad International Airport. Iraq has committed $44.8 million to the project but should pay for the whole thing... (NYT 8-8-08) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:10 PM "The last eight years have been grotesque examples of gross management blunders, compromised ethical standards and illegal manipulations" How about the eight years before that? Remember Marc Rich? Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:36 PM Yeah good comparison. They lost 18 men in Somalia. How about Bosnia and a budget surplus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Barry Finn Date: 09 Aug 08 - 12:37 AM Amos. Did you forget how Bush's new redefining of the overtime federal wage stautes got iced & diced. How many workers were helped by that one & what were the costs to the companies that they worked for? Don't forget how new bankruptcy laws were changed, in whose favor? Or how the middle & lower classes are getting stiffed out of a good education, giving way to an elite well educated upper class ruling society that continues to get richer & more powerful, while I might add is staying very healthy while we working bee's drop dead trying to keep bread on the table & a bit of heat in our hearts. It costs less to let us die uninsured, kind of like when slaves were tossed off the turn row when they were done with, feed us to the buzzards. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:03 AM What happened to that surplus in 2000? How about the recession that began in 2000 and the stock market bubble of 2000? How about Bosnia? Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia... ...DynCorp, based in Reston, Va., has been a worldwide force providing maintenance support to the U.S. military through contract field teams (CFTs). As one of the federal government's top 25 contractors, DynCorp has received nearly $1 billion since 1995 for these services and has deployed 181 personnel to Bosnia during the last six years..... ..He laughs bitterly recalling the work habits of a DynCorp employee in Bosnia who "weighed 400 pounds and would stick cheeseburgers in his pockets and eat them while he worked. The problem was he would literally fall asleep every five minutes. One time he fell asleep with a torch in his hand and burned a hole through the plastic on an aircraft." This same man, according to Johnston, "owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who weighs 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick." It is precisely these allegations that Johnston believes got him fired.... ... Johnston reports that he had been in Bosnia only a few days when he became aware of misbehavior in which many of his DynCorp colleagues were involved. He tells INSIGHT, "I noticed there were problems as soon as I got there, and I tried to be covert because I knew it was a rougher crowd than I'd ever dealt with. It's not like I don't drink or anything, but DynCorp employees would come to work drunk. A DynCorp van would pick us up every morning and you could smell the alcohol on them. There were big-time drinking issues. I always told these guys what I thought of what they were doing, and I guess they just thought I was a self-righteous fool or something, but I didn't care what they thought." The mix of drunkenness and working on multimillion-dollar aircraft upon which the lives of U.S. military personnel depended was a serious enough issue, but Johnston drew the line when it came to buying young girls and women as sex slaves. "I heard talk about the prostitution right away, but it took some time before I understood that they were buying these girls. I'd tell them that it was wrong and that it was no different than slavery - that you can't buy women. But they'd buy the women's passports and they [then] owned them and would sell them to each other.".... .... But Johnston worries about what this company's culture does to the reputation of the United States. "The Bosnians think we're all trash. It's a shame. When I was there as a soldier they loved us, but DynCorp employees have changed how they think about us. I tried to tell them that this is not how all Americans act, but it's hard to convince them when you see what they're seeing. The fact is, DynCorp is the worst diplomat you could possibly have over there." But Sawzaw, it was Bush not Bubba that alienated everybody. Wasn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 08 - 10:49 AM NEwsweek runs a longish article called What Bush Got Right, but the article doesn't really deliver on its title. It is an interesting analysis, however. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM Fareed Zakaria Newsweek: "The other noted political scientist who has been vindicated in recent weeks is George W. Bush. Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things. Bush never accepted the view that Islamic terrorism had its roots in religion or culture or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead he veered toward the analysis that the region was breeding terror because it had developed deep dysfunctions caused by decades of repression and an almost total lack of political, economic and social modernization. The Arab world, in this analysis, was almost unique in that over the past three decades it had become increasingly unfree, even as the rest of the world was opening up. His solution, therefore, was to push for reform in these lands. The theory did not originate with Bush's administration. Others had made this case: scholars like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, the Arab intellectuals who wrote the United Nations' now famous "Arab Human Development Report" and even this writer. (Three weeks after 9/11 I wrote an essay titled "Why Do They Hate Us?" that made this case.) These ideas were gaining some ground in the Arab world, especially after 9/11. But Bush's adoption of them was absolutely crucial because he had the power to pressure the region's regimes. Efforts to change the dynamics of the Middle East had always collapsed in the past as its wily rulers would delay, obstruct and obfuscate. Bush has pushed them with persistence and, increasingly, he is trying to build a broader international effort. The results might surprise. ." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM Thanks, Sawz. This is an interesting rationalization for Bush's long term effects. In a way it is like justifying starting a wildfire which cost many lives and destroyed many homes, because when you go back a year later, life has reasserted itself and things are starting to grow green again. So oobviosuly the wildfire was a Good Thing. SImilarly, in my view, Bush's noble course of action was obstreperous and destructive in many, many ways and paid far too high a price in blood, tragedy, and terror. The same benefits could have been acheived by more natural means at a much lower cost. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:00 PM US House of Representatives Turns Back Bush Impeachment Effort By Dan Robinson Washington 11 June 2008 The House of Representatives has blocked an effort by a Democratic lawmaker to impeach President Bush for his decisions and actions on Iraq, and other issues. Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders in Congress have opposed any effort to impeach, drawing criticism from some of the most vocal critics of the president. Dennis Kucinich announces Articles of Impeachment against Vice For Dennis Kucinich, a two-time unsuccessful Democratic candidate for president from the state of Ohio, it's the second impeachment effort in as many years. Previously, he introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, and the document regarding President Bush echoed much of the criticism from that effort. The 35-point resolution on President Bush was read twice into the House record, the first time by Kucinich himself. "Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. In his resolution, Kucinich stated that President Bush and Vice President Cheney conducted a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for the war in Iraq, and violated U.S. and international law in ordering an invasion. Kucinich referred to actions of a White House advisory group, comprising key advisers that his resolution asserts were closely involved in shaping the case for war based on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that later proved inaccurate: "The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task forced formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people," he said. Kucinich also accused the president of failing to properly equip U.S. troops, illegally detaining without charge U.S. citizens and "foreign captives", and using signing statements when approving bills passed by Congress, in what the Ohio Democrat asserts is a violation of U.S. laws. Other criticisms involved the refusal of White House officials to comply with congressional subpoenas, and the U.S. government's poor response to Hurricane Katrina. The resolution was brought to the floor Monday under privileged status, requiring the chamber to act on it in within two days. The House voted 251 to 166 to send it to the House Judiciary Committee, effectively killing the effort because it is unlikely to undergo hearings before President Bush leaves office. Since taking control of Congress, Democratic leaders, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in particular, have declined to support impeachment saying it would only be divisive and interfere with their agenda, a position reiterated Wednesday by a Pelosi spokesman. Democratic leaders faced sharp criticism for this from the far left of their party, where they are also faulted for not taking a stronger stand on an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:10 PM The 11th of June, as these matters go, is pretty mouldy news. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:38 AM Amos is reduced to plugging up the holes in his sinking impeachment showboat with rhetoric. Don't worry Amos, if impeachment fails there is always "summary justice" or a few "smart bombs". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:18 PM Fascism in Bush's America Described. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM "Democratic leaders in Congress have opposed any effort to impeach," Shall we start a thread on "Popular views of the Democratic Congress"? Or just assume they are lower than Bush, as the polls indict. Has anyone noticed that Obama has ONLY been a national Politician in the present Congress, which has a lower rating than Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:54 PM That is the sort of mindless conflation that only a Republican could embrace, Bruce. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:59 PM As opposed to the mindless Bush-bashing that only a Democrat could embrace? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:33 PM Jaysus, man. No--as opposed to some sort of effort at keeping logic and rational discourse in play. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:41 PM Bruce, I don't want to break your heart here. But Obama has a higher favorable rating than Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM Last time I looked, Bush was doing his job 3 times better than Congress according to the polls. But polls don't mean anything unless they support Amos's fanatical Anti-Bush campaign. |
