BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM

..."THE CHALLENGE: Seven years later, Bush has squandered the goodwill of the world. Global opinion of the United States is lower than at almost any time in history. Our country remains deeply involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which continue to drive extremist anti-American ideologies. Tragically, even though it has used the rhetoric of freedom and democracy to defend its policies, the Bush administration remains wedded to a national security strategy that prioritizes the use of military force and denies the full range of American economic, political, and cultural power. Recently, senior U.S. intelligence analyst Thomas Fingar presented the findings of  a new report, "Global Trends 2025," that "assesses how international events could affect the United States in the next 15 to 17 years." Fingar said that "the U.S. will remain the preeminent power," but he saw U.S. leadership eroding "at an accelerating pace" in "political, economic and arguably, cultural arenas." The Washington Post reported that, according to Fingar, "the one key area of continued U.S. superiority -- military power -- will 'be the least significant' asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future."

BUSH'S FAILED APPROACH: Despite the changing world dynamic, military power continues to be the asset which the Bush administration has most often used in the misnamed and misconceived Global War on Terror. After routing al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts from their base in Afghanistan in late 2001 and 2002, Bush turned his attention to Iraq, where the U.S. military continues its occupation to this day at a cost of over $12 billion a month. More than one in five Iraqis has been displaced since the 2003 invasion, both inside and outside the country. The 2007 troop surge, while helping to reduce violence, has also frozen in place "a fragmented and increasingly fractured country," with no sign that Iraq's leaders are prepared to make the tough power-sharing compromises necessary for a stable future Iraq. As a result of the unfinished war in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al Qaeda eventually regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, and have carried out an increasingly destructive insurgency. According to the Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress 2008 Terrorism Index, which surveyed 117 national security experts from across the political spectrum,  "eighty percent of the experts say that the United States has focused too much on the war in Iraq and not enough on the war in Afghanistan." Yesterday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen warned Congress that the United States. is "running out of time" to succeed in Afghanistan and that sending in more troops will not necessarily guarantee victory.

THE PROGRESSIVE APPROACH: Mullen's other comments offer a clue to the way forward. In discussing the Afghanistan front, Mullen noted the "poor and struggling Afghan economy" and "significant political uncertainty in Pakistan" as major barriers to real security and progress in the region. As Center for American Progress Senior fellow Brian Katulis and co-author Nancy Soderbergh argue in their new book, "The Prosperity Agenda," American leadership "has been absent from the scene of many other important global issues -- oil dependency, food shortages, climate change, global poverty, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons." Americans must expand their conception of national security to encompass more than military solutions for what are in many cases environmental, economic and political problems. With the continuing rise of economic competitors such as China and Russia, the United States must acclimate its security policies to an evolving multi-polar reality in order to work more effectively to deal with problems like Iran's nuclear program. And with the persistence of non-state actors such as Al Qaeda, the United States must look to a more comprehensive approach to national security, one that addresses the conditions which give rise to terrorism, and rethink its reflexive dependence on military power as the first option against potential threats."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 05:34 PM

KATRINA -- REPORT SAYS MILLIONS WASTED ON NO-BID CONTRACTS FOR KATRINA RECOVERY: According to a report by the Homeland Security Department's office of inspector general, "The government wasted millions of dollars on four no-bid contracts it handed out for Hurricane Katrina work." The Associated Press called the report "the latest to detail mismanagement in the multibillion-dollar Katrina hurricane recovery effort, which investigators have said wasted at least $1 billion." In the new report, investigators cite temporary housing contracts that were "awarded without competition to Shaw Group Inc., Bechtel Group Inc., CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. and Fluor Corp." by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). Investigators found that FEMA "did not always properly review the invoices submitted by the four companies" and "also issued open-ended contract instructions for months without clear guidelines on what work was needed to be done and the appropriate charges," which "wasted at least $45.9 million." Approximately $20 million of the wasted money went towards "a camp for evacuees that was never inspected and proved to be unusable." FEMA said that it "generally agreed" with the report and "would further investigate the $45.9 million in questioned costs and recoup the money as necessary."

ETHICS -- REPORT DETAILS 'CULTURAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND PROMISCUITY' AT GOVT. OFFICES: Yesterday, the Interior Department's inspector general revealed that 13 government officials "handling billions of dollars in oil royalties improperly engaged in sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with and received numerous gifts from them." The report notes that nearly a third of the Denver Minerals Management Service's 55-person office "received gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies." The report reveals that government officials tried to rewrite ethics rules in order to accommodate their partying and cover up their misdoings. In the summer of 2006, Royalty in Kind (RIK) employees wrote up a document titled, "Initiative to Clarify Guidance for RIK Interaction with Industry," which would codify employees' "uniqueness." Employees also illegaly took drugs, often while at the office. Gregory Smith, Program Director of the RIK, referred to cocaine as "office supplies" and rewarded his employees for obtaining it for him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) criticized "how cozy the relationship between Big Oil and the Administration's regulators have been." The AP called the scandal part of a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." (The Progressive newsletter)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:17 PM

Has good USA friend India been lost and replaced by China and Iran?

Iran to develop Caspian Sea oil reserves with India, China
Tehran looking East for financing energy projects

Global Research, September 11, 2008
Xinhua - 2008-08-23

Iran is in talks with India's Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) and China's offshore oil corporation for the development of oil reserves in the South Caspian Sea region, the Press TV satellite channel reported Saturday.

The report quoted the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) deputy director Hojatollah Ghanimifard as saying that NIOC has been discussing the issue with India's ONGC Videsh, the overseas arm of the ONGC, and China's state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).

NIOC is reviewing proposals to make the terms of the current contracts more attractive to international oil companies by offering them production-sharing contracts for the first time, the report said.

Under such contracts the developer is entitled to a share of production, which allows them to recoup their investment costs and make improved profits.

Over the past 20 years, the NIOC has mainly offered pay-back contracts to developers under which the investors receive a pre-agreed remuneration rate for their investment. The rate is typically determined by the global price of energy and the field hitting targets, and is paid over a 25-year period.

Some developers have voiced concerns over pay-back contracts, saying the contracts have serious market risks to developers as their profits depend on the fluctuating global price of energy.

'We think this region might be the exception to the rule,' Ghanimifard said. 'Since it is deep water, it looks like the production cost per barrel would be much more than in other regions like the south, or the Persian Gulf.'

The Brazilian state-run oil company Petrobras is currently drilling three wells in the Caspian Sea.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 08:26 PM

The other news of note is that Russia is sending a friendly delegation to the OPEC conveniton for the first time. This opens up a real can of worms in balance of power consideration. Russia sponsors Iran's militarism and is traditionally at arm's length, to say the least, with the Saudis for whom the US is their power agent. Interested in participating in future price spikes and power games over oil, Russia is feeling their way into amicable relations with OPEC, possibly in consideration of getting past their peak-oil supply years, who knows. But it sure complicates things and simply reinforces the motivation for the US to move rapidly toward energy independence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:22 PM

On 9-11 and McCain (Sorry for the HTML goof).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 10:30 AM

It seemed inevitable that bad things would happen when President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate. But it was left to Earl Devaney, the department's inspector general — and the busiest gumshoe inside the federal bureaucracy — to demonstrate just how bad things could be.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this editorial.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (45) »
In three extraordinary reports delivered to Congress this week, Mr. Devaney found that officials at the Minerals Management Service — the division responsible for granting offshore oil leases and collecting royalties — accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drugs and sex with oil company employees as part of what he described as a broader "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity."

At the center of the scandal is the royalty-in-kind program, under which the service takes delivery of oil and gas in lieu of cash payments from energy companies, then sells it to refiners. The program is vulnerable to manipulation at either end of the transaction, by overvaluing the oil and gas when it is received or undervaluing it when it is sold.

The program obviously needs a complete overhaul. It has already been the subject of multiple investigations — by Mr. Devaney; Dirk Kempthorne, the interior secretary; the Justice Department; and Congress — for mismanagement and conflicts of interest. In an earlier report in 2007, Mr. Devaney found that the agency had failed — through negligence and possible ethical lapses — to collect billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies for leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

His new reports add more shameful details, including allegations that agency employees accepted gratuities and other favors — meals, ski trips, sports tickets and golf outings with industry representatives — "with prodigious frequency."

Mr. Kempthorne, who has already transferred some employees and almost certainly will fire more, can take some comfort from the fact that nearly all of the misbehavior occurred before he arrived in Washington in 2006 to replace Gale Norton as interior secretary.

The White House can take no comfort at all. The people it brought to Washington to run the department had no interest in policing the oil, mining and agricultural interests they were sworn to regulate and every interest in promoting industry's (and their own) good fortune. The most notorious of these was J. Steven Griles, a mining industry lobbyist who really ran the agency for four years and who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

The fruit of these terrible appointments was aptly described by Mr. Devaney two years ago when he appeared before a House subcommittee. "Short of a crime," he said, "anything goes at the Department of the Interior."

It now appears that crime could be part of the mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:57 PM

From a review of Ron Susskind's "Th Way of the World", in the NY Times:

"...More startling are Suskind's revelations about the Iraq war and the handling of prewar intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction. In one instance, Suskind says that denials by the foreign minister of Iraq, Naji Sabri, that his country possessed W.M.D. were simply rewritten — "almost certainly altered under pressure from Washington," Suskind writes — into a false assertion that Sabri had substantiated suspicions about active Iraqi biological and nuclear programs.

Even more disturbing is the story of a former Iraqi intelligence chief named Tahir Jalil Habbush. Suskind describes in gripping detail secret meetings between Habbush and British intelligence in January and February of 2003. Habbush insisted that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his weapons programs but would not publicly admit it, so as to maintain a facade of deterrence against regional rivals like Iran. Not only did the White House dismiss Habbush's statements, Suskind writes, but an irritated Bush even asked whether the Iraqi could be asked for "something we can use to help us make our case." A subsequent $5 million C.I.A. payment to Habbush, disclosed by Suskind, has the smell of hush money.

Then comes what may be the ultimate bombshell: that the White House in structed the C.I.A. to forge a letter, backdated to July 2001, stating that the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had trained in Iraq and, furthermore, that Iraq had received suspicious shipments (presumably of yellowcake) from Niger with Al Qaeda's help. The letter was to be written and signed by Habbush on Iraqi government station ery and addressed to Hussein himself. This preposterously convenient summary of what a perfect case for war might look like almost resembled some wry gag from The Onion. But at the end of 2003 the letter did, in fact, turn up in a British newspaper, before seeping into the American media.

Suskind does not establish who dreamed up this pernicious document. But he says one of his sources, a former senior C.I.A. operative named Robert Richer, recalls being ordered directly by George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to have Habbush transcribe it himself from a draft produced by the White House. ­Richer even remembers "the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written," as Suskind puts it. Since the book's release, however, Tenet, Richer himself and another key source have adamantly denied that such a thing occurred. (Tenet also denies that Habbush's prewar claims were muffled.)

Even in the context of the past seven years, the stupid brazenness of a forged letter drafted on White House stationery does test credulity. But any claims made by Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a Pulitzer Prize winner, should not be casually dismissed. That no credible challenges have been made to numerous other scoops in his book suggests an attempted covering of exposed der rières. Still, his release of partial transcripts from recorded interviews with Richer has not definitively affirmed his reporting.

Suskind's point isn't about proving liabil ity. Rather, the Habbush episodes, if accurate, illustrate a creeping amorality in the way America has managed its war on terror. As our moral standing suffers, so does our ability to shame other nations into cracking down on their nuclear black markets. And so does our battle for the hearts and minds of people like the Afghan exchange student, the Pakistani émigré, the possibly innocent Guantánamo detainee and the followers of Benazir Bhutto. Their conclusions about America may determine whether Rolf Mowatt-Larssen will have the pleasure of being remembered as a Chicken Little, or will experience the horror of becoming a prophet of atomic disaster.

Michael Crowley is a senior editor at The New Republic...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:39 PM

SALACIOUS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: The IG report is full of accounts detailing the unethical relationships between government officials and the oil industry, calling it "a culture of ethical failure" and "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." The report notes that "employees frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and natural gas company representatives," despite being subject to restrictions on taking gifts. Royalty in Kind (RIK) officials, however, attempted to rewrite the ethics rules to cover up their misdoings. Two employees engaged in "brief sexual relationships" with oil and gas representatives, yet they did not recuse themselves from work with those companies and officials. Oil giant Chevron gave roughly $2,500 over the course of five years, "most of it spent on meals and drinks." Three others, Shell, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. and Hess Corp., also were named as gift-givers. Other agencies, such as the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM), were implicated as well. MRM Associate Director Lucy Denett created a "lucrative contract" for her special assistant Jim Mayberry, upon Mayberry's retirement and later sought to increase funding for the contract. Gregory Smith, who managed RIK at MMS, was said to have demanded sexual favors from an employee; Attorney General Michael Mukasey in May 2008 "declin[ed] to prosecute Smith on various charges," the report notes.  

THE DRILLING DEBATE: The MMS, the agency that would oversee the expansion of offshore oil drilling, is now front and center in the oil drilling debate in Congress because of the IG report. This week, House Democrats announced that they would bring an energy bill allowing for expanded oil exploration off the coasts. "On the eve of Congress starting this big debate you've got a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct in programs that are going to be a key part of the discussion," Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-OR) observed. Conservatives are attempting to block the legislation because it would eliminate an estimated $17 billion in tax breaks for oil companies over 10 years. "So we're saying: OK, you want to drill, this is how it will be. No more subsidies," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday. Pelosi said the energy measure in Congress will now include a "strong integrity piece" to shield the government from oil industry influence.

SCANDAL-CLAD DEPARTMENT: The revelations from the IG are the latest in scandal-clad Interior Department. The IG previously found that the Department under-collected billions of dollars of revenue owed the U.S. taxpayer from oil companies that produce and sell oil and gas from public lands and waters. Government workers "routinely failed to seek out legal advice on complicated deals and that the agency used outdated computers and a $150 million software program that resulted in royalty money going uncollected." J. Steven Griles, former mining lobbyist and Interior Department Deputy Secretary, pleaded guilty in 2007 to obstruction of justice in the Jack Abramoff scandal. "Vice President Dick Cheney packed the top posts at the Department of the Interior with lobbyists who had spent their careers representing the very industries they were now being asked to regulate," the New York Times noted yesterday.

(From The Progress Report)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 02:27 AM

FOR YEARS, critics have accused the Bush administration of being in bed with the oil industry. They thought they were speaking figuratively, but they weren't.

According to a scathing new report by the inspector general of the Interior Department, employees of the department who handle royalty payments from the oil and gas industry for drilling on federal land have accepted gifts from industry executives - and had sexual relations with them as well. With admirable understatement, Inspector General Earl Devaney declared, "Sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length."

His office's investigations, he said, revealed "a culture of ethical failure" and an agency rife with conflicts of interest.

The report justifies the skepticism of many in Congress over the industry's recent push to use high oil prices to win permission to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf. A department that is as cozy with industry as the report spells out cannot be counted on to protect the public's financial, safety, or environmental interests - especially if the oil industry starts drilling in crucial fishing areas like New England's Georges Bank.

Devaney's report zeroed in on officials in the department's Minerals Management Service who handled contracts with oil companies that paid their royalties in barrels of petroleum, which the government then sold. But the report also puts a new light on revelations in recent years that the service has looked the other way and allowed the industry to escape royalties altogether for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. According to government auditors, the failure of service employees to collect payments aggressively could cost taxpayers $10.5 billion over 25 years.

The Clinton administration shares blame for this loss of revenue. In the 1990s, the administration persuaded oil companies to drill in deep-water areas with the promise they would not have to pay royalties on oil they discovered. Interior officials failed to include a standard provision that royalties would be due if the barrel price of oil exceeded $34, which it long since has. This omission was brought to the attention of Bush administration officials no later than 2004, but they never made any effort to renegotiate the contracts. (Boston.com)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:55 PM

The location of a President Bush fundraising event in Florida has been changed after event planners realized that the original host is under an IRS investigation. The event was originally scheduled to be at the home of John Boswell, whose Boswell House Ministries is undergoing an IRS probe.



(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 01:18 PM

"The Pakistani military said on Tuesday its troops would fire on foreign forces if they crossed the country's borders but denied that this was a change of policy.

The comments came after the United States sent commandos into Pakistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda earlier this month, and as confusion continued to swirl over a possible Monday incursion by United States forces into Pakistani territory along the border with Afghanistan.

Local residents and a Pakistani government official said Monday two American helicopters were repulsed in South Waziristan when Pakistani soldiers fired at them.

But the Pakistani and United States military publicly denied any such incident, and a Pakistani intelligence official said that an American helicopter had mistakenly crossed the border briefly, leading Pakistani ground forces to fire into the air.

On Tuesday, a military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, said the army reserved the right to use force to defend the country and its people, but he said there was "no change in policy."

Asked what the Pakistan military would do if there was a future incursion by American troops, he said: "There is a big if involved. We will see to it when such a situation arises."

Tensions have been mounting since the United States intensified its campaign in Pakistan's border areas against militants suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The United States has become increasingly frustrated that the militants use the border areas as a refuge to stage attacks against American and NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan.

On Sept. 3, helicopter-borne American Special Operations forces made their first publicly acknowledged ground operation on Pakistani soil, when they attacked Qaeda militants in a Pakistani village near the border with Afghanistan.

Following that raid, in an unusually strong response, Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said that his forces would not tolerate such incursions and would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."

The raid complicated relations with the new civilian government in Pakistan, which is trying to stabilize the country after the resignation in August of President Pervez Musharraf, whom the Bush administration regarded as a strong ally in its campaign against terrorism. "

---

This appearance of yet another Bush-inspired flop in international relations begins to crystallize on the horizon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:43 AM

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda

BBC

Barack Obama delivers foreign policy speech
Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to tackle al-Qaeda
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 09:35 AM

It has been nearly two years since Congress first began asking questions about the firing of nine United States attorneys, who appear to have been removed for partisan political reasons. Mr. Rove may have been directly involved in these possibly illegal firings, but he has not told Congress what he knows. In defiance of a legally binding subpoena, he refused this summer to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.

Congress's investigation of the United States attorneys matter is of the utmost importance. It now seems clear that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales operated as a partisan political actor, using its prosecutorial authority to help the party in power win elections. That was a grave abuse, which undermined American democracy.

There are real victims in this scandal. Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was sentenced to seven years in prison as a result of a prosecution that appears to have been politically motivated. Mr. Siegelman is free pending an appeal, but he has already served part of the sentence and could end up returning to prison.

Congress is also pushing to obtain testimony and documents from Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel. Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers have also defied Congressional subpoenas. The House voted to hold them in contempt in February, and it is fighting in court right now to force them to testify.

A Federal District Court judge appointed by President Bush ordered them to comply with the subpoenas, but the administration appealed the ruling. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is also doing his best to block Congress from getting the testimony it is entitled to. Clearly, the administration's goal is to run out the clock, to get out of town before the subpoenas are enforced.

The House needs to start pushing just as hard on Mr. Rove. The important step is for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to schedule a vote on holding him in contempt in the next two weeks. The House is eager to adjourn — the members want to get back to their districts so they can campaign for re-election. But it would be a mistake to leave without taking this vote.

There are many vital principles at stake, but none is more important than the power of Congress itself. In this era of expanding presidential authority, Congress is a critical check on executive branch abuses. It cannot perform this function if it allows members of the executive branch to flout its subpoenas and its oversight.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:10 PM

Sawz:

The excerpt you post makes little sense. As far as I can ascertain there was, in fact, an American armed incursion across the Pakistan border, which resulted in multiple deaths some of whom or all of whom were civilian, non-participants.

AFter that Pakistan announced it would defend its borders with armed force if American troops crossed them uninvited.

Your post seems to argue that since they haven't done it since the last time, no situation exists.

That is just silly, if it is what you mean.

It may seem inconceivable to some at present but it would be an easy misstep to find ourselves in a hot firefight with Pakistani forces if present trends continue.

Same old crap, different day. Welcome to the World According to Cowboy W.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:55 PM

Bush's Overseas Policies Begin Resembling Obama's
by Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2008; Page A02

"....an Obama presidency might look a bit like Bush's second.

On a range of major foreign policy issues over the past year, Bush has pursued strategies and actions very much along the lines of what Sen. Obama has advocated during his presidential race, according to the Illinois Democrat's campaign and many diplomatic and security experts.

The administration has pushed ahead with high-level diplomatic negotiations with Iran and North Korea, agreed to a "time horizon" for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and announced plans last week to shift troops and other resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government's approval -- an idea that Obama first endorsed, and was heavily criticized for, last year...."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 12:17 AM

Wow!! Infectious rationality at work!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 09:09 AM

"When the final report on the secret meetings between the British intelligence agency MI6 and Iraq's former Chief of Intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, was presented to George Bush bearing the conclusion that Saddam possessed no WMDs, Bush responded, "Fuck it. We're going in." This anecdote, along with other disturbing revelations from inside the Bush administration, is detailed in Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World. In addition to revealing startling information about Benazir Bhutto, Guantanamo, and the threat of nuclear terrorism, this Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter gives us an alarming new account of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and the extent to which the White House was willing to deceive not just the public, but intelligence officers and government officials.

Suskind's book, when put together with Scott McClellan's What Happened, Barton Gellman's Angler, and Bob Woodward's The War Within, paints an extremely dark, deceptive, and frankly, evil picture of the Bush administration. While there have been many accusations over the past eight years, these books offer fairly definitive proof of Bush and Cheney's two terms of illegal operations. Unfortunately, with the media completely fixated on the election, no one seems to care. Bush is hardly talked about anymore (with the exception of comparisons to McCain), and outrage at his presidency seems to be dwindling.

Suskind explains that there were two main Iraqi sources that provided the CIA with reliable inside information on Saddam's WMD program: Naji Sabri (Saddam's Foreign Minister) and the aforementioned Tahir Jalil Habbush (Saddam's Chief of intelligence). Sabri was put in contact with the CIA through French Intelligence officials, who enjoyed a long-standing relationship with the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Sabri revealed to the U.S. that Saddam neither possessed WMDs nor was he trying to procure or develop them. Any vestige of a bioweapons program was negligible, and neither he nor his military possessed chemical weapons. This information was immediately passed up the chain of command to the Bush White House, where it was dismissed as misinformation. They sent it to the CIA station in New York, where a final report was concocted that completely contradicted Sabri's actual claims.

The introductory paragraph of the report claimed that Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons and that he was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons. This false report was passed to the upper echelons of British Intelligence, and the real findings were immediately buried and never conveyed to Colin Powell before he gave his notorious presentation to the UN detailing Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger.

The second source, Tahir Habbush, also revealed that Saddam had no WMDs or programs to develop them. As the head of Iraqi intelligence, he also had extensive access to Saddam and gave both the British and the American intelligence agencies unprecedented access to Saddam's state of mind. Habbush detailed to the British that Saddam was worried his neighbors, especially Iran, would discover he had none of the weapons they most feared: "Saddam's focus [was] on his own image and his regional enemies. That was key."

None of this was of interest to the Bush administration because it didn't fit the narrative they were trying to build. When George Tenet saw the report, he stated, "They're not going to like this downtown." He was correct: when Bush was briefed on Habbush, he asked, "Why don't they ask him to give us something we can use to help us make our case?"

Habbush was ordered to be quickly silenced, and just before the invasion, he was slipped out of Baghdad into Jordan with the assistance of the CIA. Months later in January, when no WMDs could be found, "everyone was holding their breath, saying, 'I hope Habbush doesn't pop up on the screen.'" Habbush was then given $5 million to keep quiet on the issue of WMDs and provide the type of assistance the Bush Administration valued...."


Georgetown Voice

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 11:11 PM

Sunday, 02 July 2006
BAGHDAD – The Iraqi government released a list of its 41 most wanted terror suspects on July 2 including top Baath Party members and members of Saddam Hussein's former Revolutionary Command Council, as well as Hussein's wife and daughter, and al-Qaida in Iraq's new leader, Abu-Ayyub Al-Masri.

"We're releasing this list so that our people can know their enemies," said Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie during a press conference on July 2.3. Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti: Former Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, member of the New Regional Command; financier of New Baath Party and active in the insurgency. The Central Criminal Court of Iraq issued an arrest warrant for Habbush on May 4 May, 2005. There is an offering of a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to his capture."

He sounds like a reliable source to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 01:33 AM

Intresting, Sawz. If this is the same guy, there's obviously a lot more to his story than has been told.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:23 AM

Washington Post:

Name That Doctrine

By Michael Gerson
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A19

It is an odd thing to observe a historical debate on events about which one possesses the knowledge of a participant -- something like watching archeologists dig and sift through your living room, proposing their own interpretations of your photos and knickknacks. And it raises a disturbing prospect: That most such debates are conducted by experts possessing great confidence and little knowledge.

This controversy began when ABC's Charles Gibson asked Sarah Palin to give her view of the Bush doctrine. Palin's vague answer provoked a dismissive response from Gibson, who defined the doctrine as "anticipatory self-defense." Charles Krauthammer came to Palin's defense, arguing that there were four consecutive versions of the Bush doctrine, culminating in the democracy promotion agenda of Bush's second inaugural address -- a description that is closer to the truth. Joe Klein, with absolute and unjustified self-assurance, then insisted, "There was only one Bush doctrine" -- the preemption of emerging threats. One frustrated Canadian columnist concluded: "It turns out nobody really knows what the Bush doctrine is."

But that is not quite true. The Bush doctrine is not the Da Vinci Code. It developed over time, but it developed according to the intentions of a single man. The content of the Bush doctrine directly reflects President Bush's convictions about the nature of the post-Sept. 11 world. And the form of that doctrine is something I worked directly with him to shape.

There are many speeches that could be cited. But when President Bush's foreign policy vision was under general assault in late 2005 and early 2006 -- the bloody low point of the Iraq war -- he set out in his 2006 State of the Union address to defend three prongs or elements of the Bush doctrine against growing American isolationism:

· Aggressively confronting emerging security threats. From the start, President Bush stated that the preemption of new-age threats -- terrorist networks, the regimes that aid and shelter them, and weapons of mass destruction -- is not always a military task. Economic and diplomatic pressure are the preferred and likely tools for dealing with outlaw regimes. And there is no doubt that the Iraq war has sapped public support for military options, even as a last resort. But Iraq shows the challenges of implementing preemption; it does not disprove the theory. If Iraq had possessed stockpiles of nerve gas and biological agents, who would now question the need to forcefully confront that threat? In this election, it is Barack Obama who has proposed the extension of greater American power into the dangerous border regions of Pakistan, the current home base of al-Qaeda. What possible reason could there be for such action except the preemption of threats to America and its allies?

· Democracy promotion. The idea that America benefits in the long run from the spread of a liberal, democratic, free-trading world order is not a Bush innovation, it is a post-World War II consensus. Not every tyrant in recent history has been an enemy of America. But every major enemy of America in recent history has been a tyrant. Bush's true innovation was to apply this consensus -- at least occasionally -- to the Arab Middle East. It is not an easy task. There are many valid arguments about the pace, phasing and methods of reform. But eventually there is no alternative. The dictators of the Middle East not only rule unjustly but generally ineffectively, and their oppression pushes most opposition toward the radical mosque. As these nations fail and become unstable, the question will inevitably be asked of any president: What did you do to promote a viable political alternative to Islamism while you had the time?

· Fighting disease and promoting development. This is perhaps the most unexpected and underappreciated element of the Bush doctrine. Bush, in some ways, has accepted a "root causes" theory of world disorder, from terrorism, to criminal and drug networks, to pandemics and refugees. So he has doubled overseas development assistance during his time in office and nearly quadrupled aid to Africa (an increasingly important battlefield in the war of ideas against radical Islam). He has tied some of this increased aid, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, to improvements in governance that make other forms of economic and social progress possible. Both of the current candidates for president have indicated they will expand global aid as well.

It really doesn't matter much if the next president and vice president can identify these three elements of the Bush doctrine. They will live by them anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:31 AM

Washington Post:

History Will Judge

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 19, 2008; Page A19

For the past 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt -- have entered (or reentered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George W. Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.

Indeed, the three presidential campaigns between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001, were the most devoid of foreign policy debate of any in the 20th century. The commander-in-chief question that dominates our campaigns today was almost nowhere in evidence during our '90s holiday from history.

When I asked President Bush during an interview Monday to reflect on this oddity, he cast himself back to early 2001, recalling what he expected his presidency would be about: education reform, tax cuts and military transformation from a Cold War structure to a more mobile force adapted to smaller-scale 21st-century conflict.

But a wartime president he became. And that is how history will both remember and judge him.

Getting a jump on history, many books have already judged him. The latest by Bob Woodward describes the commander in chief as unusually aloof and detached. A more favorably inclined biographer might have called it equanimity.

In the hour I spent with the president (devoted mostly to foreign policy), that equanimity was everywhere in evidence -- not the resignation of a man in the twilight of his presidency but a sense of calm and confidence in eventual historical vindication.

It is precisely that quality that allowed him to order the surge in Iraq in the face of intense opposition from the political establishment (of both parties), the foreign policy establishment (led by the feckless Iraq Study Group), the military establishment (as chronicled by Woodward) and public opinion itself. The surge then effected the most dramatic change in the fortunes of an American war since the summer of 1864.

That kind of resolve requires internal fortitude. Some have argued that too much reliance on this internal compass is what got us into Iraq in the first place. But Bush was hardly alone in that decision. He had a majority of public opinion, the commentariat and Congress with him. In addition, history has not yet rendered its verdict on the Iraq war. We can say that it turned out to be longer and more costly than expected, surely. But the question remains as to whether the now-likely outcome -- transforming a virulently aggressive enemy state in the heart of the Middle East into a strategic ally in the war on terror -- was worth it. I suspect the ultimate answer will be far more favorable than it is today.

When I asked the president about his one unambiguous achievement, keeping us safe for seven years -- about 6 1/2 years longer than anybody thought possible just after Sept. 11 -- he was quick to credit both the soldiers keeping the enemy at bay abroad and the posse of law enforcement and intelligence officials hardening our defenses at home.

But he alluded also to some of the measures he had undertaken, including "listening in on the enemy" and "asking hardened killers about their plans." The CIA has already told us that interrogation of high-value terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded more valuable intelligence than any other source. In talking about these measures, the president mentioned neither this testimony as to their efficacy nor the campaign of vilification against him that they occasioned. More equanimity still.

What the president did note with some pride, however, is that beyond preventing a second attack, he is bequeathing to his successor the kinds of powers and institutions the next president will need to prevent further attack and successfully prosecute the long war. And indeed, he does leave behind a Department of Homeland Security, reorganized intelligence services with newly developed capacities to share information and a revised FISA regime that grants broader and modernized wiretapping authority.

In this respect, Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) -- also absent an attack on the United States -- that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 11:50 AM

Commentary: Return Of The Geeks


(This commentary was written by Chris Mooney, with additional reporting by Jen Phillips. It appeared in the Mother Jones online edition for September/October 2008. Mr. Mooney's commentary follows):

If the Bush administration had consciously plotted to leave office with one last jab at American scientists, it could hardly have done better than the North Atlantic right whale incident. This fish tale has everything: attacks on science, appeasement of special interests, delays in government action-even a cameo by Moby Dick Cheney.

North Atlantic right whales can grow to 55 feet in length and weigh 70 tons, but that hardly makes them invincible. Because they have a habit of calving amid shipping lanes off the Atlantic coast, the whales sometimes perish in collisions-no small matter when there are fewer than 400 of them left in existence. Accordingly, in 2006 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sought to protect these endangered cetaceans by requiring speed limits for ships passing through critical areas at key times of year-in essence setting up the marine equivalent of school crossing zones.

But if science is a right whale, the Bush administration is a container ship doing 25 knots. The White House stalled, and continues to stall, the NMFS regulation, and now we know why. Behind the scenes, it has been indulging in opportunistic attacks on whale science that echoed those by the shipping industry, especially the World Shipping Council, a trade group that has lobbied heavily against the NMFS rule.

..."

Posted here

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 03:06 PM

OK, I will give you that Bush will NOT get the whale vote this election.



Oh, wait! Bush is not running in this election ( in spite of what some are saying).

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 04:25 PM

Just for the record, the following quotes on the question of permanent military bases in Iraq from Bush and his Administration.

"It is never our intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our military forces." —Secretary of State Colin Powell, October 2002

"We will stay as long as necessary to make sure that the Iraqi people have a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. And then we'll come home." —George W. Bush, May 2003

"We have no desire to stay any longer than necessary." —American envoy Paul Bremer, July 2003

"I assured [Iraqis] that America wasn't leaving. When they hear me say we're staying, that means we're staying." —George W. Bush, November 2003

"I can't say whether it is going to be 2006, 2007...It is not going to be months for sure." —British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, January 2004

"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation—and neither does America." —George W. Bush, April 2004

"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq." —Then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, February 2005

"We have no goal of establishing permanent bases." —Zalmay Khalilzad, then US ambassador to Iraq, March 2006

"US troops could be in Iraq for a thousand years or a million years...It's not American presence; it's American casualties." —John McCain, explaining his "100 years" remark to Mother Jones, January 2008

"[America's Korean and German bases] have been there for 50 years; they are US facilities in the sense that they are US-only in many instances. That's not what we have in mind…We have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq." —Defense Secretary Robert Gates, June 2008

"

You may want to refer to these at some point as a reality check.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:39 PM

"...About the firings of United States attorneys and Karl Rove's defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify about them:

In a well-reasoned decision, Judge John D. Bates of United States District Court rejected the administration's strained arguments favoring executive supremacy. The Bush administration should now attempt to reach a reasonable compromise with Congress. Congress, for its part, should negotiate in good faith and continue its measured efforts to get to the bottom of the firings.

If Mr. Rove persists in resisting the subpoena, Congress should indeed hold him in contempt.

Carl Tobias
Richmond, Va., Sept. 17, 2008"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM

"Author Ron Suskind writes in Esquire: "George Walker Bush is not a stupid or a bad man. But in his conduct as president, he behaved stupidly and badly. He was constrained by neither the standards of conduct common to the average professional nor the Constitution. This was not ignorance but a willful rejection on Bush's part, in the service of streamlining White House decision-making, eliminating complexity, and shutting out dissenting voices. This insular mind-set was and is dangerous. Rigorous thinking and hard-won expertise are both very good things, and our government for the past eight years has routinely debased and mocked these virtues.

"President Bush was unmoved by any arguments that challenged his assumptions. Debate was silenced, expertise was punished, and diversity of opinion was anathema, so much so that his political opponents--other earnest Americans who want the best for their country--were, to him and his men, the moral equivalent of the enemy. It is important to note just how different such conduct has been from the conduct of other presidents from both parties. . . .

"[T]his ahistoric president seems to have never appreciated just how hard-won are the institutions of American liberty. Article II of the United States Constitution grants stunning power to the president, power almost beyond imagining to be entrusted to one man. But for George Bush and Dick Cheney, it wasn't enough. And so, with a level of secrecy that betrayed a basic mistrust of the American people, they proceeded to expand the awesome power of the presidency and in the process upset the balance of powers designed by the founders. And in this, the president and vice-president found their greatest success. In fact, this presidency has succeeded spectacularly in the project that most mattered to Bush and Cheney, and that is putting the United States on a more authoritarian footing.

"And with our fear being very carefully managed by our national leaders, and with President Bush exploiting our darker instincts, we in the press, in the Congress, in the electorate generally, simply weren't vigilant enough. And that is perhaps the best lesson to take away from the presidency of George W. Bush.""

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 12:58 PM

""'Bush's response to the financial crisis has been Katrina-esque,' said Douglas Brinkley, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, referring to the widespread perception the president was out of touch with the situation when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005.

"'It's a very fast world and we look for a president to step out in public and get ahead of events. Instead we get delays and wishful thinking,' said Brinkley."

Roger Simon writes for Politico: "George W. Bush will continue to draw a paycheck until noon on Jan. 20, 2009. (If there is still any money left in the U.S. Treasury to pay him, that is.) But what has he been doing to earn his pay lately? Not calming fears among his fellow citizens about their life savings, that's for sure. . . .

"We are talking about a real crisis in America that is going to turn into a real panic unless the president does something. Modern presidents have assumed duties beyond their constitutional ones, and one duty is to provide guidance and leadership that establish calm and restore confidence in times of trouble. George Bush did this very well following Sept. 11, but he is not doing it now.

"The stock market swoons, home prices fall, job losses mount. But the president does not want to talk about it. Not really. And he certainly does not want to take any questions about it. . . ." (Washington Post)

---

I have to hand it to you who cast your votes for GWB in 2004.

You sure know how to pick them.

Perhaps its time for a deep and quiet moment of reflection about how you ended up contributing to this madcap prince's rise and continuation in the halls of power. Perhaps it is time to ask, seriously and quietly, "What was I thinking?" or "What did I miss, misinterpret, or hallucinate about?"

We can always hope to do better next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 08:05 PM

Poll Topic —         Is the world safer seven years after 9/11?
                          
14.4 %
                 Yes, because terrorist networks have been weakened
                          
5.2 %
                 Yes, because democracy is slowly taking root in the Middle East
                          
41.2 %
                 No, there are more terrorists today than ever
                          
39.2 %
                 No, climate change and other issues are more dangerous than terrorism

This poll reflects the voting of our readers since Thursday, September 11, 2008. This poll is not scientific and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Globalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 08:56 PM

I've never heard anyone apologize for voting for Cheney/Bush in 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 09:04 PM

I have heard a couple who acknowledge they were wrong, about as close as its gonna get.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:02 AM

But is the administration's proposal the right way to do this? It would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency. Surely Congress can at least ask some hard questions about such an open-ended commitment.

And I've been shocked by the number of (mostly conservative) experts I've spoken with who aren't at all confident that the Bush administration has even the basics right — or who think that the plan, though it looks simple on paper, will prove to be a nightmare in practice.

But will political leaders dare oppose it? Barack Obama called Sunday for more accountability, and I imagine he'll support the efforts of the Democratic Congressional leadership to try to add to the legislation a host of liberal spending provisions. He probably won't want to run the risk of actually opposing it, or even of raising big questions and causing significant delay — lest he be attacked for risking the possible meltdown of the global financial system.

What about John McCain? He could play it safe, going along with whatever the Bush administration and the Congress are able to negotiate.

If he wants to be critical, but concludes that Congress has to pass something quickly lest the markets fall apart again, and that he can't reasonably insist that Congress come up with something fundamentally better, he could propose various amendments insisting on much more accountability and transparency in how Treasury handles this amazing grant of power.

Comments by McCain on Sunday suggest he might propose an amendment along the lines of one I received in an e-mail message from a fellow semi-populist conservative: "Any institution selling securities under this legislation to the Treasury Department shall not be allowed to compensate any officer or employee with a higher salary next year than that paid the president of the United States." This would punish overpaid Wall Streeters and, more important, limit participation in the bailout to institutions really in trouble.

Or McCain — more of a gambler than Obama — could take a big risk. While assuring the public and the financial markets that his administration will act forcefully and swiftly to deal with the crisis, he could decide that he must oppose the bailout as the panicked product of a discredited administration, an irresponsible Congress, and a feckless financial establishment, all of which got us into this fine mess.

(Wm Kristol in the NY Times)

It is noteworthy that Mr Kristol, the token Republican on the Times staff, is joining the chorus regarding a discredited administration.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

Democracy or Police State? New Lawsuit Targets Bush, Cheney, NSA over Illegal Spying
by Tom Burghardt / September 22nd, 2008

On Wednesday, Antifascist Calling reported on moves by the Department of Justice to seek blanket immunity for AT&T under provisions of the disgraceful FISA Amendments Act (FAA).

If approved by Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding magistrate hearing the landmark Hepting v. AT&T lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco, the giant telecommunications corporation and Bush crime family partner would walk away scott free.

The suit, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers caught up in the state's illegal internet and telephone driftnet surveillance, is challenging unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens and legal residents.

The shocking extent of the "public-private partnership" in political repression was first revealed in depth when former AT&T technician Mark Klein filed an affidavit in support of EFF's contention that AT&T had systematically violated their customers' right to privacy.

As Antifascist Calling has previously reported on many occasions, the telecommunications giant had constructed a secret room (SG3 Secure Room, room number 641A) for the exclusive use of the National Security Agency's spying operations at AT&T's Folsom St. office.

On Saturday, EFF reported that the government "started the formal process for retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies sued by EFF and others for their involvement in the warrantless surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans." That hearing is set for December 2, 2008 in San Francisco.

The state filed a secret "certification" by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with the court along with a public submission of its claim of limitless executive power "during a time of war."

However in a bold, preemptive move on Thursday, EFF filed a new lawsuit against the government. That suit, Jewel v. NSA, targets the National Security Agency, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's sinister chief of staff, David Addington, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Filed "on behalf of AT&T customers," the civil rights organization has opened a new front against the government and their corporate partners. EFF declared:

The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. ("EFF Sues NSA, President Bush and Vice President Cheney to Stop Illegal Surveillance," Electronic Frontier Foundation, Press Release, September 18, 2008)

As in Hepting v. AT&T, the identical evidence of gross malfeasance on the part of well-heeled corporate lawbreakers who acted in concert with unaccountable secret state agencies, is central to Jewel v. NSA.

These covert intelligence operations arose as the result of secret Department of Justice memorandums written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to an unsigned and undated memo released by by the OLC, the Justice Department claims that President Bush has an "inherent right" to carry out "communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Indeed, as the extent of these illegal programs have revealed, the "enemy" is none other than the American people themselves!

A January 19, 2006 Justice Department White Paper, Legal Authority Supporting the Activities of the NSA Described by President Bush, states:

The NSA's activities are supported by the President's well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States...."

From a website calling itself Dissident Voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 06:47 AM

White House warned about Fannie and Freddie
September 23, 2008 - 0:49 ET

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."   (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 09:04 PM

The catalyst for this current crisis may be the housing market, but the larger culprit is the killing of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this recklessness.

Yet, rather than considering the massive risks of merging commercial and speculative banking interests, federal officials actually pushed for Bank of America's $50 billion all-stock takeover of Merrill Lynch. That knee-jerk move follows the same dangerous pattern that began when Citigroup took over Salomon Brothers in 1999.

The Fed wants to avoid another huge failure in Merrill Lynch by pushing it under the rug of Bank of America, but B of A can't possibly know the extent of Merrill's potential losses. That a commercial bank is taking over a speculative giant is much more dangerous than Lehman Brothers tanking. The Fed was well within its rights to say 'no' to Lehman's plea for a bailout. But unlike Lehman or Bear, B of A is responsible for the accounts of millions of customers—real people with real money on the line. If Bank of America gets in real trouble, the Fed's hand may be forced.

The speculative nature of the current banking industry, in which commercial and investment banks can borrow beyond their abilities to repay, is a threat to national economic security. Lehman's demise means the dumping of more worthless real estate investments into an already over saturated market. (If Lehman could have sold its assets for enough capital infusion, it would have done so.) Lehman's bankruptcy will only damage the market further, as other players find even less appetite for their real estate waste.

In all of this turmoil, citizens will see their ability to get loans, even if they are qualified, cut further. Bank of America, as one of the nation's leading lenders, would be wise to figure out what their risk is in taking over the behemoth that is Merrill, and quantify just how much capital it is on the hook for before extending any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 10:14 PM

New York Times

"These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war -- the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of ''Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals'' would then be replaced by ''Saddam was shrewder than we thought.''

This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing -- and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

Defeatism's second ''no'' is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.

Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

The third ''no'' is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

The fourth ''no'' is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium. "

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:11 PM

Mister Sawz' insightful post was written by William Safire, a specialist in linguistics, in 2004.

It is safe to say that it has been thoroughly overtaken by events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 10:38 AM

The letter Bush should be writing to Maliki et al, as voiced by THomas Friedman. "Dear Iraqi Friends...".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM

North Korea to restart nuclear programme
North Korea is preparing to restart a nuclear reprocessing plant used to make weapons-grade material after refusing access to United Nations inspectors.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai and Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 5:24PM BST 24 Sep 2008

In a major blow to international efforts to contain its development of nuclear weapons, the reclusive Stalinist state told the International Atomic Energy Agency it would restart the Yongbyon plant next week.

The country has barred United Nations inspectors from the site had removed IAEA seals and surveillance equipment, a spokesman for the UN watchdog said.

North Korea started dismantling Yongbyon in November, but has now backed away from its commitments made in negotiations with South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia.

Pyongyang's decision was a disappointment to Washington, which had tempered its hostility to North Korea in favour of a multilateral, diplomatic approach.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, issued a cautious response, saying that the six-party talks were not defeated.

"We have been through ups and downs in this process before," she said in New York, where she was attending the United Nations General Assembly.

"We believe that for the North Koreans to do so, it will only deepen its isolation."

(Guardian UK)

One heckuva job, there, Bushie!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:01 PM

Amos,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM

Amos,

You are being critical that Bush tried diplomacy instead of taking action? You seem a little inconsistant.


You applauded him before, now that the result is the same as with Saddam in Iraq ( and Iran) you want him to have done something different????

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM

The President of Iraq said that the Bush administation promised to take their troops home in 2010 but then weeks later changed it to 2011 due to domestic political reasons.

Sorry troops, you get another year due to doemstic political problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

I applaud his effort at diplomacy; but apparently it was less effective than it was presented to be. Hell, so was his attempt at military adventurism, his attempt at economic leadership, and his attempt to hold a position committed to defending the Constitution.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM

ANother major encroachment on the COnstitutional protections of the citizens of this country:

Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the "Homeland"?
(updated below - Update II)

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:

They'll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .

The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever -- times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will -- and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader's demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .

It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."

Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
...(See rest of article here.)

The slippery slope toward fascism -- the marriage of military force, dictatorial politics and large business interests -- seems to be getting slipperier as Bush's administration slides down it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM

CORRECTION:

The final update of the above article (9-24-08) modifies the original, which was written in 2007. My error.

Here is the update:

"UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future."

Apologies for the mistake.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 08:18 PM

The Goodbye Bush celebration here is hereby canceled

due to the fact that McCain Palin will win.

In the unlikely event that Obama wins, he loses... with a trillion dollar hole beneath his feet when he takes his first step as President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 08:24 PM

A Bush think tank
http://www.cato.org/
What will they do without Wall Street to shill for?


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cato+institute&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 02:51 AM

WASHINGTON -- Senior Bush administration officials held a series of meetings in the White House in 2002 and 2003 to discuss allowing the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods on Al Qaeda detainees, according to a written statement Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently provided to Senate investigators.

Rice's written response to investigators on the Senate Armed Services Committee marks the first time a high-ranking White House official has formally acknowledged the White House discussions, which led to the CIA's use of waterboarding and other coercive methods.


Waterboarding is legal, White House says
In particular, Rice wrote in the Sept. 12 statement that officials discussed simulated torture techniques that elite U.S. soldiers were subjected to as part of a survival training program, and that she and other officials were told that such methods "had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm."

(LAT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:30 AM

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed, etc.쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:06 AM

"It took President Bush until Wednesday night to address the American people about the nation's financial crisis, and pretty much all he had to offer was fear itself.

There was no acknowledgement of the shocking failure of government regulation, or that the country cannot afford more tax cuts for the very wealthy and budget-busting wars, or that spending at least $700 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out Wall Street and the banks should be done carefully, transparently and with oversight by Congress and the courts.

We understand why he may have been reluctant to address the nation, since his contempt for regulation is a significant cause of the current mess. But he could have offered a great deal more than an eerily dispassionate primer on the credit markets in which he took no responsibility at all for the financial debacle.

He promised to protect taxpayers with his proposed bailout, but he did not explain how he would do that other than a superficial assurance that in sweeping up troubled assets, government would buy low and sell high. And he warned that "our entire economy is in danger" unless Congress passes his bailout plan immediately.

In the end, Mr. Bush's appearance was just another reminder of something that has been worrying us throughout this crisis: the absence of any real national leadership, including on the campaign trail.

Given Mr. Bush's shockingly weak performance, the only ones who could provide that are the two men battling to succeed him. So far, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is offering that leadership.

What makes it especially frustrating is that this crisis should provide each man a chance to explain his economic policies and offer a concrete solution to the current crisis.

Mr. McCain is doing distinctly worse than Mr. Obama. First, he claimed that the economy was strong, ignoring the deep distress of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already lost their homes. Then he called for a 9/11-style commission to study the causes of the crisis, as if there were a mystery to be solved. Over the last few days he has become a born-again populist, a stance entirely at odds with the career, as he often says, started as "a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution."
...(NYT)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:28 AM

"This poll reflects the voting of our readers since Thursday, September 11, 2008. This poll is not scientific"

And therefore means nothing like most of the crap Amos posts here. He even refuses to verify which of his posts are true and which are not.

The Washington Post
September 11, 2008


9/11: Views on Terrorism at the Seventh Anniversary

Seven years after 9/11, more than six in 10 Americans feel the U.S. campaign against terrorism is going well and deep concerns about future attacks have declined, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Now, 62 percent said the nation is now safer than it was before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Positive assessments of the fight against terrorism are at their highest level since late 2003, and 10 percentage points higher than at this time two years ago, just before the midterm elections....