 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Fwank Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:50 PM NEWSFLASH, JANUARY 20, 2006 Experts confirmed today that a taped message aired on Al-Jazeera television was not only from Osama Bin Laden, but completely scripted by Bush cabinet member Karl Rove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 23 Jan 06 - 01:20 AM Amos has managed to put off answering questions about who was behind the creation of Eschelon and Carnivore because it invalidates his position against Bush. He has also avoided answering how his quality of life has been undermined. He says whetever happened in previous wars and administrations does not matter but I have collected a few of his references to them and references to references to them which illustrates his hypocracy: From: Amos - PM Date: 21 Jan 05 - 04:54 PM Excerpted from a thoughtful essay in the Christian Science Monitor, To the Founders, Congress was king By John Dillin | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor AMERICA'S expanding involvement abroad, and the need to maintain a large peacetime US military force in dozens of other nations, has also added to presidential power. Berkin says America's modern presidency, with all its trappings, would be "unimaginable" to men like Madison, Washington, and Franklin. Of all those historic figures at the 1787 Convention, perhaps only Alexander Hamilton would relish today's playing of "Hail to the Chief." Subject: RE: BS: America's New Half-Wit Army From: Amos - PM Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:45 PM I recall one Revolution where it worked handsomely. It was a rough slog, though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 23 Jan 06 - 01:42 AM Bobert: Here are two examples of why flies are always buzzin' aroumd your shoes: Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert - PM Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:11 AM Amos, just fir thr record, doesn't do cut 'n pastes, Old Guy. He posts real stories and real op-eds that appear in the corner newspapers... Big difference between that, since he has to go out into th real world or reportin' and find his material rather than go to some right wingnut web site thast has all this corportist bought crap all prepared so, one click 'n yer off on a smoke break!!!! Purdy disgustin'.... All my stuff is orignial... Well, yeah, I read the Post cover to cover and read as lot of other stuff and even watch the corporate news on TV an' then afetr takin' all it in, come out with what I* have gleaned to be the truth... I don't go to Move on 'er nuthuin".... All ya' gotta do is read the Post and the Sunday NY times an you can get the big piccure... Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos - PM Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:56 AM Another report from the Onion on the Rove leak scandal: Rove Implicated In Santa Identity Leak WASHINGTON, DC�The recent leak revealing Santa Claus to be "your mommy and daddy" has been linked to President Bush's senior political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. "If this devastating leak, which severely undermines the security of children everywhere and has compromised parent-child relations, came from the highest levels of the White House, that is an outrage," said former Bush counterterrorism adviser and outspoken Bush Administration critic Richard Clarke. The identity of the mythical holiday gift-giver, previously known only in grown-up circles, was published in the popular Timbertoes cartoon in the December issue of Highlights For Children. Jean Abrams, a conservative firebrand known to have close ties to Bush appointees in the Department of Education, revealed "Santa" to be a code name for anonymous parental gift-giving. ... Big pictures from the NY Times: "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say", New York Times, November 20, 1998, By Barbara Crossette "AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE OVERVIEW; U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production Of Chemical Weapons in Sudan", New York Times, August 25, 1998, by Steven Lee Myers "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort", New York Times, February 8, 2000, By Barbara Crossette "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration", New York Times, February 1, 2000, By Steven Lee Myers "FLIGHT TESTS SHOW IRAQ HAS RESUMED A MISSILE PROGRAM", New York Times, July 1, 2000, By Steven Lee Myers "C.I.A. Orders Inquiry Into Charges of Chemical Arms Cover-Up", New York Times, November 2, 1996, by Philip Shenon "Czechs Say They Warned U.S. Of Chemical Weapons in Gulf", New York Times, October 19, 1996, By Philip Shenon "C.I.A. REPORT SAYS IT FAILED TO SHARE DATA ON IRAQ ARMS", New York Times, April 10, 1997, By Philip Shenon "U.N. Reveals New Evidence Of Gas From 2d Iraqi Depot", New York Times, July 30, 1997, By Philip Shenon "Expert Panel Says Pentagon Ignored Evidence of Poison Gas", New York Times, October 31, 1997, By Philip Shenon "Clinton Says Iraq's Balking Over Weapons Will Backfire", New York Times, November 3, 1998, By Philip Shenon But Old Guy, those NY Times aticles are from the 90's. Yeah the NY Times was either full of shit then or it is full of shit now. If they were full of shit then why pay attention to more of the same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 06 - 08:15 AM Twist, twist, twist. Sooooo bitter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 06 - 09:06 AM Check the dates of yer material, Old-ster... Hey, the stuff I report and Amos posts is current affairs, not ancient history... You remind me of a Russian watch that was given to me back during the 1st Gulf War.... Folks would ask me if it kept good time and I'd say, "Yeah, just 10 years behind..." Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 06 - 09:11 AM There is nothing about Carnivore or Echelon that does any such thing, Old G. If Bush committed first-degree murder, rather the political and mililtary sort of which he is so fond, you'd justify it on the grounds that some people accused Clinton of something similar once. The issue is not really Bush, as a person, and you are mistaken that I hate him individually, although I have often thought of him as stupid. What I hate is the desecration he perpetrates. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 06 - 09:59 AM Oh, dear. The Bush Administration is under the gun again. 1. "McCain criticizes administration for domestic surveillance BY MICHAEL MCAULIFFNew York Daily News WASHINGTON - The top Republican contender in most presidential polls for 2008 slapped the Bush administration Sunday over its domestic spying program - and its insistence on using national security as a political stick. Arizona Sen. John McCain said he doesn't think President Bush has the authority that he has claimed to wiretap Americans without warrants. But McCain added Bush could probably get the OK from Congress. "Why not come to Congress?" McCain said on "Fox News Sunday." "I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who has said that if the administration came and said here is why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it." He also criticized comments last week by the president's top political adviser, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who told a national Republican meeting that the party should make security the top issue of the 2006 elections. "Republicans have a post-9/11 world view and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view," Rove said, pointing to Democratic concerns over the Patriot Act and the spy program. McCain shot back, "There's too many good Democrats over there who are as concerned about national security and work just as hard as I do. ... There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, with questioning, with debate and discussion." ... Thus, John McCain, a reasonable Republican. 2. Harry Belafonte, once a revered entertainer, has somewhat harder views of our current leadership: "Belafonte: Bush administration backs Gestapo tactics By VERENA DOBNIK Associated Press Writer January 21, 2006 NEW YORK -- Entertainer Harry Belafonte, one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, compared the national Homeland Security department to the Gestapo and attacked the president as a liar during a fiery Saturday speech. "We've come to this dark time in which the Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended," Belafonte told thousands of people at the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference. "You can be arrested and not charged, you can be arrested and have no right to counsel," said Belafonte, who called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" during a trip to Venezuela two weeks ago. Belafonte, 78, made that comment after a meeting with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. The Harlem-born Belafonte, who was raised in Jamaica, said his activism was inspired by an impoverished mother "who imbued in me that we should never capitulate to oppression." He acknowledged that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demanded a reaction by the United States, but charged that the policies of the Bush administration were not the right response Bush, he said, was a president "who has risen to power somewhat dubiously and ... then lies to the people of this nation, misleads them, misinstructs, and then sends off hundreds of thousands of our own boys and girls to a foreign land that has not aggressed against us." ... 3. The Kingsport, Tennessee, Times News wonders publically whether Bush has crossed over the line of unacceptable harm. 4. And from Rock Island, Iowa, a reader writes: "Under the rule of Mao Tse Tung, in Communist China communities lived under the fear of their own kind spying on them and turning them in for even disagreeing with the government. These people feared arrest and imprisonment for their beliefs. I can't help but feel that we no longer have a president leading this country, but a dictator that thinks he can do as he sees fit. This does not instill confidence in our current leaders, but fear of our neighbors and our government. Greg Graf Rock Island" I am sure the G-gang will accuse me of ranting here, so please forgive my intemperate dramatization. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 06 - 03:31 PM WASHINGTON - An adviser to President Bush said Monday that Bush's photographs in the company of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff amount to a coincidence and shouldn't be interpreted any more seriously than that. "He doesn't have a personal relationship with him," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said of Bush and Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with government prosecutors. "We acknowledge he (Abramaoff) attended some Hannukuah celebrations," Bartlett said in an appearance on NBC's "Today" show. "Any suggestions by critics or anyone else to suggest the president is doing something nefarious with Abramoff is absurd." Bush himself has said that he doesn't recall meeting Abramoff. Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together, however. Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports. On ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, Bartlett said, "I don't think it's a surprise to anybody that there's probably widely-gathered events where the president does photo-line opportunities." The White House has not released any photos featuring the president and Abramoff, who was declared a Bush "pioneer" for raising at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign. Contributions that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the American Indian tribes he represented - a total of $6,000 - were donated to the American Heart Association by the campaign just days after Abramoff entered his guilty pleas. The White House, after playing down the Bush-Abramoff photos and the lobbyist's ties to the president, criticized Abramoff for breaking the law. "Mr. Abramoff admitted being involved in outrageous wrongdoing," spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 06 - 04:53 PM Well, BUsh has decided to take his cmapaign for spying on the road... Hmmmmmmmm? Last month he was pissed off at the media for snitchin' on him this month he's going to go out and explain the virtues of it??? Like something don't add up here??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 06 - 08:48 PM View from the Darker Side: (LA Times) "Bush Steps Up Defense of Wiretaps, Patriot Act By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer MANHATTAN, Kan. -- President Bush today strongly defended the National Security Agency's spying on Americans and the Patriot Act — calling both legitimate tools in the fight against terrorism — as he launched a public embrace of the eavesdropping and sought to turn it into a political advantage. Arguing that his administration had repeatedly informed congressional leaders about the NSA program, the president said, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" ADVERTISEMENT Bush offered his lengthiest public explanation of what the administration has taken to calling the "terrorist surveillance program" since it was revealed last month, much to his dismay. Referring approvingly to a 2004 Supreme Court case, he told an audience here: "I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means: It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It said, 'Mr. President, you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how.'" The court said that the resolution Congress passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks granting Bush the authority to use whatever force necessary to protect the nation from terrorism gave him, as commander in chief, the power to hold prisoners who were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 06 - 11:07 AM WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Tuesday it would provide $119 million in funding for research into hydrogen fuel cells, touting the automotive technology as a way to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, touring the Washington Auto Show, said the money would fund projects to help overcome some of the barriers "in getting technology out of the laboratory and out onto the test track." "We are well past the point where we see that it can be done, and now we're at the point of figuring out how it can be done _ affordably and safely," Bodman said. The funding is part of President Bush's $1.7 billion hydrogen research program, first detailed in 2003. The government and automakers have been working to develop vehicles powered by pollution-free hydrogen fuel cells, which could reduce demand for imported oil while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Many obstacles remain _ fuel cell vehicles are extremely expensive to produce and lack an infrastructure of fueling stations to make them viable. The government has said it hopes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be available in car showrooms by 2020. The Energy Department would provide up to $100 million during the next four years for research projects to improve various components of fuel cell systems, with the goal of improving performance and lowering cost by 2010. Another $19 million will be devoted toward a dozen research projects looking at the components involved in using hydrogen to create electricity. The projects will be conducted in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:19 PM Future American lawyers to be proud of. ... and Alberto Gonzales. http://insomnia.livejournal.com/652389.html?nc=2&style=mine [A few good pictures on the website] Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him. To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet. [The good Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"] Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument a new asshole. And, as one of the people on the panel said, "When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough. In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today." - David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor It was a good day for dissent. And from the WP: Bush the Incompetent By Harold Meyerson Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A19 Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives. In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups. Yesterday's New York Times brought news of the first official assessment of our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, in which the government's special inspector general depicted a policy beset, as Times reporter James Glanz put it, "by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting [and] secrecy." At one point, rebuilding efforts were divided, bewilderingly and counterproductively, between the Army Corps of Engineers and, for projects involving water, the Navy. That's when you'd think a president would make clear in no uncertain terms that bureaucratic turf battles would not be allowed to impede Iraq's reconstruction. But then, the president had no guiding vision for how to rebuild Iraq -- indeed, he went to war believing that such an undertaking really wouldn't require much in the way of American treasure and American lives. It's the president's prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), though, that is his most mind-boggling failure. As was not the case in Iraq or with Katrina, it hasn't had to overcome the opposition of man or nature. ... Mr. Abramoff's Meetings Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A18 HERE ARE SOME things we know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: The disgraced lobbyist raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection campaign. He had long-standing ties to Karl Rove, a key presidential adviser. He had extensive dealings with executive branch officials and departments -- one of whom, former procurement chief David H. Safavian, has been charged by federal prosecutors with lying to investigators about his involvement with Mr. Abramoff. We also know that Mr. Abramoff is an admitted crook who was willing to bribe members of Congress and their staffs to get what he (or his clients) wanted. In addition to attending a few White House Hanukkah parties and other events at which he had his picture snapped with the president, Mr. Abramoff had, according to the White House, "a few staff-level meetings" with White House aides. I'm Feeling . . . Surveilled » Eugene Robinson | As its servers fill up with our dreams, ambitions, beliefs and fears, Google can know too much. It's no surprise the administration wants in on the action. Dionne: Rove's Early Warning Miller: Palestinian Leadership Crisis Achenblog: Jack Bauer's Lesson for Teenagers OPINIONS SECTION: Froomkin, Toles, More Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. This Century Sucks - A Fair and Balanced Look at the Continuing Corrupt and Evil Whistle Ass Administration Bloggers Didn't Rock The Vote In Canada (markus.blog-city.com) Upper Left Full List of Blogs (23 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Here is what we don't know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: whom he met with and what was discussed. Nor, if the White House sticks to its current position, will we learn that anytime soon. Press secretary Scott McClellan told the White House press corps: "If you've got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we're not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation." This is not a tenable position. It's undisputed that Mr. Abramoff tried to use his influence, and his restaurant and his skyboxes and his chartered jets, to sway lawmakers and their staffs. Information uncovered by Mr. Bush's own Justice Department shows that Mr. Abramoff tried to do the same inside the executive branch. Under these circumstances, asking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government. Whatever White House officials did or didn't do, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff was up to no good and therefore every reason the public ought to know with whom he was meeting.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 06 - 09:24 PM Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him. To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet. [The good Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"] Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument a new asshole. And, as one of the people on the panel said, "When you're a law student, they tell you if say that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough. In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today." - David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor It was a good day for dissent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 06 - 10:54 PM A remark from a correspondent: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html ``In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It's a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country ... merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world.'' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 06 - 10:42 AM US Senators Say Bush Administration Restricting Information in Katrina Response Probe By VOA News 25 January 2006 Congressional leaders say the White House is refusing to cooperate in an investigation of its response to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the U.S. Gulf coast last year. Speaking in Washington on Wednesday, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said his staff members were told by federal agency officials the White House has barred them from answering questions pertaining to the probe. Republican Senator Susan Collins also criticized the White House for going too far in restricting information. A White House spokesman has said the administration is cooperating with the Katrina probe, but added that it wants to protect the confidentiality of presidential advisors. http://www.opednews.com DUMMERSTON, Vt. — President Bush and other members of his administration have been fanning out around the country this week in a public relations blitz to sell the nation on the idea that their campaign domestic surveillance (or, as they call it, their "terrorist surveillance program") is legal and necessary to national security. The administration is trying to convince us, as they have for the past few weeks, that no laws were broken. They continue to push the idea that the post-9/11 world means that there is no time for legal niceties such as warrants and court orders. If the president says something needs to be done, it needs to be done. They keep saying this over and over, as if by sheer repetition, they can convince people that they did nothing wrong. However, it doesn't matter how many times they say they didn't break the law. It doesn't matter, because they are all lying. This fact is indisputable: the Bush administration has repeatedly violated the Fourth Amendment, which clearly states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In other words, if you are going to search or spy on someone, you have to have to convince a court that you have probable cause to do so before you can get a warrant. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) gives the Bush administration all the power it needs to spy on terror suspects. All it has to do is go to the secret FISA court and request a warrant. The law even gives the government a full 72 hours to ask for a warrant, allowing it to spy first and seek a warrant later if time is of the essence. The FISA court has approved all but four of the more than 10,000 warrant requests presented to it since 1978, so the bar of legality is set extremely low. So, if the FISA law is so easy to comply with, why did the Bush administration brazenly violate that law? Because Bush is claiming the right as commander-in-chief to violate any U.S. law on the grounds of national security. The Bush administration is also claiming a different standard than the Fourth Amendment. They have ordered surveillance based upon "reasonable belief," rather than probable cause. In other words, if they reasonably believe a person has ties to al-Qaida, they have the right to spy on them. They don't need to show probable cause, which remains the accepted standard in a court of law. .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 06 - 06:54 PM The Power-Madness of King GeorgeIs Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship? By Jacob Weisberg in Slate Posted Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006, at 3:44 PM ET It's tempting to dismiss the debate about the National Security Agency spying on Americans as a technical conflict about procedural rights. President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic snooping without asking anyone's permission. Civil libertarians and privacy-fretters think Bush needs a warrant from the special court created to authorize wiretapping in cases of national security. But in practice, the so-called FISA court that issues such warrants functions as a virtual rubber stamp for the executive branch anyhow, so what's the great difference in the end? Would that so little were at stake. In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition. This extremity of Bush's position emerges most clearly in a 42-page document issued by the Department of Justice last week. As Andrew Cohen, a CBS legal analyst, wrote in an online commentary, "The first time you read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution." To develop this observation a bit further, the nation implied by the document would be an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king. In other news, MoveOn is requesting wide public support in blocking Mister Bush's power grab: Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Samuel Alito. Every Democrat voted against— the first nomination to lose every minority party vote in 90 years.1 The nomination now goes to the full Senate for a final vote, which could happen in less than a week. Many of the committee Democrats based their historic opposition on what the New York Times called Alito's "extreme views on presidential authority."2 President Bush claims the power to detain American citizens without trial, torture at will, and spy, apparently illegally, on our private conversations. Confirming Alito to the Supreme Court would threaten the last real check against presidential abuse of power. The next few days are the last chance we have to influence the Senate before the final vote. So, today, we're aiming to send in 10,000 letters to the editor to newspapers around the country, opposing the nomination of Samuel Alito and Bush's plan to put himself above the law. You can write and submit your letter online right now, at: http://www.moveon.org/lte/index.html?lte_campaign_id=44&id=6713-137503-TzJp5.69fYWMrXqR_9bOcA&t=2 Filling the nation's editorial pages with citizens' letters connecting Alito and the Bush power grab is one of the most effective ways we can show the Senate that we understand the stakes and are counting on them to stand up. And it's important to act now, because the Democrats and moderate Republicans who oppose Alito have still not decided if they will mount a filibuster to block his nomination—but they must decide soon. Senator Leahy, the top Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, put it well yesterday: "The president is in the midst of a radical realignment of the powers of the government and its intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans...this nomination is part of that plan."3 Here are some key areas where Alito's record makes him a sure bet to back Bush's grab for unchecked power: The spying scandal: Bush likely breaking the law As a lawyer in the Reagan White House, Samuel Alito wrote that he personally believed administration officials should have complete immunity if they break the law and spy on American citizens—and worked to protect Nixon's Attorney General who was convicted of exactly that crime.4 President Bush now stands accused of illegally spying on Americans, and the issue is likely to go to the Supreme Court. The torture scandal: Bush above the law Alito helped create the radical argument that the president can override Congress and dominate the courts by issuing a "signing statement" to "get in the last word" about what a new law means.5 Last year, Congress passed a ban on torture and Bush, who opposed the law, issued a signing statement claiming that it simply wouldn't apply to him if he didn't want it to.6 This, too, is likely to come before the Supreme Court in near future. The detention scandal: Bush inventing the law After 9/11 Bush claimed the power to indefinitely detain American citizens, without trial, formal charges, or access to a lawyer. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected his argument.7 Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."8 Clarence Thomas dissented, basing his argument on the theory of the "unitary executive"9—the same theory Judge Samuel Alito refers to as "gospel."10 Samuel Alito even railed against Morrison v. Olson, which granted Congress the power to create an independent counsel to investigate presidential scandals whom the president could not simply fire at will. Alito called the decision, "stunning" and praised Justice Scalia's "brilliant but very lonely dissent."11 Bush's ploy to increase his own power with Alito on the Court will not only throw off checks and balances for the rest of this term, but for decades to come. Vice-President Al Gore spoke on this topic last week and summed it up well when he asked: Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?12 With Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, the answer may be very little indeed. Please take a minute to write a letter to the editor asking your senators to reject Bush's grab for unchecked power and Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Sources: 1. "Senate Panel Backs Alito on Party-Line Vote," Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-alito25jan25,0,1707725.story?coll=la-home-nation 2. "Judge Alito's Radical Views," New York Times, January 23, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1407 3. Transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 24, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1408 4. "Alito said Attourneys General Can't be Sued for Illegal Wiretaps," Bloomberg, December 23, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1409 5. "Alito once made case for Presidential power," Washington Post, January 2, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1410 6. "Bush could bypass new torture ban," Boston Globe, January 4, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1411 7. "Timeline: Sandra Day O'Connor's Key Decisions," Washington Post, July 1, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1412 8. "A Supreme Court nominee in wartime," Kansas City Star, July 09, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1413 9. "The Limits of Power: Questions for Alito," The Nation, January 6, 2006 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060123/questions_for_alito 10. Sen. Patrick Leahy'Statement on the Confirmation Vote of Judge Samuel Alito, January 19, 2006 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1414 11. "The Record and Philosophy of Samuel Alito," People for the American Way, January 2006, p.22 http://media.pfaw.org/stc/alito-final.pdf 12. "Restoring the Rule of Law," Prepared Remarks of Vice-President Al Gore, January 16th, 2006 http://www.libertyspeeches.org/speechtext.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,T. Herg Date: 27 Jan 06 - 02:32 PM you guys auck ass |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 27 Jan 06 - 03:20 PM Perhaps one of the King's stablelads? A surly lot, in sooth, deprived of all learning and bereft of all manners. This child was surely and tragically left behind. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 27 Jan 06 - 06:21 PM Hey Amos who is your favorite president?? January 19, 2006 Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Thomas Sowell, one of America's brightest intellects, wrote the following about the Senate Confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito: http://www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/ Thomas Sowell "They told us more about the Senators than about Judge Alito." "The biggest hypocrisy was asking Judge Alito questions that everyone knew in advance, no judicial nominee could - or should - answer, and then complaining on nationwide television that Alito was not responsive." "The real purpose of all this grand standing was to play to the gallery of the most rabid element of Democratic Party activists, people like Hollywood leftists who contribute big bucks and who hate everything this administration stands for, as well as what most Americans stand for." Sowell then stated "The larger question is how we are going to get good people that we need on courts, if they have to go through smears and petty harassment during confirmation hearings. Highly qualified people usually have other options and many of them may go elsewhere other than becoming the butt of political games on nationwide television." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 28 Jan 06 - 03:41 PM Forunately for our good nation, OG, not everyone agrees with your views on Alito: "Filibustering the Alito nomination isn't just the right policy for the country, it's good politics for progressives. Voters want leaders with the courage to fight for their true convictions. Democrats have said they oppose Alito's extreme views on unchecked presidential power and limited rights for the rest of us—now it's time to show they mean it. As John Edwards put it when he declared his support for the filibuster: Americans know what's at stake here—a president who believes he's above the law, and basic rights in grave danger. This is a critical moment for Democrats to stand up, fight for what we believe, and show the American people that we will provide principled leadership. The country is hungry for this kind of principled leadership and if we lead with conviction we will be successful both in 2006 and beyond Yesterday, the New York Times came out with a blistering a editorial calling for a filbuster, called "Senators in Need of a Spine," Here are some highlights: It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle... ...It is indefensible for...any senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it...The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else... ...A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. If George Bush is able to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, it may become his most damaging legacy: a Supreme Court that frees the president to spy, detain and torture at will, and leaves Congress powerless to protect workers, women, the environment, and to combat discrimination."... I don't think my favorite president has run for office yet... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 06 - 12:59 PM The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. The NY Times offers three justifications from the Bush administration on their spy-on-Amrica program, and the counter-arguments for them, in an editorial (1-29-2006): Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing — and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier. Only bad guys are spied on. Bush officials have said the surveillance is tightly focused only on contacts between people in this country and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch — a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway. The spying is legal. The secret program violates the law as currently written. It's that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse. It said that the government could not spy on Americans by reading their mail (or now their e-mail) or listening to their telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The court has approved tens of thousands of warrants over the years and rejected a handful. As amended after 9/11, the law says the government needs probable cause, the constitutional gold standard, to believe the subject of the surveillance works for a foreign power or a terrorist group, or is a lone-wolf terrorist. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief" and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review. Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance. Imperial arrogance says it mighty succinctly. When private citizens act like that toward each other they are called assholes. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM More on the NASA gagging story from Slate: "Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, claims that after the speech, the NASA public affairs staff was ordered to review his lectures, papers, web postings and requests for interviews. NASA higher-ups deny the muzzling, but one public affairs officer claims that another officer rejected an NPR request to interview Hansen because NPR's "liberal" slant would interfere with the officer's job "to make the president look good." " Makes me gag, anyway... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 06 - 03:54 PM In an analytical piece called "All the President's Dodges", Slate examines Bush's favorites gimmicks for not confronting an issue or answering a straight question: Excerpts: Hamas: Put on a Happy Face President Bush believes in a simple formula. Democracy is good. Terrorism is evil. When democracy is introduced in hostile countries it acts like enchanted water: Apply a drop and liberty flowers. That theory, never plausible, obviously has now been undone: The victory of the radical Islamic organization Hamas in the Palestinian elections demonstrates that democracy and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. Instead of dealing with the topsy-turvy result, the president focused on the sunny side. He said the elections "remind me of the power of democracy" and added, "I like the competition of ideas." Groovy.... NSA Spying: Just Trust Us The president was asked six questions about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping, which he carefully calls a "terrorist surveillance program." The questions and answers hopped around over well-worn territory. Finally, Bush played the trump card that shuts off further discussion: To talk any more about the program, or even consider legislation to codify it, would help the terrorists. This doesn't avoid the question so much as it makes asking too many pointed ones an act of treachery. "This program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we do it, how we run it, or how we operate, it will help the enemy," he said. "I think the American people understand that. Why tell the enemy what we're doing, if the program is necessary to protect us from the enemy?"... Abramoff: Look at the Shiny Ornament! Another trick: Distract the questioner with something else. Show reporters a sparkly ornament, and hope we'll forget the tree it's hanging on. (Talking about Saddam Hussein has served this purpose in ducking tricky Iraq questions.) When talking about Jack Abramoff, Bush focused on the pictures of the two together rather than the larger issue of what influence the lobbyist had with White House officials and what, if anything, he may have gotten in return for all of that campaign cash. The president continued to define the photographs as a few of the thousand taken at "grip and grin" sessions. This wasn't a dodge: It was a deception. At least one of the snapshots with the chairman of the Kickapoo Indians was clearly something more. Bush had a scripted joke for this eventuality. "Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that, you know, I'm a friend with them or know them very well," he said setting up the gag. "I've had my picture taken with you at holiday parties." Bush's questioners' fixation on the pictures helped him stay focused on just the pictures. (Have you seen how shiny the ornament is! Yes, and he just mentioned us!) The real questions are: What happened in the rooms where there were no photographs taken and where Abramoff met with White House staff? Whom did Abramoff meet with, what did he want, and what did the White House officials want from him? Other White House officials have refused to answer those questions. And today, the president just ducked them. ..." Alternative title: Anatomy of a Slimeball (my notion, not Slate's.) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 06 - 04:01 PM UBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iraqi money gambled away in the Philippines. Thousands spent on a swimming pool that was never used. An elevator repaired so poorly that it crashed, killing people. A U.S. government audit found American-led occupation authorities squandered tens of millions of dollars that were supposed to be used to rebuild Iraq through undocumented spending and outright fraud. In some cases, auditors recommend criminal charges be filed against the perpetrators. In others, it asks the U.S. ambassador to Iraq to recoup the money. Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority's offices in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation. It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines. "Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out," says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department. Much of the first audit reports deal with contracting in south-central Iraq, one of the country's least-hostile regions. Audits have yet to be released for the occupation authority's spending in the rest of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Jan 06 - 02:08 PM In fairness, a recent article in the BBC News bravely defends Bush against his detractors. While I am skeptical of its assertions, I respect the fact that Justin Webb, the author, is taking what is for him an unpopular stand on the question of Bush's character. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:10 AM Bush Administration, In Flip-Flop, Not Helping Katrina Investigation February 02, 2006 David R. Mark MSNBC's David Shuster is reporting that the White House -- in a "flip-flop" from statements made last year -- is not releasing Hurricane Katrina-related documents or making senior officials available for a Congressional investigation. We've been down this road before. Substitute "9/11 Commission" or "Discussions On Warrantless Surveillance" or "Pre-War Intelligence" for "Katrina Investigation," and you get some insight into how the Bush Administration regards sharing information. It doesn't. Why? Perhaps the administration doesn't want to create the opportunity for dissenting opinion. Perhaps because the less people really know, the larger the vacuum for administration spin. How else can one explain a history of fighting against the truth? FIGHTING THE 9/11 COMMISSION Initially, the administration was against forming the 9/11 Commission. Later, it took the unusual step of having President Bush and Vice President Cheney meet informally -- not under oath -- with the commission. Shuster reports that the administration wants similar informal meetings with White House advisors now, rather than formal -- under oath -- testimony before Congress. LIMITED DISCUSSION ON WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE The administration claimed that it met with senior members of Congress before proceeding with its warrantless surveillance program. But various senators have said that they were either misinformed at the time about what the administration wanted to do, or not given a chance to express disapproval with the plan. Although Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Congress would consider legislation to allow for warrantless surveillance, Bush has said he isn't interested in releasing details of the program, to allow for Congressional consideration. (Note: The Justice Department considered including a provision to cover warrantless surveillance in 2003 legislation, but later nixed those plans.) YOUR INTELLIGENCE IS NOT MY INTELLIGENCE The administration has repeatedly said it had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Congress. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service disputed that, saying in a Dec. 15 report that the White House has access to a much broader ranger of intelligence reports than Congress. The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters. ***Excerpted from BlogCritics.Org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:12 AM From the "American Chronicle": REPORT: BUSH ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING HEALTH AND SAFETY OF MINE WORKERS California Political Desk The California Political Desk provides information, news releases, and announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices throughout the state. By California Political Desk January 31, 2006 Rep. George Miller Renews Call for Congressional Hearings |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:16 AM Bush administration's track record laughable SEVERAL great minds were asked to help think up interview questions for George W. Bush. I liked, "Are you the worst president since James Buchanan, or have you never heard of him?" Sorry about the snarkiness quotient, but is there anything these folks can't screw up - and then refuse to own up to? Iraq is the most difficult to judge because it's so far away. I can find no indication - from hours of electricity available to amount of oil being pumped to number of dead people - that hints at any improvement. On the other hand, even though I don't think it's my job, I can't prove that pulling out won't make things worse. Judging the good news-bad news volume from Iraq took such an exceptional lurch to ludicrous, it's now difficult to even try to judge it with a straight face. (For those of you who missed it: The Pentagon is now investigating itself to find out why it was paying American soldiers to write phony stories about how well things are going in Iraq and then paying a politically connected Republican public relations firm to in turn bribe Iraqi news outlets to run the phony stories. Presumably, this fooled a lot of Iraqis.) In matters closer to home, however, it is not that hard to miss total disaster when you see it. The Medicare prescription drug benefit comes to mind. As governmental screw-ups go, it ranks up there with Katrina, which in turn is the latest in a parade of fiascoes inspiring the administration to an impressive level of dishonesty. Following its usual m.o., the administration's first step on Katrina was to clam up on all the information possible about how the government handled it. Why should a congressional committee have any right to question the Bush administration? Whom do they think they represent? I couldn't even bring myself to snicker at poor Joe Lieberman, chair of the committee trying to find out what went wrong, as he forlornly announced a "near total lack of cooperation." Despite his record as a Bush toady, Lieberman couldn't get enough information to even start on the problem. The committee had one interesting item - Bush had claimed that "no one anticipated" New Orleans would be leveled. Turns out they not only expected it, but the Department of Homeland Security sent an urgent warning to the White House situation room, saying Katrina will likely leave "the New Orleans metro area submerged for weeks or months." Meanwhile, the White House informed Louisiana reps it would not be supporting legislation for a federally financed reconstruction program for the area, despite Bush's promise to make it the grandest reconstruction since the Marshall Plan. Looking on the bright side, this may yet turn out to be a good thing, since a new audit of the federally financed reconstruction in Iraq indicates - well, a great deal left to be desired. That would be counting untold billions of dollars wasted, millions left lying around in footlockers and filing cabinets, millions gambled away and - here's a note - three Iraqis who fell to their death in a repaired hospital elevator that had been certified as safe. I also like the one about the contractor who got $100,000 to refurbish an Olympic-sized swimming pool (clearly a high priority in war-torn Iraq) but only polished the pumps. Well, polished pumps are nice. Governance in this administration is like Casey Stengel with the early Mets: "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?" But lest you think I do nothing but pick on the Bushies, let me devote some loving attention to the best Congress money can buy. Last month, in a closed-door, Republican-only "conference committee" meeting, a $22 billion change was inserted at the last minute. The taxpayers were supposed to get $26 billion in relief over 10 years by altering a formula for Medicare reimbursement. But lo, many insurance lobbyists for the HMOs knew about the committee meeting attended only by Republicans, who helpfully lowered the savings estimate of the formula to $4 billion and handed the other $22 billion back to the insurance industry. We can certainly see how serious the Republicans are about "reform" - we can't wait to pay, er, hear more. One sign to look for would be if they stop calling it "lobby reform" and call it "congressional reform," instead. (A Molly Ivins Column) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:20 AM A real health risk. GONORRHEA LECTIM 2004 The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Sexually Transmitted Disease. The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. It is called Gonorrhea Lectim and pronounced "gonna re-elect him." Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for the previous four years. Cognitive characteristics of infected individuals include: anti-social personality disorders delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones extreme cognitive dissonance inability to incorporate new information pronounced xenophobia and paranoia inability to accept responsibility for one's actions cowardice masked by misplaced bravado uncontrolled facial smirking ignorance of geography and history tendencies towards evangelical theocracy categorical all-or-nothing behavior Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease, which originated only a few years ago, has spread throughout the country from an infected bush found in Texas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:53 PM WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush soon will ask Congress for another $120 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing their total cost so far to about $440 billion. That's enough to buy General Motors Corp. 33 times or Google almost four times, at current stock prices. The vast majority of the money is for Iraq, where expenses are about $4.5 billion a month, according to administration officials. The U.S. campaign in Afghanistan is costing about $800 million a month. Joel Kaplan, deputy director of the White House budget office, said Thursday that Bush would seek a quick $70 billion plus another $50 billion as part of the proposed fiscal 2007 federal budget that will go to Congress on Monday. The Associated Press, citing Pentagon officials and documents, reported Thursday that the 2007 budget request will include $439.3 billion for the Defense Department, a nearly 5% increase over this year. That doesn't include the war requests. In comparison, the Department of Veterans Affairs budget is about $68 billion a year, and the Environmental Protection Agency spends about $7.9 billion a year. Rock star Bono challenged the U.S. government Thursday to give an additional 1% of the federal budget to the world's poor. Bono, lead singer for U2, has led a push for health care aid and the cancellation of billions of dollars in debt owed by African nations, causes he mentioned to President George W. Bush and members of Congress at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. "This is not about charity in the end, is it?" he said. "It's about justice." Bush, who spoke later, made no commitment but praised Bono. Articles in full can be found here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:44 PM A study in the characteristics of Fascism as practiced in different countries: "Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. " The above is a summary of the more detailed orignal article "Fascism Anyone?" first published in Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:45 PM Full story at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1701214,00.html Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:19 PM Presidential signing statements are more than just executive branch lunacy.By Dahlia Lithwick Posted Monday, Jan. 30, 2006, at 5:32 AM ET There are two ways President Bush likes to wage war on your civil liberties: He either asks you to surrender your rights directly—as he does when he strengthens and broadens provisions of the Patriot Act. Or he simply hoovers up new powers and hopes you won't find out—as he did when he granted himself authority to order warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. The former category seems more benign, and it's tempting to lump Bush's affinity for "presidential signing statements" in that camp. It's tempting to believe that with these statements he is merely asking that the courts take his legal views into account. But President Bush never asks anything of the courts; he doesn't think he has to. His signing statements are not aimed at persuading the courts, but at reinforcing his claim that both courts and Congress are irrelevant. Many of us had never heard of a presidential signing statement until last month, when Bush used one to eviscerate the McCain Anti-Torture bill he claimed to endorse. We all saw the big Oval Office reconciliation with McCain; we heard Bush say he was dropping his opposition to the bill, which passed with broad bipartisan support (90-9 in the Senate, 308-122 in the House) and made it illegal for Americans to engage in the "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees held here or abroad. What we missed was the actual signing ceremony, which took place two weeks later, at 8 p.m. on Dec. 30. Unless you spent New Year's weekend trolling the White House Web site or catching up on your latest U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News as you waited for the ball to drop, you probably missed the little "P.S." the president tacked onto the McCain anti-torture bill. The postscript was a statement clearly announcing that the president will only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power." In other words, it is for the president—not Congress or the courts—to determine when the provisions of this bill interfere with his war-making powers, and when they do, he will freely ignore the law. In other news, various writers fro around the nation offer their thoughts: Linda from Aurora, Colo., writes: "Those in the Arab world are not alone in seeing Bush as stubborn and confusing. I think more and more Americans are also seeing him as such, in addition to being dishonest. His story is ever-changing, and that has eroded his credibility here and abroad. It has also eroded the credibility of the United States across the globe." Yolande, writing from Port of Spain, Trinidad, agrees: "It is painful to see the country losing credibility at an alarming rate, worldwide, in countries rich and poor, developed and developing. America under Bush is seen as ruthless, bullying and dictatorial, not really interested in true democracy but in other nations following its decrees. Truly, there is no longer a superpower to whom the world could rely in times of crisis. America has lost it." Mike from Cleveland presents a different view: "I wonder about your assertion that anything the U.S.A. supports becomes unpopular in the Middle East. By extension, are you suggesting the U.S.A. not voice support for anything it wants, or even to support the opposite of its desires? I sympathize with your viewpoint that the world is far more complex than the worldview our present administration projects, but I don't clearly see what you are recommending our country do." But in Denver, T.J., who says he is a veteran of Iraq, disagrees: "I have noticed an implied rhetoric from the current administration that shows an ignorance of Arab culture and a disregard for their views," he writes. "I learned a lot about the culture and our societal differences while in Iraq, and I hope that somehow our government will recognize these and make decisions that are grounded in acceptance and humility. The arrogant, imperialistic approach has done nothing but fuel anti-American sentiment and certainly has not made America a safer place, nor the world a better place." George, a Vietnam-era veteran from Anchorage, Alaska, poses a similar view: "This is very hard for me to express," he writes. "I [have] always had a great deal of pride in being an American. I am, as of right now, still proud. I was also a Republican until 1999 … Mr. Bush and his cronies, I feel, are an embarrassment to the ideals and makeup of our great nation. Americans are not just deceived but boldly lied to. Before we can get respect from the world, we have got to clean up our own mess. I think the president means to do the right thing, he is just caught up in his own image of glory and power. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about staining a young lady's dress. Mr. Bush, however, is killing a lot of people with his spin. Can't we as a nation take our place among the proud who walked before all of this mess?" William from San Diego is on Bush's side. "It isn't about the Arab people. It is about the American people," he writes. "Our president looks out for the United States, our allies and our best interest." (Both offered without comment) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 06 - 02:33 AM Feb. 4, 2006, 1:34AM Gagged prophet The Bush administration continues to ignore climate change while trying to silence government scientists Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle NASA's top climatologist, James E. Hansen, recently urged swift action to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. When he did, the agency's public affairs machinery went into overdrive. NASA officials ordered Hansen to submit for review any lectures, Internet statements and journalists' requests for interviews. Hansen recently posted a widely quoted report on a NASA Web site stating that 2005 was the hottest year since comprehensive weather records were first kept. A NASA political appointee, William Deutsch, nixed an interview with Hansen on National Public Radio. Deutsch reportedly told another NASA public affairs officer that NPR was "the most liberal media source" in the nation and that his job "was to make the president look good." If Deutsch said that, he is wrong. The job of government public affairs officials is to inform the public and make available public information. Hansen, who holds a doctorate in physics, has been issuing warnings of the consequences of man-made pollution of the atmosphere for 15 years. He rightly refused to comply with the gag order. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he told The New York Times, noting that "public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." According to Hansen, many scientists within the government have been pressured to avoid public discussion of climate change. ... Balance of article here. In an article called The Worst Shame of the Bush Administration a blogger discusses the culpable consequences of the EPA telling New Yorkers it was safe to go back into Southern Manhattan while the air there was still heavily toxic. The Toledo Blade , in an editorial, discusses the views of two professors on the hazards of the Bush Administrations distortive impact on the balance of powers, and the checks and balances system of the U.S. Government. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM Specter: Administration broke law WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (UPI) -- Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance program appears to be illegal. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Specter called the administration's legal reasoning "strained and unrealistic" and said the program appears to be "in flat violation" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Hearings into the surveillance program are scheduled to begin Monday on Capitol Hill. Reasoning both strained and realistic surfaces when an unacknowledged agenda is in play, and the desire is not to inform but to spin and influence outcomes according to that agenda. This sort of reasoning has been an earmark of the Bush Administration since their first campaign. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 05 Feb 06 - 11:04 PM The one thing Bush always had going for him – and it served him well in two elections – was that he came across as someone who said what he meant and meant what he said. These days, if you don't like what he says, you can stay tuned and, in a few days, he might say something totally different. For instance, the administration claims it doesn't need congressional permission or new legislation to engage in domestic spying. But according to The Washington Post, Justice Department lawyers drafted legislation in 2003 that – along with strengthening the USA Patriot Act – would have provided a legal justification for the administration's eavesdropping program. During his first presidential campaign, Bush projected the image of someone who'd be just as happy if he lost the race and had to go back to the ranch in Crawford. Now, with the domestic spying fiasco, he's projecting a different image – of someone who is not only hungry for the power of the executive branch, but nibbling on the legislative and judicial. Bush gives a speech talking about how Border Patrol agents should lay off hardworking immigrants trying to support their families and instead focus on smugglers and other hardened criminals. Then he stands before an assembly of Border Patrol agents insisting that we're a nation of laws and anyone who wants to immigrate here must do so legally. All this has me scratching my head and wondering: "Dude, where's my president?" Can't the guy make up his mind as to what he really believes, instead of trying to please everyone? It's no wonder that, according to several recent polls, the number of Americans who still consider Bush honest and trustworthy has fallen to below 40 percent. What many Americans do consider Bush to be is stubborn. In fact, an AP/Ipsos poll conducted in November found that 82 percent of respondents used that word to describe him. I like my presidents to be steadfast. I'm no fan of flip-flopping, which is why Al Gore and John Kerry gave me the creeps. But I also want people who know when a product isn't selling – like the Harriet Miers nomination or Bush's plan to offer at least a temporary amnesty to illegal immigrants – and then are willing to go in another direction. During his speech, Bush showed again why that's so hard for him to do. After promising that he would seek Congress' advice, he was careful to draw a distinction between "responsible criticism" and "defeatism." "Hindsight alone is not wisdom," he said. "And second-guessing is not a strategy." Maybe not. But a leader who learns from his mistakes is so much more appealing than one who has difficulty choking out an acknowledgment that he ever erred. Maybe Bush needs a personal trainer to show him how to digest crow. (From today;s San Diego Union-Tribune) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:50 PM Borrowing a link from another thread, I invite your attention to this movie well worth seeing and a moment's reflection on whether these are images of necessary force or unnecessary force. While this is of course a dramatization, it pinpoints very well the core reason for my personal disdain for George Bush and his fellow war-mongers. He (and his colleagues) have accrued great renown, wealth, visibililty and influence as a direct result of deciding to do what this images portray. They made those decisions individually. Above all, George Bush made an individual decision. The ethics of that decision are, IMHO, perverse, destructive and harmful. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM Bush's budget sparks bipartisan protestMARTIN CRUTSINGERAssociated PressWASHINGTON - President Bush, constrained by wars, hurricanes and exploding budget deficits, has sent Congress a 2007 spending plan that is garnering howls of pain from farmers, teachers, doctors and a wide array of other groups with special interests. Democrats, as expected, pronounced the Republican president's budget plan dead on arrival. But many Republicans were equally sharp in their reservations about the $2.77 trillion spending blueprint the administration unveiled on Monday. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called Bush's proposed cuts in education and health "scandalous" while Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the extent of the administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. Given the level of congressional frustration, administration witnesses, led by Treasury Secretary John Snow, were expected to face a tough sales job before various congressional committees on Tuesday. Bush's spending blueprint for the 2007 budget year that begins Oct. 1 would provide large increases for the military and homeland security but would trim spending in the one-sixth of the budget that covers the rest of discretionary spending. Nine Cabinet agencies would see outright reductions with the biggest percentage cuts occurring in the departments of Transportation, Justice and Agriculture. And in mandatory programs - so-called because the government must provide benefits to all who qualify - the president is seeking over the next five years savings of $36 billion in Medicare, $5 billion in farm subsidy programs, $4.9 billion in Medicaid support for poor children's health care and $16.7 billion in additional payments from companies to shore up the government's besieged pension benefit agency. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley noted that Congress has just completed a yearlong battle to achieve far smaller five-year savings in Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor, and Medicare as part of a $39 billion five-year trim in benefit programs. "It wasn't an easy legislative accomplishment," said Grassley, R-Iowa. "Any more reductions of a significant scope could be difficult this year." Bush's budget would meet his twin goals of making permanent his first-term tax cuts, which are set to expire by 2010, and cutting the deficit in half by 2009, the year he leaves office. The administration's new budget projects that this year's deficit will soar to an all-time high of $423 billion, surpassing the old mark in dollar terms of $412 billion set in 2004, as the costs of rebuilding from last year's devastating hurricanes and the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan push spending higher. ... (From The Mercury News. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Feb 06 - 04:34 PM Bush's $2.7 trillion budget shows true cost of Iraq war Email Print Normal font Large font By Michael Gawenda, Washington February 8, 2006 PRESIDENT George Bush has submitted a $US2.77 trillion ($A3.74 trillion) budget to Congress for 2007 that would boost military spending by 6.9 per cent to $US439.3 billion and would cut 141 government programs. These include cuts to education and Medicare, the Bush Administration's prescription drug program for pensioners. The military spending does not include the cost of the campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which Mr Bush has requested an extra $US50 billion, but which Administration officials admit is just a starting point for what will be needed. The Administration has already asked Congress for an extra $US120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan this year. The budget deficit for this financial year is expected to hit $US423 billion in the wake of hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, but Mr Bush has included tax cuts of $US1.4 trillion over 10 years in his budget plan. President Bush said the Administration's plan to halve the budget deficit by 2010 was "on track", but economic commentators were almost unanimous in their view that this was unlikely to be achieved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 06 - 04:10 PM Cities and State Parties Pass Impeachment Resolutions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:09 PM At a White House press conference on June 7, 2005, Steve Holland of Reuters asked President Bush and Prime Minister Blair the $1,000 question: "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says 'Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.' Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?" The adamant denials by Blair and Bush were widely reported by the White House press corps. But a new "White House Memo," reported in the British media on Feb. 2, 2006, has just exposed both responses as lies. Democrats.com is now offering $1,000 to any reporter who will directly ask Bush this question: "How can you claim you were trying to avoid war through the UN, when you told Prime Minister Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, that if you failed to get a resolution from the UN authorizing war, 'military action would follow anyway'?" Full article here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:20 PM ACLU Wants Apology to VA Employee Investigated on 'Sedition' > > Associated Press > > The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico wants the > government to apologize to a nurse for seizing her computer and > investigating her for "sedition'' after she criticized the Bush > administration. > The ACLU said Wednesday the Department of Veterans Affairs > found no evidence Laura Berg used her VA office computer to write > the critical letter. > VA human resources chief Mel Hooker said in a Nov. 9 letter > that his agency was obligated to investigate "any act which > potentially represents sedition,'' the ACLU said. > A VA spokesman in Washington could not say Wednesday whether > the agency had received the ACLU's request. > It seeks an apology from Hooker "to remedy the > unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that > has resulted from these intimidating tactics.'' > Even if Berg had used an office computer, neither that nor her > criticism approached "unlawful insurrection,'' said Peter Simonson, > executive director of the ACLU. > "Is the government so jealous of its power, so fearful of > dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its > policies with charges of sedition?'' he said. > Berg, a clinical nurse specialist, wrote a letter in September > to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the > administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War. She > urged people to "act forcefully'' to remove an administration she > said played games of "vicious deceit.'' > She signed the letter as a private citizen, and the VA had no > reason to suspect she used government resources to write it, the > ACLU said. > "From all appearances, the seizure of her work computer was an > act of retaliation and a hardball attempt to scare Laura into > silence,'' the ACLU said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:16 AM From an interesting rising rag called the New York Observer Bush Flickers Out, Republicans Face Mass HibernationBy Chris Lehmann History and polling are two things the Bush administration professes to scorn. But as the 2006 elections speed toward us, both appear to be overtaking the Republican Party, and the Republicans are hardly in position to take on more bad news. Just before last week's vote designating John A. Boehner as House Majority Leader, the Club for Growth—one of the Hill's biggest low-tax, pro-business political-action committees—released an opinion survey covering 20 key House races. The survey supplies an advance view of what it could take for Democrats to turn around their present 30-vote deficit in the House. Fourteen of the races involve Republican incumbents facing tough re-election fights, five are open seats, and one is an open district—the one formerly belonging to the stunningly corrupt, indicted and since-departed House member Randy (Duke) Cunningham. Now President Bush's terse verdict on the political past—"History. We don't know. We'll all be dead"—is looking just a little too vivid for G.O.P. candidates and consultants trying to avoid becoming history themselves. "If you would have said a year ago that you'd be looking at the Republican House majority being potentially in play, no one would have believed it," said University of Texas historian Lewis Gould, author of histories of the Republican Party and the Senate. "The thing is that animus against Bush is like a beating heart. For whatever it's worth, back in November and December, when I was doing publicity for my book on the Senate, my publisher had me doing these radio call-in shows from all over the country. And people were just throbbing with indignation at Congress. And this wasn't about corruption, though that was part of it. There was this sense of Congress's complete out-of-touchness. In places like Ohio and Oregon, I was getting this hysteria, this animosity about things like the Medicare-reform implementation." Which is where the leaden sense of historical recognition comes in. "It was amazing," Mr. Gould said. "It took me back to the end of his father's terms, in the fall of '92. It was just clear that that administration had run out of gas. It was to the point where you couldn't even imagine what a second George H.W. Bush agenda could have been." This was all, mind you, a good two months before Jack Abramoff's ominous plea-bargain. Poll numbers in the wake of that fateful black-garbed performance reinforce the impressions that Mr. Gould picked up through his unscientific headphone sample. National polls show President Bush still mired in 40-percent-approval territory; "right-track/wrong-track" figures—far more telling in an off-year election—are breaking about 65 to 35 against the status quo. And the Club poll found that in those 20 more vulnerable races, the right-track/wrong-tack tally was worse than in national polls, with a scant 29 percent of respondents giving the Republicans a warm nod of encouragement. Republican Congress members—the incumbents in most of these contests, who are supposed to enjoy every gerrymandered advantage that Tom DeLay and company could engineer for them out of the U.S. Census—polled a dismal 35 percent in their approval rating. This is so dismal, in fact, as to place them in the company of the Democrats, at 34 percent. A whopping 80 percent described present Congressional ethics questions as either "serious" (50 percent) or "scandalous" (30 percent). (...) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:52 PM Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information By Murray Waas, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records. According to sources with firsthand knowledge, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war. Libby specifically claimed that in one instance he had been authorized to divulge portions of a then-still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to correspondence recently filed in federal court by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war. Later, after the war began in 2003, Cheney authorized Libby to release additional classified information, including details of the NIE, to defend the administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case for war. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:44 PM The Los Angeles Times provides a saddening list of the many programs Bush wants to kill in his 2007 budget. List here includes the following cuts -- among many others whose funding has been sucked into the black hole of reckless militarism: EDUCATION Educational technology state grants, $272 million Even Start, $99 million High school programs terminations: Vocational education state grants, $1,182 million Vocational education national programs, $9 million Upward Bound, $311 million GEAR UP, $303 million Talent search, $145 million Tech prep state grants, $105 million Smaller learning communities, $94 million Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grants, $347 million Elementary and secondary education program terminations: Parental information and resource centers, $40 million Arts in education, $35 million Elementary and secondary school counseling, $35 million Alcohol abuse reduction, $32 million Civic education, $29 million National Writing Project, $22 million Star Schools, $15 million School leadership,$15 million Ready to Teach, $11 million Javits gifted and talented education, $10 million Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners, $9 million Comprehensive school reform, $8 million Dropout prevention program, $5 million Mental Health integration in schools, $5 million Women's Educational Equity, $3 million Academies for American History and Civics, $2 million Close-Up fellowships, $1 million Foundations for Learning, $1 million Excellence in Economic Education, $1 million Higher Education Programs: Education demos for students with disabilities, $7 million Underground Railroad Program, $2 million State grants for incarcerated youth offenders, $23 million Postsecondary Student Financial Assistance Programs: Perkins Loan cancellations, $65 million Leveraging educational assistance programs, $65 million Byrd Scholarships, $41 million hurgood Marshall Legal Educational opportunity, $3 million B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships, $1 million * Vocational rehabilitation programs: Supported employment, $30 million Projects with industry, $20 million Recreational programs, $3 million Migrant and seasonal farmworkers,$2 million Teacher Quality Enhancement, $60 million Total $3,468 million (Educational cuts alone). Read them as a testimony to rampant, unbridled hypocrisy. Read the lists of cuts in energy, and compare them to his mealy-mouthed platitudes on the subject in the SOTU address. I swan, 's nuff to mek yer spit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 06 - 02:38 PM Funny, ya know. GH, the father of the current mistake, was annoyed that several people remarked at Corretta King's funeral on the dramatic difference between her goals and purposes, and the hypocrisy of the current President's. (CBS) Former President George H.W. Bush has expressed dismay and anger at attacks on his son, President Bush, at the funeral for Coretta Scott King. "In terms of the political shots at the president who was sitting there with his wife, I didn't like it and I thought it was kind of ugly frankly," the former president said in an exclusive radio interview with CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer. You want ugly, Mister Bush? Here's ugly for you, sir. . Think back on how that came about, and decide where the ugly stick landed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 06 - 07:16 PM Ramsey Clark, persistent and well-spoken, says: "Impeachment is the most important issue facing Constitutional government in the United States. Impeachment will determine whether the American people will hold the Bush administration accountable for its High Crimes and Misdemeanors: the supreme international crime -- a war of aggression, rampant militarism, torture, surreptitious laws and treaties, and economic policies that steal from the poor and middle class to further enrich the rich. Impeachment is also the test that will determine whether We, the People of the United States, still have the power to affect the conduct of our own elected officials and the will to exercise that power. George Bush seeks $2.77 trillion for the 2007 Fiscal Year budget providing for more military aggression and less education, health care and other programs for the people. He has nearly three more years to take our country into more wars maybe in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, or Sudan; three more years to trash the Bill of Rights at home and destroy all respect for the United States abroad; three more years to enrich the rich, impoverish the middle class and poor, undermine the U.S. economy and burden future generations of Americans with burdens they cannot bear. Our impeachment ad in the New York Times on January 27, 2006 shows we can make a difference. It generated tens of thousands of new votes for impeachment. The New York Times carried the Impeachment message in the first section, full page, to readers of more than a million copies of the National Edition and the New York Edition of the New York Times. More newspaper ads, more votes for Impeachment, more organizing and fundraising can make Impeachment a major issue in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections. A committed effort over the next months can move Impeachment to the forefront in the elections and to the floor of the House of Representatives which has the "sole power of Impeachment," and onto the Senate for trial. Ads in newspapers in Congressional Districts can help activate impeachment organizing to bring the issue home to members and candidates where their election will be decided. Only Impeachment will warn the next Presidents that the American people will hold them accountable if they lawlessly lead us into wars, aggression and criminal acts to control foreign government and exploit their peoples. Only Impeachment will assure governments and peoples around the world that the American people understand what their government has done, that the American people are strong and good, and have impeached and removed their lawless leaders from office for violating all the principles America has always espoused, and that We, the People of the United States will remain vigilant and see to it that the government of the United States will hereafter seek peace, friendship, equality of nations and peoples, and respect for the human dignity of every child, woman, and man on Earth. I urge you to enlist now in the Impeachment Movement for the duration, to organize your community in the struggle and to raise and contribute funds essential to secure the Impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other civil officers found to have committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Click here to make a donation for the mass advertising campaign to place the NYT impeachment ad in other newspapers and support the campaign for impeachment. Sincerely, Ramsey Clark" Would it defuse affairs pointing at hostilities with Iran if we pulled the plug on both George and Dick? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM WASHINGTON Feb 10, 2006 (AP)— A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003. ... If he's the top aide to the Veep, who would "his superiors" be? I can think of two, anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 06 - 11:44 AM Excerpts from recent remarks by Sen Barbara Boxer on the flooor of the Senate: Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise now to discuss an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Lautenberg which expresses the sense of the Senate that the White House should provide the public with a thorough account of the meetings that the President, his staff, and senior executive branch officials held with Jack Abramoff . The public's confidence in the government has been rocked by the widespread reports of public corruption involving Jack Abramoff. On January 3, Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion, charges that carry up to a 30-year sentence. He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of a number of public officials, and we don't know where all this will lead. I urge the Justice Department to continue its investigation into any bribery and corruption. The damage to the public trust from the Abramoff scandal, combined with the recent prosecution of Congressman Randy Cunningham and the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay, is massive. The investigation by the Department of Justice has really just begun. But right now, sadly, there is a very low opinion of politicians, and trust must be restored with the American people. We cannot govern effectively without the support and confidence of the people. We are supposed to be their representatives. We owe them everything, and we must start with honesty, with ethics, so we can regain their trust. If the people have lost confidence, we have to win it back. Every Senator I know has searched his or her records for contributions from Jack Abramoff, from his associates and the tribes he represented. Each of us has responded in our own way. But to my knowledge, we have all made our actions public. We have told our constituents what the situation is and whether we plan to do something about it. In the State of the Union Address, the President said: "Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility--and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray." Those are noble sentiments, very noble sentiments, and I challenge the President to live up to them. ...If we are going to restore confidence in our government, it starts with simple openness--not with saying: Oh, this is privileged, this is secret. I will tell you right now, we all learned it from our moms and dads. When somebody says "this is secret," watch out. Our government is supposed to be open, not secret. I hope there will be strong support for this particular amendment. I believe its timing is crucial. We can't let any more time elapse. There are calls for--and I am joining them--a special prosecutor in this particular case. But even before that debate begins, let us have everyone come clean on these meetings, contributions, and the like.... I agree with her. An open government from the top down would be a very refreshing change. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM Trade Gap Hits Record For 4th Year In a Row The U.S. trade deficit soared to a record in 2005 for the fourth year in a row, according to a government report released yesterday that provided a reminder of the dangers hovering over a generally robust economy. (Washington Post, 2-11-06) Michael D. Brown, the former Federal Emergency Management Agency director, accused the Bush administration yesterday of setting the nation's disaster preparedness on a "path to failure" before Hurricane Katrina by overemphasizing the threat of terrorism, and of discounting warnings on the day the storm hit that a worst-case flood was enveloping New Orleans. Brown called "a little disingenuous" and "just baloney" assertions by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other top Bush administration officials that they were unaware of the severity of the catastrophe for a day after Katrina struck on Aug. 29. Investigators say their inaction delayed the launch of federal emergency measures, rescue efforts and aid to tens of thousands of stranded New Orleans residents. (Ibid). |