BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:33 PM

The current on-line edition of Slate discusses Dick Cheney's methods:

Cheney's Rules of Evidence
How the vice president argues by deception.

By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Nov. 18, 2005, at 6:12 PM ET


By talking about "irresponsible comments," Cheney makes it seem that critics are welcoming insurgent bombs or inviting Saddam Hussein for dinner. But how outlandish, in fact, are these "irresponsible" claims by those who voted to authorize force? The most incendiary quote the administration and GOP committees can offer comes from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid: "[T]he administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts … as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq." Reid's charge is debatable, but it's hardly the combustible, irresponsible speech Cheney suggests it is. Cheney is setting the bar for irresponsibility so low that any questions about prewar intelligence can be dismissed.

Cheney: "These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions."

Cheney talks only about a narrow question: Did the administration fudge evidence it gave to Congress in advance of the vote to authorize the use of force? That's the most solid ground he can stand on, but even it's still shaky. Cheney does not repeat Bush's claim that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence, because they didn't. But he plays up their unprecedented access to the National Intelligence Estimate before they cast their vote—though Cheney knows that some important caveats were left out of that report. Congress had access to intelligence before bombs started dropping, but the administration decided, in the end, how much and what kind of intelligence that was.

And what the vice president doesn't talk about is all the other ways he, the president, and other members of the war council manipulated evidence in hundreds of speeches and interviews leading up to the war. Cheney, for example, insisted there might be a link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11 after the administration's official position was that there was no such link. He presented the direst view of Iraq's nuclear program without discussing dissent within the administration about those claims. This was not intelligence data, but these claims were critical to shaping public opinion and putting pressure on Congress to vote for war. He could make a case about why the administration had to be aggressive, but he doesn't. (snip)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:16 PM

The sorry reflections on "fin-de-siecle" journalism in Washington, from the LA Times:

November 19, 2005        
latimes.com : National News

Tim Rutten:

Woodward joins a decadent dance

Whatever impact the scandal surrounding the leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity ultimately has on the Bush administration, it continues to spread through the Washington press corps like a toxic plume.

As it does, it discredits not only individual reporters and damages their news organizations but also an entire style of reporting that has come to dominate the way Americans are informed — or misinformed — concerning their government's conduct.

This week's casualty was the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who, as it turns out, has concealed for 17 months the fact that a Bush administration official he still refuses to name to his readers leaked Plame's identity to him before the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby — now under indictment for perjury — named the then-covert agent to New York Times reporter Judy Miller and others.

Woodward's disclosure was motivated not by a sudden pang of conscience, as it turns out, but by the sudden necessity of testifying under oath before a federal grand jury. Along the way, he incidentally revealed not only that he had concealed this information from his editors and readers for fear of subpoena, but also that he had in the interim gone on several television shows to trash the special prosecutor investigating the affair. Moreover, it now emerges, the reporting that went into his last best-selling book, "Plan of Attack," involved the submission of written questions in advance to Vice President Dick Cheney, a fact he never bothered to share with the book's readers.

There is something singularly appropriate about the fact that the Plame affair should involve Woodward, whose skillful and courageous use of the ur-voice among confidential sources virtually created a whole genre of Washington reporting. It's a journalistic strategy style dependent on the cultivation of access to well-placed officials greased by promises of "confidentiality." It's a way of doing journalism that still serves its practitioners' career interests, but less and less often their readers or viewers because it's a game the powerful and well-connected have learned to play to their own advantage.

Whatever its self-righteous pretensions, it's a style of journalism whose signature sound is less the blowing of whistles than it is the spinning of tops.

That's why the Washington press corps, whose ranks include so many alleged commentators that you can't spit without hitting one, steadfastly refuses to put the Plame affair and its participants in the context that explains the event. That context is the Bush administration's unprecedented — and largely successful — effort to bend Washington-based news coverage to its ends. The Washington press corps doesn't want to talk about this because it basically puts some of its most admired members in a line of venal patsies. But consider:

Who can forget the administration's payment of nearly a quarter of a million dollars in federal money to the hapless pseudo-columnist and television and radio commentator Armstrong Williams, to promote the president's "no child left behind" initiative?

Then there was the distribution to local television stations across the country of federally financed, pre-packaged video reports designed to support the administration's educational and energy policy initiatives. The videos were tricked up to look like regular news feeds and apparently ran on numerous small stations whose viewers never were informed that they were watching government propaganda.

This week, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's inspector general reported that PBS' former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, appears to have violated federal law by trying to force a political slant onto the network's programming. The inspector's report alluded to e-mails between Tomlinson and a White House official. On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that "Presidential advisor Karl Rove" and Tomlinson "discussed creating a 'conservative talk show and adding it to the public television lineup.' " According to Kenneth Konz, PBS' inspector general, Tomlinson and Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor, also corresponded about "shaking up the agency" and "adding Republican staff."

Placed in this context, Woodward, Miller, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert are less tragic figures in a grand journalistic drama than they are sad — but willing — bit players in somebody else's rather sorry little charade.

This is hardly the first administration intent on managing the press for its own convenience and advantage. Abraham Lincoln had no more compunction about shutting down Copperhead newspapers than he did about suspending habeas corpus. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson's Justice Department was ruthless in its treatment of our then-vast and vigorous foreign-language press and publishing houses.

The preternaturally charming Franklin Roosevelt found it easy to play the White House press corps like a violin, since most of its members — unlike their papers' proprietors — were favorably disposed toward the New Deal. Roosevelt, moreover, consciously used the new mass medium of radio to speak around the country's generally hostile editorial pages and directly to the people.

John Kennedy, who genuinely liked reporters and was fascinated by journalism, made famous and effective use of his warm friendships with White House correspondents, including Benjamin C. Bradlee, who would go on to be Woodward's editor. Richard Nixon — for whom charm was not an option — plotted to use the IRS against reporters, editors and cartoonists who irritated him. (An ill-advised digression into burglary short-circuited the plan.) Bill Clinton, who always thought he could sweet talk the chrome off a trailer hitch, was fond of making personal calls to reporters' homes. (This writer was the recipient of a couple of those, and found them — like cheap champagne — a mildly heady, if ultimately unconvincing, experience.)

Two things have distinguished this Bush administration's efforts at press manipulation from those that have gone before.

One is their sweep and consistency. There has been bribery — as in the egregious case of the wretched Williams. There has been deception — as in the planting of phony news videos. There have been alleged violations of federal laws and regulations — as in Tomlinson's and Rove's efforts to subvert public television. There has been stealth — as in the whispering campaign to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And, of course, there has been good old-fashioned bullying, as in the president's and vice-president's assertions that raising questions about their push to war or the torture of U.S. captives is somehow "reprehensible" and unpatriotic. It's a melancholy comment on the state of the American press that it takes a former director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, to identify Dick Cheney for what he has become — "vice president for torture" — and that he had to do it in a foreign forum, on Britain's ITV news, as he did Thursday.

The other reason all this has more or less succeeded and gone all but unremarked upon is that the administration has adroitly availed itself of the cultural complicity that prevails in a fin de siècle Washington press corps living out the decadence of an increasingly discredited reporting style. As the Valerie Plame scandal and its spreading taint have made all too clear, the trade in confidentiality and access that has made stars of reporters like Bob Woodward and Judy Miller now is utterly bankrupt. (...)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 08:03 PM

Yeah, Amos, with Woodward's confessions this week, Rove just ihgt get Libby off the hook a little... Of course that's gonna mean havin' to displace Libby as the "Bigger Snitch" but, hey, would be nice to see fatso go...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, on Thursday revealed he would continue to investigate the matter with a new grand jury, a move believed to be linked to evidence given by the veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward earlier this week.

Mr Fitzgerald's decision to call a new grand jury, seen by legal experts as an important development, will keep an uncomfortable spotlight focused on the White House already dealing with mounting popular discontent with the war in Iraq and President George W. Bush's handling of pre-war intelligence.

---

This is a positive development in spite of the added complexity, IMHO. It keeps a bright light shining on the weasel den.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 03:26 PM

Here's a link for you: Sierra Club RAW Archives

================================
SIERRA CLUB RAW
Uncooked Truth, Beyond Belief
================================

Issue #139, November 17, 2005
Cheney of Fools
Eric Antebi, RAW Contributor

Last week the U.S. Senate tried to show common
cause with the American people by dragging oil
executives up to Capitol Hill and grilling them
about record profits and possible price gouging.
In the case of Joe Pickup versus Big Oil, the
Senators wanted to position themselves on the
side of ol' Joe, hoping, of course, that no one
would notice the billions of dollars in tax
breaks and subsidies they gave to oil companies
only a few months ago.

In his column last week about how the Senate
"rolled out the red carpet" for the Oil execs,
Washington Post writer Dana Milbank wrote "The
executives were even less forthcoming when
questions turned hostile. Sen. Frank Lautenberg
asked whether any of the companies had
participated in Vice President Cheney's energy
task force, and all five answered in the
negative. Fortunately, they were not under oath."

Oh how right he was. A week later, Milbank
himself obtained a White House document
confirming the companies met with the Task Force.
Milbank and co-writer Justin Blum pointed out in
the article that Commerce Committee Chairman Ted
Stevens (R-AK) refused to make the oil magnets
testify under oath, a decision that was strongly
protested at the time by Senate Democrats.

Now you may be wondering, "What's the big deal?
Shouldn't oil companies have some input in our
energy policy?" Yes, they should. Now, so
should everyone else. But the real questions
that all Americans should be asking is this:
Given that no one is shocked that oil companies
would meet with Cheney's Task Force, why would
Cheney go all the way to the Supreme Court to
prevent the public from learning about it? Why
did the oil executives look into the cameras and
lie about their participation in the Task Force?
What exactly are these people trying to hide?

If the Senate had any guts, it would put Vice
President Cheney and the Oil Executives on the
stand and under oath. Justice Scalia could do
the honors.

Dana Milbank, "Oil and Grilling Don't Mix,"
Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2005. http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,gkhj,o7l,cwbz,6rb0,c7it,3ojx

Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, "Document Says Oil
Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force," Washington Post,
Nov. 16, 2005. http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,gkhj,o7l,43d4,k906,c7it,3ojx

To subscribe to RAW visit: http://info.sierraclub.org/ct.html?rtr=on&s=arz,gkhj,o7l,9nft,ng5,c7it,3ojx

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 01:03 PM

In an interview posted on the CNN news site John Kerry demonstrates again that he is more analytical, more intelligent, and more ethical than the lout he lost to in '04.

He provides concise and straightforward answers to a lot of hard questions, does it with intelligence and a respect for facts, and says what he thinks. And makes it clear that he does think, unlike ole homeboy from Connecticut Texas.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

The WSJ, I am glad to report, also covers the fact that some folks in the Senate are developing enough spine NOT to just rubber stamp the atrocious so-called "Patriot" act, the one which allows some Patriots to invade the privacy and undermine the civil rights of others at great expense to companies:

"WASHINGTON -- Opposition mounted on and off Capitol Hill to extending investigative provisions in the USA Patriot Act, as House and Senate negotiators worked to shore up an agreement to renew the antiterrorism law.

Sens. Larry Craig (R., Idaho), John Sununu (R., N.H.), Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) and Ken Salazar (D., Colo.) said they will fight reauthorization of the entire measure unless it incorporates changes to prevent excessive government intrusion in personal matters.

The Bush administration has been pushing Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the act as a vital counterterrorism tool.

The six senators join an unlikely alliance of opponents to the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union and criminal-defense lawyers on one side of the political spectrum, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S.'s two largest business groups, on the other.

Business is concerned by the growing use, and with it costs, of demands on companies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for personal records of customers, suppliers and employees.

The six senators wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday saying that it was essential that a new Patriot Act "continues to provide law enforcement with the tools to investigate possible terrorist activity while making reasonable changes to the original law to protect innocent people from unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance."

"If further changes are not made, we will work to stop this bill from becoming law," they said.

Their protest came just hours after Republicans had said a tentative agreement had been reached. But that deal appeared to be in doubt when Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) canceled a news conference on the measure.

Republican staffers said a compromise on differing House and Senate versions had been reached that addressed business and privacy-advocate concerns, curbing some extended powers for law enforcement. The terms reached by negotiators include some new restrictions on government powers, including greater public reporting and oversight of how often the government is demanding records and using various investigative tools.

On close inspection of the deal, privacy advocates and business groups concluded that important provisions that existed in the Senate version of the bill to prevent civil-rights abuses in terror investigations had been gutted. In particular, they felt there wasn't sufficient judicial oversight of National Security Letters, a form of subpoena used to demand phone records and other business records without the approval of a judge. While the proposed law does allow recipients to appeal the letters, it makes it relatively easy for the government to defeat a challenge by claiming that demand for records is a matter of national security.

Moreover, businesses that receive NSLs, as they are called, face new criminal penalties if they tell their customers about them. Under the proposed law, customers may in fact never get notice that their records were requested and obtained by federal agents. Businesses that receive these orders aren't advised that they have a right to consult an attorney and challenge the demand.

Business opposition to the new Patriot Act is in part driven by the costs associated with complying with tens of thousands of NSLs every year."

---

It strikes me as pathetic that business will oppose such fascistic measures only because of the financial costs. Strategically, being willing to lie to your customers about their interests is very poor anti-productive behavior for a business, now being forced on them byt the security weenies. If I thought a business had pulled such a stunt on me my custom would be gone in a New York minute and I woudl do everything I could to prevent other business for them by those I know.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:39 AM

The Wall Street Journal reports:


PRESIDENT BUSH'S job approval rating sank to another low in November, with 34% of Americans saying he is doing an "excellent" or "pretty good job," while 65% rank his performance as "only fair" or "poor," according to the latest Harris Interactive poll. Vice President Cheney got a mere 30% positive rating in the latest telephone poll of 1,011 adults, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saw a 34% positive rating. Representatives in Congress fared even worse: 27% of those polled now rate Republicans favorably and only a quarter give Democrats positive marks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:52 AM

A top opposition congressman has dramatically raised tensions over U.S. President George W. Bush's Iraq policy by calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. John Murtha, one of the most senior Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives, said on 17 November that "the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring [the troops] home." The Bush administration has immediately counterattacked by calling Murtha's statement "baffling."


Washington, D.C., 18 November 2005 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. Representative John Murtha is usually regarded as a hawk -- someone who supports the military in most of what it does.

So when he made this statement at a Washington press conference on 17 November, he got immediate attention.

"It is time for a change in direction," Murtha said. "Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people, or the Persian Gulf region."

Murtha -- who is a retired Marine colonel and a decorated Vietnam veteran -- said he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as they can be withdrawn safely. He estimated that should take about six months.

The Bush administration was clearly stung by the attack by the powerful congressman, who is the senior Democrat on the House of Representative's subcommittee that oversees defense spending

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:43 AM

While this is only indirectly about the Administration per se, I found today's SFGate essay on Bill O'Reilly worth a grin, and offer a small part of its spicy invective:

"And he is one who now suggests that because San Francisco dared to ban aggressive military recruiting in our high schools so disadvantaged 18-year-olds won't be unwittingly sucked into the brutish military vortex so they can be shipped off to Iraq to die for appalling and indefensible reasons, al Qaeda should blow up Coit Tower.

What do you do with that? You laugh. Sure, file a formal complaint with the Fox network. Sure, demand that Billy be fired, which is a bit like demanding Ronald McDonald be canned from the McDonald's corporation for poisoning our children. Yes, you have to do it, even if such complaints come from someone like San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, not exactly the poster child for tact and grace when it comes to political maneuvering.

But of course, it won't make one bit of difference. BOR is still Fox's cash cow. He draws big ratings, even here in the Bay Area. And even if O'Reilly's cultural relevance is tanking right along with the bad ship BushCo, he's still getting PR for miles out of the childish comment. Hell, you're reading a column about it right now, which means all those extremist right-wing inbreeding sites get to squeal "San Francisco in Uproar Over O'Reilly Comments," and grunt and revel in our displeasure. Ah well. It matters not.


Here's the takeaway, the only thing you need to know: Bill O'Reilly is a walking, snorting cautionary tale. For those of us who occasionally tread similar terrain of barbed political commentary (tempered, I hope, with satire and hope and sex and humor and fire hoses of divine juice), he is the Grand Pariah, the threshold, the Place You Do Not Want To Go as an intellectually curious human soul. He is the guy you can always look to, no matter how bad it gets, and say, Wow, at least I'm not him.

In a way, we should be grateful for O'Reilly and Robertson and Limbaugh and Coulter and their slime-slinging ilk. They live in those black and nasty psycho-emotional places, so we don't have to. They show us how ugly we can be, how poisonous and ill, so we may recoil and say, Whoa, you know what? I think I need to be more gentle and less judgmental and kinder to those I love. BOR works an inverse effect on anyone with a vibrant and active soul -- he makes us better by sucking all the grossness into himself and blowing it out via a TV channel no one of any spiritual acumen really respects anyway."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:32 AM

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection
>Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing
>of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. Earlier this year, Congress
>had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on
>pregnant women and children, but the EPA's newly proposed rule actually
>creates gaping loopholes for the chemical industry. The rule allows for
>government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in
>chemical experiments in the following situations: 1) Children who "cannot be
>reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or
>orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or
>guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals
>for the sake of research.
>2) Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have
>been neglected or abused.
>3) Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable. You
>can learn more and take action here:
>
>
Details on this page.

The Administration has constantly operated against the interests of National Parks, scientific research, and children. Too busy starting wars, I suppose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:37 AM

The secret meetings with Cheney over energy plans is not so secret anymore. A document revealing that Mobil Exxon BP Conoco Shell and other oil company executives met with Cheney. When there was an investigation the Republican chairman stopped midway when starting to swear them in and proceeded to forgo the oath. This way the oil company men could not be accused of pergury if they denied they met with Cheney.
They have denied the meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:33 PM

From Slate:

We Still Don't Have a Plan
What has everybody been doing for three years?
By Fred Kaplan
Updated Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005, at 4:51 PM ET

It is becoming increasingly clear that President George W. Bush and his top advisers lack not only a strategy for fighting the war in Iraq but—more disturbing—any idea of how to devise one.

The latest, most jaw-dropping evidence comes from a front-page article by Greg Jaffe in the Nov. 15 Wall Street Journal. Jaffe tells the story of David (last name withheld for obvious reasons), a 37-year-old U.S. Army foreign-affairs officer stationed undercover in northwestern Iraq. David wears civilian clothes, packs only a pistol, and is so fluent in Arabic that the locals think he's one of them. As a result, he's been able to trace how jihadist fighters have moved into Iraq across the Syrian border—what routes they use, what markings they follow—and he's passed on the information to American military commanders. He's also advised these commanders and other officials on how to deal with their Iraqi counterparts, he's fired incompetent interpreters who'd been hired by officials who didn't know the language, and he's staved off at least one big conflict with Turkey.

You read the first few paragraphs surprised and pleased that the Army has such officers. The chief of staff to Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez is quoted as saying, "We ought to have one of these guys assigned to every commander in Iraq."


Then Jaffe drops the bombshell: The military is pulling David out of Iraq later this month, along with seven other officers who form his unit. The U.S. Embassy and military headquarters in Baghdad have apparently decided that they are duplicating the work of others.

Jaffe's sources—on-the-ground officers and commanders, speaking on the record—sternly disagree. (Clearly, they let Jaffe talk with David as a way of rallying opposition to the move.) Col. John D'Agostino, who oversees the unit, is quoted as saying, "When David leaves, the U.S. Embassy's regional office in Mosul won't have a single Arabic speaker or Middle Eastern expert on its staff."

This—all of this—is simply staggering. What has the military brass been doing the last three years—what has the diplomatic corps been doing the last three decades—to leave the United States in such a lurch that the regional office in Mosul, one of the most critical and turbulent cities in northern Iraq, has nobody versed in Arabic or even in Middle Eastern studies? (The office, Jaffe writes, is staffed with Asia and South America specialists.)

The Pentagon has issued high-level reports calling for more training in foreign languages and cultures. Officials acknowledge a particularly acute need in Iraq. Yet here's David and his seven culturally astute colleagues doing invaluable, irreplaceable work on the battlefield, at the negotiating tables, in the embassy briefing rooms—and Baghdad headquarters is yanking them out of the country.

Whatever President Bush plans to do with Iraq next year—pull troops out, put more troops in, or just muddle through—this move is scandalously mindless. ...

---

The issue of mindless refusal to develop or use reliable HumInt was raised in the first three days after 9-11 in these threads, and it appears the same mindlessness obtains in the Administrations ability to grasp the simplest principles of how to deal with groups of people who are people instead of being ciphers. Note up thread that they are very cavalier about gathering intel that they can steal from others -- banks, libraries and employers -- on their own citizenry. Something doesn't add up here...eh?

What do you think the REAL purposes behind these apparent "errors" in judgement might be, if you assumed for a moment that they were deliberate and that Bush was acting "competently" -- just following some very obscure agenda?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:32 PM

Those who don't know history
tend to repeat it...

Voltaire

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

Two interesting ripples:

1. Slate magazine offers background history on the Bush Administration's infatuation with torture methods, and its precedents in the CIA.

2. Doug Thompson reveals his unsettling discovery that he is officially listed as an Enemy of the State...a person of interest to the Feds who without being notified has had every aspect of his personal life invaded and investigated and recorded by an unfriendly government.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM

From The Australian:

Republicans want exit strategy
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
November 17, 2005
GEORGE W. Bush's Republican allies in Congress are starting to engineer some distance from the US President over the conduct of the Iraq war.

Republican leaders in the Senate yesterday called on the President to prepare an exit strategy for about 160,000 US troops in Iraq.

With Mr Bush touring Asia and suffering worsening polls from already record low levels, Republicans want Mr Bush to better explain his strategy for victory in Iraq.

Republicans are growing increasingly anxious about the turn of public opinion against the war ahead of mid-term congressional elections next year.

Mr Bush's own party is demanding that 2006 be a year of "significant transition" in which Iraqi forces take the lead in securing their own country.









While the Republican move in the Senate came amid a Democrat push to adopt a specific timetable for withdrawal, yesterday's vote in the Senate still represents the legislative branch's most aggressive intervention yet into the conduct of the war since the invasion began in March 2003.

Adding to the pain for Mr Bush was the fact that the vote was held while he was abroad, something Congress usually tries to avoid. The proposal by Bill Frist, the Republican Senate leader, and John Warner, the veteran Virginian Republican and chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, was passed by 79 votes to 19.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:35 PM

A generation which ignores history
has no past -- and no future.
                           - Robert A. Heinlein

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
             E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article
Published: November 15, 2005
To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

•

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

•

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

---

From the New York Times Editorial page, 11-16-2005

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:40 PM

Jimmy Carter writes:

"This isn't the real America

By Jimmy Carter, JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His
newest book is "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this
month by Simon & Schuster.

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical
government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all
previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social
justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful
information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and
local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the
restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing
global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological
weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our
security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive
war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an
unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with
other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit
direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to
exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that
our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally
constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the
threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with
us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear
comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national
crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic
men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of
our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been
made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.
..."


From The LA Times Op Ed


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:02 PM

First of all, Old Guy, I just come up from Boone, N.C. today on I-81 and the gas was 2.09....

Now as fir other blogs???? I don't go to any of them... What you get from me is gleaned strictly from the Washington Post, The New York Times and the TV news...

Nuthin' more!!!

Allnatural, here... If I happen to see things the same way as some anti-Bush blogs see things then, hey, means we're both payin' attention....

But I swaer on my daddy's grave that these are my sources and I don't need nobody to tell me what to think or how to defend the postions I take... And I take that very seriously....

So how's about you, Old Guy, bringin' the same integrity and thought processes to the discusssion... Hey, it's okay to Google somethin' now an' then fir documentation but don't live with someone elses blog as ***yer*** danged defense...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:21 PM

AP Photo DCSW101

By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for ``the successful completion of the mission'' in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.

The overall measure, adopted 98-0, shows a willingness to defy the president in several ways despite a threatened veto. It would restrict the techniques used to interrogate terror detainees, ban their inhuman treatment and call for the administration to provide lawmakers with quarterly reports on the status of operations in Iraq.

The bill was not without victories for the president, including support for the military tribunals Bush wants to use to try detainees at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet even that was tempered, with language letting the inmates appeal to a federal court their designation as enemy combatants and their sentences.

The Senate's votes on Iraq showed a willingness even by Republicans to question the White House on a war that's growing increasingly unpopular with Americans.

Polls show Bush's popularity has tumbled in part because of public frustration over Iraq, a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,000 American troops.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the outcome was ``a vote of no confidence on the president's policies in Iraq.'' Republicans ``acknowledged that there need to be changes made,'' he said. ...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:54 PM

The Los Angeles Times presents various views from its readers concerning the recent "rebuttal" by the Bush administration on charges of lying in order to have a war:

"Here's what you say about President Bush:


We asked readers on Saturday what you had to say in response to President George W. Bush and his administration as they come under fire from war-policy opponents. Here are excerpts from your comments.

It's about time President Bush answered the distortions that his political opponents have been making. Bush made a decision to go to war based on the information presented to him and to others in government. Looking at that intelligence with the assumption that it was correct - as well as looking at Saddam's history and his violations of several U.N. resolutions - and living in a post 9-11 world, I can see how the decision to go to war could have been made. A person can honestly disagree with Bush's decision to go to war, but to say he lied to do so just doesn't hold up to the facts.

- John Mlynar


The Bush administration has successfully taken America over in a new millennium and transported Americans back in time. Using every bait-and-switch tactic available, Bush and the ideology of his administration are a shell game with long-term consequences for our children's future. We as a country do not have to go on ruining the earth with oil. The alternatives are available, just not in this country.

- Keith Richard Radford Jr.


President Bush has suffered a great deal of damage inflicted upon him by the radical fanatics of the left, especially the Democratic ideologues such as Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Reid and Kerry, as well as Rep. Pelosi and others in the House of Representatives. Their daily outbursts of distortion, omission and outright lies regarding the Iraq war are only giving aid and comfort to the terrorists we are fighting.

- Tony Pasano


We Americans are enjoying the most freedom and best living conditions in human history. We should not ignore the people, especially the women and children, suffering under cruel dictatorship in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries. They need help. As for the democratic movement going on in all the countries, I think we are doing the right thing. President Bush will be known as one of the best presidential fighters for freedom - after Lincoln and Reagan.

- Charles King


The Bush administration is under fire because the people in it have consistently tried to avoid any investigation into any misdealing, no matter how much the American people cry out for it. They avoided the 9-11 Commission until they were embarrassed into having it. They avoided investigation into the faulty intelligence that led to the war in Iraq. They avoided investigations into the Downing Street memos. They are doing the same for the failings in New Orleans, and they are trying to make the outing of Valerie Plame seem like it's no big deal. I think the American people are smarter than that.

- Ross Miller


When supposed friends lie to your face not just once or twice or three times, you get rid of them. They ultimately have nothing to offer the relationship and are just manipulating you for personal gain. What is one good thing this born-again neo-con has done to improve your or my lives? If you said zero, you'd be right.

- Erik Eskelin

It is a sad day when a country's leader shows such fear that truth might be found. We often read that countries suppress dissent and equate dissent with treason. Those countries were once called such things as Axis of Evil and were always somewhere else. Now we have our own collection of nine pro-torture senators and an administration demanding that we stop asking questions. Our country is changing - into what?

- David Robbins

I think it was high time that the president spoke out in defense of his administration and I also wish that he would throw the gauntlet down to Senators Kennedy and Kerry to produce evidence that he or his administration lied or slanted the intelligence then available to Congress in order to precipitate the invasion of Iraq. Every day we are seeing more evidence of the fact that these radical Islamists are diabolical in their quest to wipe out freedom wherever it exists and we and the free world must band together to prevent them from reaching their goal.

- Bruce DeHaas

Every time negative comments are heard about the Bush administration's handling of various issues, either the subject is changed or the old familiar rant about unpatriotic citizens begins anew. Perhaps if President Bush began to recognize his responsibility in these areas, fewer negative comments would be heard. Am I the only one who's noticed that Vice President Cheney disappears off the radar whenever disaster strikes - where was he, for example, during the devastating hurricanes? And that our president goes into total denial when one of his inner circle is accused of questionable behavior? The current majority in Washington needs to demand the same high standards of conduct for itself that it has always demanded of the opposition. This would be true regardless of who's in office at any given time.

- Ellie Doud

Since lying to go to war is an impeachable offense - meaning it is unconstitutional - we demand that impeachment proceedings begin immediately. And also, the immediate resignations of Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld. Get the actors and musicians off the front page and start reporting the important news like real journalists.

- Bob and Joyce Yovannone

I say that our president made a huge mistake when he sent our troops to Iraq. The only reason he sent our troops to war was to get the oil from that country and to show his father no one can say no to them. He and his father do not care about anyone except themselves and their family. Just think how many of personal family members Bush and his administration have in Iraq - none. They think they can play God with other people's lives. Just how much more are we supposed to accept from the devil and his father? I personally think, if he cared about our country, he would resign and bring our troops home. They are dying for his stupidity. How many more need to die before this country does something to save itself?

- Jolie James

---

Out of the first eleven comments taken from the top down presumably in the order they were received, 8 condemn and 3 defend Bush's policies.

Thus, a mandate...not.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:59 PM

The impeccable--if bloodthirsty and insensitive -- logic of farming out services once belonging to the Armed Forces to contractors instead is revealed in the following excerpt from the Mercury news of San Jose, CA. Contracting many duties to companies like L3 and Halliburton means large profits to the industrial/military complex, friends of the Bushies. And of course. with contractors, there is a great benefit in not having to train them as soldiers or provide them with arms or ammunition. This means the budget for the war looks smaller despite the high salaries these poeple need to take the risks they do.

Unfortunately this increases the exposure of civilians--both Iraq- and American -- to attacks in which, with no means of self defense, they are easily wounded or killed.

A

---

"WASHINGTON - As the nation focused last week on the 2,000th U.S. soldier who died in Iraq, Gloria Dagit of Jefferson, Iowa, got a box filled with the belongings of her son, Keven, who was killed when his convoy of trucks was ambushed in northern Iraq.


Keven Dagit's death Sept. 20 - along with two other truckers - didn't register on the tally of Iraq deaths broadcast daily. That's because they were civilians working for U.S. defense contractors.


As the violence of the protracted war continues and some 75,000 civilian employees struggle to rebuild the war-torn nation and support the military, contractor casualties mount. Their deaths have more than tripled in the past 13 months.


As of Monday, 428 civilian contractors had been killed in Iraq and another 3,963 were injured, according to Department of Labor insurance-claims statistics obtained by Knight Ridder.


Those statistics, which experts said were the most comprehensive listing available on the toll of the war, are far from complete: Two of the biggest contractors in Iraq said their casualties were higher than the figures the Labor Department had for them.


The dead and injured come from many walks of life, drawn by money and patriotism. Some are American citizens. Most are not. They are truckers, police officers and translators. They're counted only if they were paid by companies hired by the Pentagon. Their deaths and injuries were compensated by insurance policies required by federal law.


The Labor Department lists 156 dead for an L-3 Communications subsidiary in Virginia. The company, which provides translators who work with the military, puts the death toll at 167, of whom 15 were Americans. The Labor Department's accounting reports that Halliburton, the largest contractor in Iraq, has had 30 employees killed in Iraq and 2,471 injured. A Halliburton spokeswoman, Melissa Norcross, said Tuesday that the company had lost a total of 77 workers in Iraq, Afghanistan and its base in Kuwait. One worker is unaccounted for. Halliburton couldn't give a breakdown by country.


The government's listing shows the contractors' casualty rate is increasing. In the first 21 months of the war, 11 contractors were killed and 74 injured each month on average. This year, the monthly average death toll is nearly 20 and the average monthly number of injured is 243.


"You've got a greater number of contractors on the ground carrying out a greater number of roles putting them in danger," said Peter W. Singer, a contracting expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington research center. "And issue No. 3, you've got a much more dangerous environment."


Keven Dagit, a truck driver for Halliburton, knew it. The day before he was killed he told his mother, "Now, it's really getting dangerous," she recalled.


He left two daughters, ages 9 and 11.


"I want more people to realize that these guys are out there defenseless," Gloria Dagit said. "It was an ambush. ... They are not allowed to carry weapons."

"

(...)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:09 AM

The International Herald Tribune offers an analysis of the torque currently surrounding the "Did-Didn't" contorversy around Bush's distortion of intell in order to create an artificial casus belli.

In this analysis the authors point out an interesting fact concerning the standard response in defense against accusations of distortion:

"... News Analysis: Prewar intelligence a thorn in Bush's side
By Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl The New York Times

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005

.. the Bush administration is furiously parrying a new round of accusations that it exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein in leading the United States to war, the imagery is startling.

There on Monday was Ahmad Chalabi, who as a leader of Iraqi exiles before the war funneled what proved to be inaccurate information about Saddam's weapons programs to the United States, being whisked into meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the most influential of the hawks in the administration when it came to Iraq.

...The White House is building two main lines of defense. It is asserting that many Democrats saw the same threat from Iraq as the administration did. And it is pointing to two government studies that it says found no evidence that prewar intelligence, while admittedly flawed, had been twisted by political pressure.

The first is giving the White House some political protection, though not enough to deter Democratic attacks. The second addresses only part of the issue, because neither study directly addressed the broader question: whether the administration presented that intelligence to Congress, the nation and the world in a way that overstated what it said about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons programs and any links to terrorism....

"...At a news conference Monday on Capitol Hill, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic party leader, ran through a list of topics the administration had cited to show Iraq was a threat, including Saddam's efforts to acquire nuclear material and aluminum tubes that could be used in a nuclear program and terrorist training camps in Iraq. "All of these things simply were not true," he said. "The administration knew that, but they did not share that with me or anyone else in Congress that I know of.

The White House's aggressive effort to defend itself has taken on all the trappings of a campaign. In an indication of the coordination between the White House and Republican leaders in Congress, Senator Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and the majority leader, planned to distribute to Senate Republicans on Tuesday a list of statements made by Democrats raising the alarm about the threat from Iraq.

The situation makes the new effort by Democrats to turn the focus on the use of intelligence into a political minefield. Among the issues the Democrats are seeking to explore is whether public statements by Bush and others about Iraq exaggerated the threat it posed, even beyond what was described in the flawed intelligence presented to them

To date, the major official inquiries - by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, and the Robb-Silberman commission in March 2005 - have addressed only prewar intelligence itself. Neither found evidence that any pressure by the Bush administration had contributed to the failures by the CIA and others in assessing the threat posed by Iraq

On the question of whether there were close, collaborative ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the reviews found Cheney and others had encouraged analysts to rethink their skepticism, but they found no evidence that the repeated questioning from the administration had altered the conclusions reached by the agencies

But neither panel compared public statements by Bush and his aides with the intelligence available at the time, or reviewed internal White House documents, including a draft of a speech to the UN Security Council that was later delivered by Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, for further evidence of how intelligence had been used.

---

Does it strike you as somewhat illogical to claim in defense of such a charge a findings that did not actually examine the questyion being asked? It does me. How could any panel exonerate Bush by "not finding evidence that he exagerrated or distorted intelligence" when not actually comparing what he said with the intell?

Doh!! How stupid.

SSDD.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:19 AM

Ok Bobert, I find something not anti-bush and it is automaticaly deemed "corporate" or a blog by you and therefore propaganda.

You go to a site such as Topplebush.com and deem the information there to be the truth. As long as it is anti bush, it is the truth. Are sites and ads supported by people like George Soros considered "corporate"? "On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became instantly famous when he sold short more than $10bn worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's stubborn reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency. Finally, the Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the Pound Sterling, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

Are rich liberal elitists angels and corporations evil?

Dems try to discredit any republican they can. When a republican does the same thing it is deemed evil, unfair character assasination.

If you dig deep enough you can find shit if you want it. It you look hard enought you can find something to bitch about and feel miserable about.

I see gas is down to $1.84 on I 81 in Roanoke Va. How did the evil oil companys allow that to happen? Does Bush know about it?

What does gas cost in europe? "One big difference in Britain is that gas prices don�t appear to have changed as drastically over the past year. The national average for July was now 88 pence a liter, or $6.02 a gallon" http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8994313/

George Bush must have connections with the oil companys there too and has been more sucessfull at allowing them to gouge consumers.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:43 PM

Heard on my marvelous Tom Swift electric radio this morning:   

"With Congressional elections coming up next year, many Republican senators and Congressional representatives are not feeling very comfortable about continuing to support the programs and policies of an increasingly unpopular president."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:12 AM

From Newsday this morning:

After four years of growing international criticism of the Bush administration's treatment of war-on-terror suspects and dozens of lawsuits from prisoners who claim they are being held with no basis, it took the Senate barely an hour of debate late last week to reverse a year-old Supreme Court decision and strip the courts of the power to hear their cases.

If it survives a floor fight this week, legal experts and human rights advocates warned, the unexpected 49-42 vote could leave the roughly 500 military prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without hope of legal relief, mark one of the rare occasions in U.S. history that the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, and damage the U.S. image abroad.


"It's been a bulwark of Western jurisprudence for a thousand years," said John Hutson, the dean of Franklin Pierce Law School in New Hampshire and a former judge advocate general for the U.S. Navy. "This is not an insignificant event."

---

Suspending Habeas Corpus is a sure step toward fascism. Right now of course, it's just "them" so what diff, man. But in the arrogance typical of the Bush Gang, they are stepping onto a very slippery slope in disregard of their own history and the moral code that has been evolved over centuries.

Welcome to the Middle Ages, boys and girls. Guess what!! Evil King George is going on a CRUSADE!! Won't that be exciting???


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

No, Old Guy, "YOU" didn't back it up.... Some blog, which is funded by some pro-Bush corportaion, prolly backed it up...

That's my point... You aren't doing the research so you don't know how much of that stuff is true or not... You prolly didn't even read most or any of them supposed sources...

That's what I mean...

These cut-n-pastes are very well funded just fir the puropose of twisting information to make anyone look either good or bad... In this case, seein' as Ritter was definately on the hawk's radar screen, they went oput to do a hatchet job on him, even so much as bringin' in things about his personal relationships...

No, I doubt very much that you actually had a hand in this supposed research...

That's my complaint... There are a lot blogs being funded by corporation to diss anyone who doesn't agree with Bush and so, yeah, it's real easy to just click on one as yer defense...

Problem is that you are really defending your position... Yer lettin' some corpoartion that has a definate agenda defend yer position...

Amos doesn't do that... He offers real articles and op-eds so that you can read thru them and get a variety of opinions... If you bothered to read them that is, which is in your case, is doubtfull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

Slate provides an insightful and concise summary of the Bush administrations double standard ruthlessness with respect to fundamental human codes of conduct.

An excerpt:

"And just when Congress appeared to be on the verge of doing something about it, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the principal co-sponsors of the McCain Amendment, convinced the Senate to undercut the amendment by making it unenforceable—at least for the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On Thursday night, the Senate approved Graham's proposal, which would selectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus for foreign nationals held at Guantanamo, denying them any access to a court for violations of constitutional or international law—even if they are being subjected to precisely the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that the McCain Amendment prohibits. Graham's amendment is predicated on the same double standard as the Bush administration's interpretation of the Torture Convention—namely, that it is somehow permissible to do to foreign nationals what would be patently unacceptable if done to citizens.

This double standard is deeply flawed. Legal protections for fundamental rights of those we have locked up should not vary depending on the passport they hold. And this flaw raises a serious question not only about administration policy in the war on terror, but also about American constitutional doctrine.

The administration's justification for treating foreign nationals held abroad in the war on terror differently from those held here first surfaced with respect to the prisoners held at Guantanamo. When lawyers challenged the legality of those detentions, the administration responded that the Constitution does not extend to foreign nationals outside our borders, and that therefore the Guantanamo detainees have no constitutional rights. That issue is now being litigated in the courts—although not for long, if Graham's amendment becomes law.

Then, during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings, the administration disclosed that, in its view, not only does the Constitution not apply to foreigners held abroad, but a key part of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment doesn't either. That treaty, signed by virtually every country in the world, and signed and ratified by the United States in 1994, absolutely prohibits such conduct, without exception, even in a state of war. "

One brave Senator -- John McCain -- sponsoring law requiring the United States to live up to its intenrational treaty commitments in regard to torture, summed the biggest single blind spot of the Bush administration up in a single phrase:

It's not about who they are. It's about who we are.

This is the big item that the Administration doesn't get....who we really are, or should be. I think it's the real button they don't want to know about, because they can't face it.

See the whole piece at Slate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:58 AM

Bobert:

If you would check out some of my cut n pastes you would see news papers and sites such as PBS.org. There are very few blogs and even the blogs point to real sites.

I made my statement about Ritter and then proceded to back it up. I verify that my opinion is correct this way and learn a lot in the process. Have you tried to find out anything about him yourself? Seems to me his head got a little to large and he thought he was running the show. Google for alpha dog and Ritter. Then he made "Documentary" with Iraqi money going into his pocket and he changed his mind about Iraq's WMDS being a threat. Now AL jazzera? Please don't mke me laugh by suggesting he is honest. He is a traitor.

Now what makes printed media any better than news sources on the net? You can't put it in the bird cage but you can't fill up the landfill with it either.

I generally start with a Google News search and branch out from there. If I hear something on the radio I try to find it on the net. Ever heard of Jayson Blair? His crap was printed and sold too.

Now Amos's stuff which he frequently cuts and pastes comes from primo sources like Clarissa Pinkola Estes. Her only claim to fame apparently is a PHD. My wife has one of them but she ain't my chief advisor.

It seems like every fact I can find is found to be disproved by you with no backup.

Now which of us seems more knowledgeable? You don't even make an effort to push the right keys when you post.

You major position seems to be "The sky is falling"

My position is "It ain't falling for a while yet so let's figure out a solution"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:04 AM

Old Guy: Why do you say "What I (allegedly) want is of no importance here"

Because I didn't bring it up, and because it is presumptuous of you to claim to speak for what I am thinking. Because it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. And lastly, and most importantly, because of the reasons that I detailed in the post from which you culled this snippet from, and of which you seem to have ignored the rest.

Is that clear?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, in a page-one WP fact-check, note that the Administration's defense--that Congress saw the same intelligence as the White House prior to the war and that independent commissions have determined the intelligence to have been represented accurately--is not quite true.
sterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: "Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." ..."

Excerpted from The W.P.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
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...

Firget blogs....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM

So what does anything fir you Bobert?

If you don't like my cut and pastes, Ignore them.

Are Amos's cut and pastes satisfactory?

What's yer point? All I see is universal negativity to your comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:48 PM

Arne Langsetmo:

Why do you say " What I (allegedly) want is of no importance here"

I want to hear some direction from this collection of complaining gloom and doomers here. Buck up. Where are we going from here?

Y' know it's a mean old world and we in the US are better off that anywhere else. What the hell do we have to complain about that isn't 100% better than anywhere else?

Gas? what does it cost in europe?

FEMA? what happens in Aisia when a typhoon hits and 10,000 die?

Why the hell are people risking their lives in the desert or braving shark infested waters to get into the US.

The only people I see wanting to leave are deserters and draft dodgers escaping the law to Canada.

If there is a utopia somewhere, go there and leave the rest of us in peace. Otherwise accept life the way it is and try to get some enjoyment out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

People in the employment of the US governemnt say what they are 'sposed to say when they say them... Some folks break away from them entanglements and decide to start tellin' the truth...

I find it real interstin', Old Guy, that one of yer right winged sites has a neat little cut 'n paste to attack Ritter now that what he had to say in the lead up to the invasion turns out to be true...

Even down to sexual encounters... Tsk, tsk... You really should read yer Bushite webbies before clickin' "Post"...

How come you don't wnat a talk about Scott yerself Old Guy??? Seems like if there'a anything that is critical of Bush yer corporate spnsored teram has some attack, attack cut 'n paste conviently fir you to clicjk on to prevent you (old guy) from havin' to either listen to others arguments or have to make any of yer own...

No disrespect intended but corporate sponsored attack cut 'n pastes don't do much fir me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:00 PM

Scott Ritter was giving urgent warning in Senate testimony about the threat of WMDs in Iraq until he got hired with skimmed off oil for food money. Then he did a treasonous 180.

Shortly after that he was revealed that he got caught in a phone sex with an under age girl sting in New York and he dropped out of the leftist headlines. Actually he got caught twice. Now he works for Al Jazeera.

See Amos you only select the data (propaganda) that suits your demented agenda and ignore the rest. Burned out brains and a Kryptonite skull. I'll bet even you could get a job at good old Al Jazeera.

And, Oh Yes, he has a book to sell. Go, snap it up and add it to your propaganda collection.

PART ONE: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/980903sr.htm

Statement of SCOTT RITTER September 3, 1998 at UNITED STATES SENATE

"Iraq, today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those Americans who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

    I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

In the PBS interview, Ritter also complained the Clinton Administration was not being confrontational enough:

    You had this (aggressive) statement on the one hand, but on the other hand, this administration's saying, wait a minute, we can't go forward with aggressive inspections because they will lead to a confrontation with Iraq, but let's understand the confrontation is because Iraq will not comply with the law passed by the Security Council. So we weren't allowed to do our job out of fear of a confrontation in which the United States would not be able to muster the required support of the Security Council to respond effectively or to respond in a manner which they had said they would respond in Resolution 1154.

PART TWO:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

in 2000, Ritter wrote an article for Arms Control Today, in which he stated his belief that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed, meaning that Iraq had no militarily significant stocks of prohibited weapons.

June 2000 The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament Scott Ritter

Efforts to resume weapons inspections in Iraq have long been at an impasse.It has been 18 months since inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) were withdrawn from Iraq and six months since the Security Council created a successor organization to assume UNSCOM's mantle. Resolution 1284 established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) in December 1999 and tasked it with verifying Iraq's elimination of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.

He made a documentary, In Shifting Sands ,on the effects of the sanctions on Iraq.
Ritter�s documentary was financed in part by Detroit businessman Shakir al Khafaji. Al-Khafaji, who gave Ritter $400,000 to produce his film, admitted that Saddam's regime awarded him oil vouchers worth more than one million dollars under the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food programme run by the UN.

In the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ritter spoke to numerous audiences, proclaiming the extreme unlikelihood that Saddam Hussein had any functioning weapons of mass destruction.

PART THREE: He always speaks the truth and knows what is going on:

February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia�s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/2/

PART FOUR:

January 19, 2003

Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was secretly arrested and prosecuted in New York a year and a half ago after allegedly being caught in an Internet sex sting, say law enforcement sources in published reports.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter was arrested in June 2001 for allegedly having an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. It turns out that "girl" was really an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ritter lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, and was reportedly arrested by police in Colonie, N.Y.

The case was apparently kept so secret, the head local prosecutor did not even know it existed.

The Daily Gazette reports Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week when he finally learned of the matter.

"I was shocked and angered to learn that the case had been disposed of by one of my assistant district attorneys without consulting me," Clyne told the paper. "Any arguably sensitive case should be brought to my attention."

Sources told the Gazette that Ritter's attorney and a town court judge agreed to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30570

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-19-2003/news/story/52750p-49424c.html

Part Four:

Ritter's attorney confirms arrest
TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting
January 20, 2003

An attorney for Scott Ritter confirmed that the outspoken former U.N. weapons inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.

Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Delmar.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.

Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30587

Part Five:

Now the only place he can find a job is at Al Jazzera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ADCA48CC-9307-466B-BA18-82724CAA7484.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:04 PM

DeLay Team Weighed Misdemeanor Plea to Save GOP Post
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 11, 2005; Page A01

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events.

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.


The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money. ...

(Washington Post)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:52 PM

From a correspondent:

From: Severo Ornstein
Date: November 9, 2005 1:01:31 PM EST
To: Recipient List Suppressed: ;
Subject: Proposed Amendment

My list is generally for information and provocative thought. I
rarely propose action items, but this seems important.

Senator Graham of South Carolina is planning to introduce an
amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would strip the
federal courts of jurisdiction and prohibit them from even hearing
arguments against indefinite detention not only from Guantánamo
detainees, but from anyone who has the misfortune of finding
themselves at any U.S.-run facility anywhere, even within the United
States.

If you wish to take action to oppose this proposed amendment visit
campaign_KEY=1500>http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ccr/campaign.jsp?
campaign_KEY=1500

That's the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights - an
organization for which we have very high regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:30 PM

On August 17th of this Year the Wsahington Post in an article priinted below the line but obn the front page confessed to ghaving been lred into a culture of office-speak... I sent them a letter askin' them what they had done to correct such a culture... I'm still awaiting their answer...

Jusy Miller and the New Yorks Time printed it's confession last month purdy much sayin' the same thing...

Now, Old Guy, do you have a clue who Scott Ritter is??? No probably not... He is a former weapons inspector and knows a thing 'er two about Irag... Scott was blackballed from the media in the run up to war... Scott was criss-crossin America in the run up to war tellin' anyone who would listen that the "so-called" intellegence was dead wrong... Joe Wilson said it was dead wrong... Even George Tenant made a couple feeble attempts to tell Bush not to say stuff that was going to dead wrong... The Tenant story has since been sanitized anf revised fir public consumption but a little Googlin' around and you'll find between Septemeber prior to the invasion up until the invasion there werre articles in the Wsahington Post which sunstantiate this... The aluminum tubes were debunked prior to the invasion only to used agin by Bush after the debunkin'... The inspectors were makin' progress in Iraq when Bush orderd them out of the soon-to-be-bombin'-site...

I mean, that we are even having this revisionist discusssion in itself rediculous!!!! Hey, we all went thru this and unless one had one's head completely up Fox-TV's ass then it shouldn't be too hard tyo say, "ahhhh, yeah, I remember that, too"...

I can't believe that Bush thinks he can rewrite this??? Hey, he screwed up and ain't no rewrite ot editin' gonna save him or his followers...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:22 PM

It seems to me that the anti Bush faction wants America to loose.

What I (allegedly) want is of no importance here. The plain fact is that the U.S. is going to "lose" (in the sense that what comes out, even in best case scenarios, is hardly going to be to our liking). And this was apparent to some (including even folks in the U.S. State Department) prior to the war. Nothing to be done now but to control the damage. Iraq will be (as it wasn't before) an Islamic Republic, with or without our consent and support: a definite down-turn. There will be civil strife, guerrilla activity, and a power struggle for decades on end: certainly no improvement, and in some ways perhaps a fair bit for the worse (if you don't believe me, just read up a bit on Afghanistan in the 20th century). Islamic radicalism will be fueled and assisted by the U.S. actions, regardless of the Iraqi outcome. Those really are the facts, and no reasonably rational person nowadays will deny this, even as the Dubya sycophants try to paper it over with hollow cries of "They have a constitution, they have a CONSTITUTION!" as if that makes things the least bit different....

Sad but true. It's a f***-up of colossal proportions. And even sadder for those who gave their lives and for their families.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:20 PM

Amos:

"What is at issue is the mess in which that result sits, and how it came about."

I think it is due to miscalcualtions of the aftermath of the war combined with countries such as Iran, Syria and France working against us as well as Al qaeda's determination to prevent us from suceeding.

A good bit of the miscalulations are because of a lying crook named Chalabi. The US congress believed Chalabi and now they feel embarassed so they try to blame it on Bush.

Nobody likes the killing going on in Iraq and they want a scapegoat to make themselves feel better.

Pulling out is not a solution. It is surrender and defeat. It seems to me that the anti Bush faction wants America to loose.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 02:12 PM

Americans have seen thru yer boy's bullsh*t just as folks hwere have seen thru yers..

Yeah, the latest polls, here and here (this last one from Faux Snooze even), continue to document the death spiral of the Dubya maladministration. Dubya's losing ground weekly in every measure of his preznitsy, security, defence, economy, honesty, approval, and on down the line.

Old Guy: The problem is the same for Democrats and others who contend that this war was dishonestly sold to the American public by the Bush Administration, with the help of a submissive press that was afraid to ask the tough questions.

Why?

Old Guy: They used the same sources available to Miller.

You mean our "agent from Iran" Chalabi??? Nope, not me. I've posted above a link to where I stated before the war that Chalabi and his thugs were con-men or worse. And I was not alone in that; even Clinton's administration cut him off for corruption and untrustworthiness (the Dubya maladministration reversed this).

Yes, there were some Dems that reacted to the misinformation and slanted "intelligence" (since proved to be "garbage, garbage, and more garbage") fed to them. Yes, they were too trusting of the maladministration ... or gullible ... or politically spineless. But that's really no problem for any one of them that, like Edwards the other day, steps up and admits the mistake and takes responsibility for their acts. But that is something you won't ever see Dubya do, and it's something the Republicans won't do ... until they start seeing the writing on the wall, and decide that they're going down faster than the Titanic unless they jump ship. I'd note that it was a similar tectonic shift, when Republicans put their finger up in the wind, that spelled doom for Nixon's stonewall and led to his disgrace....

Old Guy: What's more, the intelligence agencies of allied countries all agreed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat because of its possession and development of WMD.

Not sure I agree with your claim here. In fact I doubt it. Because the U.N. Security Council was 8-5 against Dubya's "Operation Iraqi Liberation" in the leadup to the war (and after the inspectors had reported dismal findings). But even if they were, this is the fallacy of "argument from [claimed] authority", which hardly changes the actual facts. And when people like me, reading papers and surfing the net, could get it right (as well as Congressmen like Kucinich and other brave Democrats), you have to ask why we should find any comfort in lots of people gettiung things wrong. If they were wrong, we ought to fire their a$$es as well, but that hardly makes Dubya any the less stoopid (or dishonest).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:37 AM

I cannot argue that bringing Saddam Hussein down is a good result.

Even strychnine gets good results once in a while.

What is at issue is the mess in which that result sits, and how it came about.

In other news: (NYT):

"A poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan research group, found that 43 percent of Americans believe that the American and British governments lied about Iraq's weapons to justify the invasion, up from 31 percent early last year.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last week found that 40 percent of Americans believe Mr. Bush is honest and trustworthy, down from 53 percent 18 months ago and 70 percent three years ago."

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:40 AM

Ok Amos the famous reformed Scientologist, go ahead and piss on these people's candles in your usual charming, acid laced style:

10 Nov 2005

Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation

A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

"The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America.

The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein.
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan's High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media's largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media, she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news.

"We're not saying that the media doesn't tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it's not the whole truth, or the whole picture.

"The truth is that while there is violence, she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future.

Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States, she says.

The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones.

Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House.
"It was a brave decision that you have made, Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people.

Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero.

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan, she gushes, "admire President Bush's courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America's international partners.

Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question.

In addition to the advertisments, the group maintains a Web site, www.theotheriraq.com, expressing its gratitude to the U.S. and the value of Kurdistan to the world community.

http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=&ArticleNr=7385&LNNr=28&RNNr=70

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:47 PM

Your cut and paste seems remarkably devoid of rationality; more like one of those RW Screecher Machines.

I believe that Miller got her inside story by sleeping with Scooter, and the Times decided that was one step too far. But I don't know that , it is just speculation.

When foaming at the mouth with untrammeled inaccuracy, old Guy, it helps if you pause to say "This is just my opinion, of course."

It makes you sound a little bit human.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:07 PM

The problem is the same for Democrats and others who contend that this war was dishonestly sold to the American public by the Bush Administration, with the help of a submissive press that was afraid to ask the tough questions. They used the same sources available to Miller. What's more, the intelligence agencies of allied countries all agreed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat because of its possession and development of WMD. So the perceived intelligence failure was not unique to the Bush Administration.

Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has written a powerful column for the Washington Post that laid out the problem the Times now faces when it attempts to single out Miller for special scrutiny. The fact is that it wasn't just Judith Miller at the Times who reported that the Iraqi threat was real.

Just a couple examples from Kagan of Times articles from the late 1990's make the point: "Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be 'capable within months—and possibly just weeks or days—of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.' He reported that Iraq was thought to be 'still hiding tons of nerve gas' and was 'seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads.' Tim Weiner and Steven Erlanger reported that Hussein was closer than ever 'to what he wants most: keeping a secret cache of biological and chemical weapons.'"

And Times editorials were equally clear when they warned the Clinton administration of the dangers of negotiating with Iraq. They cautioned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They wrote that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation."

Why The Times Turned On Judith Miller
by Roger Aronoff
Nov 9, 2005

But following Miller's release from jail, Times columnist Frank Rich went after the Bush Administration and, by extension, Miller. He said the White House "put out a lot of propaganda about WMD, they cherry picked evidence, they ignored signs, sometimes from other government agencies that disputed the evidence for going to war, and they sold it very very well to the public and Congress, often thru the press. And there were very few journalistic institutions that challenged it before we discovered the cupboard was bare."

By the press, he clearly meant to include his own paper, the Times, and Miller.

But since Miller was not alone, even at the Times, in writing such stories, what explains this selective vehemence? The conclusion has to be that Miller is taking a hit because one of her sources has now turned out to be a high-ranking member of the Bush Administration. Official sources are fine when they are being used to undermine the Bush Administration. But when they support the Bush Administration or come from within that administration, that's something else entirely. Clearly, Miller is being denounced because she dared to talk to Lewis Libby and other Bush officials not only about WMD but about the CIA leak case. This was just too much for the extreme liberals at the Times to take.

The irony, of course, is that Miller didn't write a story about what Libby told her about the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame affair. But it doesn't matter. What matters, for Frank Rich and his ilk, is that Miller was too close to "Scooter" and that deserves ostracism and even banishment from the paper. The result will be that the Times, already a very liberal paper, will move even further to the left. Bush officials would be well-advised to take this fact into account.

http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2121179.shtml

Ima justa grinda my organ anda my monkey Amos jumpa upa an downa and yells Skree Skree, Stopa picka ona me.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

The only "poor loser" on this thread is you, GUEST A... Don't think so??? Fasten yer seat belt and watch over the next 3 years more and more corruption disclosed and a complete demise of the Republican Party... The melt down has begun and it you wanta stand up and defend Bush, yer gonna get vaporozed in the process...

Americans have seen thru yer boy's bullsh*t just as folks hwere have seen thru yers...

You will not defned one danged policy of the Bush administartion... I gave you the pick of weapons... You picked the policy and when I presented you with FACTS, pal, you ran like "pigs from a gun"...

All you know is attack... Hey, that's fine... If it were me and you one-on-one in an alley in real life yer philosphy on self defense would have you laid out hurt real bad... NO brag, just fact... More to defending one's position than attackin'... At some point in time yer gonna have to counter...

You are unwillin' here to counter...

Like I said, you and me in the alley and if that's all you have yer gonna get hurt..

... but you can hide in yer anominity here...

Fine...

Big friggin' couragous deal... Put yerself in fir a merit badge....

Cluck, cluck, cluck...

Chicken GUEST A...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,A
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:34 PM

.....but he doesn't have a clue as to he is aiming at, Amos.
This is my first post since last night at 10:02.

Although I must admit that direction here is mainly one way. The more I have read of this thread, the term "poor loser" becomes very profound. I am somewhat sorry for your plight and maybe you can do better in the future. That doesn't mean necessarily to win but to possibly observe a smidgen of truth and fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:32 PM

Man, this guy just keeps on hitting bull's eyes! Thank you, Arne!! Pow!

A